I don't know the specifics, but children can be tried as adults for certain serious offenses
I know that, and in UK law it is generally found that children under the age of 10 aren't responsible for their criminal actions, but over 10 they are. We don't have "tried as an adult/juvenile" here, all the trials are the same. You might go to a juvenile prison instead for your safety, but then it's off to an adult prison when you're no longer a minor.
But the point there that I was getting at wasn't that children can't be held responsible for things they do, particularly crimes, but that if they get into trouble, they're helped out more. If it's not a crime but is an issue they've put themselves in then they're not usually judged and held fully responsible for it.
I can't really process what I'm trying to say in this point, so sorry if it doesn't make sense.
It's just the fact that the law is there in these cases to protect minors, because they aren't as wise (or expected to be as wise) as adults and aren't fully aware (or expected to be aware) of the consequences of their actions. So these laws are trying to protect them from such situations where their naivety puts them at risk of loveual harassment/abuse.
It doesn't make sense that someone can commit a crime against themselves. You can't steal from yourself, you can't murder yourself (As far as I know, in countries that do outlaw Self Delete, the charge isn't murder); it just doesn't make sense. It's also silly that, under there state's laws, they are legally allowed to actually have love, but not to see pictures of each other. And these laws aren't protecting them: if he is found guilty of these charges, he'll be labeled a love offender, have felony charges, all that stuff, for taking pictures of himself. As a registered love offender and felon, it can be very hard to find a job and home. His life will be destroyed, all because of some stuffty laws that are supposed to be "protecting" him
I understand all that. And it's my own fault for jumping in to the discussion without really knowing the way the law works in the US or in Virginia. I don't want anyone to think I'm defending the bizarre grounds of this case, but rather the laws which were used, which are there for reason.
I don't think that he should be charged with being a love offender on the grounds of having researchographic material of himself.
I agree that is ludicrous, and the point made about committing a crime against yourself is valid (although for the sake of devil's advocate, Self Delete is/was a crime committed against ones self)
He definitely shouldn't be found to guilty of producing child research by taking photos of himself.
But, he should have been charged with posessing child research of another person (although the article doesn't make it clear if any images were actually found, so they may have been deleted).
He definitely should have been charged with loveual harassment, because he is sending unwanted loveual images of himself to another person. That would be loveual harassment even if it were sent to an adult.
But it's doubly worse in this case because the girl is only 15.
I'm too used to thinking with UK law, which is very different at times.
Were the case here I don't think that it would have been picked up in the same way, for starters.
But even if he were convicted for them he'd have his criminal history wiped once he became an adult anyway here.The laws governing things like child research are there for good reason, and they make sense in these cases where underage people have loveual images of one another.
I have never heard of a case where someone was charged with producing child research of themselves.
But I have seen cases where minors have been charged with posessing child research of their boy/girl friends, and I support the law in those cases.
How is traumatizing a child like this, putting him in jail for many years, and putting him on a love offender registery that will ruin his whole life just for one consensual relationship "protecting him".
I'm sorry, this is one of the stupider posts I've seen from you.
I'm defending the reasoning of the law more than anything, which is where I jumped in when I first replied to SeventhSandwich. I know that the law has failed this person, but that's not to say the law isn't there for good reason.
And the case here isn't to protect the boy. It's to protect the girl. For whatever reason they've taken action against him for producing the researchographic image, rather than simply loveually harassing the girl.
It's a bizarre case, and it does seem crazy to convict someone of committing a crime against themselves.
At the same time, he is producing child research and he is distributing it. Were the video of someone else it would make much more sense. The only peculiarity here is that he is the subject of the videos.
If it were about someone else then he would deserve the criminal sentence and criminal record.
And please don't be rude to me for having a different opinion or not fully explaining one. I'm only trying to write down what I think, and if you wish to challenge what I have written then I will happily respond and try to set my opinion and reasoning straight. But it's not nice for you to call me stupid. I get frustrated when other people say things I don't agree with, or don't understand what I mean, but I don't want to call them names when it's a normal debate.
