Slashdot Mirror
14-Year-Old Boy Placed On Police Register After Sending Naked Picture To Classmate
Ewan Palmer reports: A teenage boy in the UK has had a crime of making and distributing indecent images recorded against him after he sent a naked picture of himself to one of his female classmates. The 14-year-old was not formally arrested after he sent the explicit image to a girl of the same age via Snapchat. The police file against the boy will now remain active for 10 years, meaning any future employer conducting an advanced Criminal Records Bureau check will be aware of the incident. However, it is not clear whether a police file was recorded for the girl who saved and shared the image. Under new legislation, if she had been over 18, the girl could have been convicted under the so called 'revenge porn' law in the UK.
Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten by ridiculous laws that pretend to protect them.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??
Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!
Where the hell is common sense?
* Not literally, but legally
Boy sends a naked picture to a girl, gets a record. She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine. How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't? That's just... exactly how the world works. Carry on.
Isn't that impossible she must be a hacker. So she distributed kiddy porn and was an evil hacker violating snapchats TOS. Oh thats right the SJW's would call charging her abusing the victim.
It's some young teenage kids trying to figure out sex it should have not made it past the headmaster and parents. It's not like it should have been shocking the UK age of consent is what 16? Mind you the two of them can have sex without legal issue throw snapchat into the mix and now it's a serious crime?
No sir I dont like it.
I RTFA (I know)
He wasn't placed on a sex offender's register (last I heard, the UK declined to implement one), rather a registry of people who have had legal complaints filed with the police agency. Someone (probably a tip from whatever social network the picture was shared on) notified the police about it, and a public record was automatically made about that notification. The police didn't press charges, as they claim to be lenient about teen sexting; an actual modification to the law would be a better option than selective enforcement, however. A bigger problem is that a publicly-searchable registry exists of people who have been accused of a crime, even if the police thought there wasn't enough of a case/cause to arrest or prosecute them. Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This is still better than the US. He would have had to register as a sex offender, which is a life-long sentence. He would not allowed to live near a school or attend a school, and would have to notify his neighbors that he is a registered sex offender...for the rest of his life.
.. made some good points.
The school raised it with the police, and they are duty bound to record the 'offence'. However, that is no guarantee it would ever surface again. In the future, if young man decides to go for a job in public service - a policeman, teacher, lollypop man, chat show host - whatever, then the process would be:
Potential employer would ask for a Criminal Records Bureau check. Check would come back positive, at which point the police have the right to decide it was too long ago, too trivial etc and can ignore the finding. Second, they would contact the young man and tell him that they have received a request, and that the CRB check has turned something up.
Young man then has the option to challenge the CRB check, and it may at that point go no further. Only if those two hurdles are tripped over would the result return to the potential employer, who themselves might decide it is all bollocks and ignore it.
Who is at fault here? The boy for doing something childish? Hardly. Apart from the inconvenience of a few photons, it is unlikely to be a novel picture that causes a particular offence. The girl for doing something irresponsible as well? Dubious, really. Even if she forwarded it with a bit of libellous writing attached, hardly the crime of the century. The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?
I'm confused. Are you claiming that it is your "individual human right" to send naked pictures of yourself to any girl you might happen to know? How about her "individual human right" not to have pictures of your junk show up on her phone?
Or is it her "individual human right" to distribute that naked picture of you that you sent with the explicit intent that it be deleted soon after being received?
Whose "individual human rights" are we talking about here? And when did distributing porn to unsuspecting recipients, and then distribution of that to others as a way of exacting revenge, become a "human right"?
A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child...
And I thought the scene with the muck collectors from Monty Python was ridiculous. "Help help, I'm being oppressed because I can't send pictures of my willy to every girl I know..."
As a culture we need to take a deep breath and figure out when our attempts to "protect" children are significantly more traumatic and damaging than simply leaving them to resolve their problems themselves.
And start by remembering that not so long ago, 14-year old kids would be expected by their elders and the community to have already started raising their own kids. Which takes a lot more than just looking at pictures.
Somehow we managed to survive that for many millennia.
There are 3 things to observe about this case:
1. The kid is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for sending naked pics.
2. The girl is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for further forwarding and spreading the pics.
3. The police are dumb idiots who have such a low standard, and such low quality as a police force, that publicizing and making a police statement out of a god damn random teenager over naked pics is something they are more proud of; instead of seeking to publicize and make statements about real crime with real criminals that would actually require effort and principles (in the case of corrupt politicians which there are plenty of).
Captcha: excrete
How fitting.
there *must* be consequences
Sorry, why must there be consequences? Why is it being taking as a fundamental truth that the kids did anything wrong here? Why exactly is it that, at the arbitrary age of 16 (this is the UK), suddenly anything and everything sexual is ok, but, before that anything and everything sexual requires "consequences"? Or, what level of sexual activity requires consequences? Does looking at the opposite sex require consequences. Dancing with a good half metre of space between? Dancing with *gasp*... touching? Kissing? Kissing with *tongues*!? Light petting? Medium petting? Heavy petting? I'll show you mine and you show me yours? Digital (fingers) sex? Digital (computers) sex? Oral sex? Vaginal sex? Vaginal sex with interesting positions? Anal sex? Kinky sex? Group orgies? Where do _you_ draw the line!? What's your logical, reasoned argument for why everyone should draw the line exactly where you do? What do you say about parents whose standards are less strict than yours? For that matter, what do you say about parents whose standards are more strict than yours? What level of "consequences" do you support? Do you think that girls who perform sex acts before marriage (consensually), should be honour-killed?
Seriously, what is wrong with you people. So many people seem to be so harshly judgmental. It's so freaking disturbing. I was that age once. I was the goody two shoes, innocent, one who would have never done anything like this ever. Meanwhile, I know that a good 70+ percent of my age-mates were up to things like this constantly. Where are their voices now? I'll tell you where they are. They've mostly joined the chorus of the harshly judgemental.
Just because we survived as a species does not mean that young girls lead idyllic lives when they were married off or sold into slavery at 13. When whole populations could be wiped out by disease, famine, or war, producing lots of babies was important to survival. Even then, there were pretty strict mores regarding sex. Violating them could mean a death sentence or being ostracized.
Typically, as societies become more successful and wealthy, women have fewer kids and wait until later in life to have them. And even though we are physically able to produce children at young ages, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Our brains aren't fully developed until around age 25 or so. Because of this many adolescents are practically wired to make crappy decisions. Sometimes the natural consequences are what's necessary to keep them from repeating the same mistakes. Other times some intervention or prevention is necessary. Lots of teens are definitely at risk for suicide. You don't always want to wait for them to work it out themselves.
I have a 15 year old son, and a 12 year old daughter so I'm right in the middle of this. Even though my son's hormones are raging and my daughter's are headed in that direction, they aren't even close to being physically or emotionally mature. They do not have the means to raise a child on their own. Of course, there is such a thing as birth control, but the chemical methods have bad side effects and potential health risks when used for a long time. Non-chemical methods tend not to be that reliable. So delaying full blown sex until their later teens or early twenties is something we'd like to see. Definitely past 14. Past 17 is probably pushing it, but we can hope. 17 is the current average for when kids become sexually active.
A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.
The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.
Relating this back to the original topic, the "harm" caused by the boy sending dick pic to a girl was miniscule. It may have been unwanted and may have been a threat (implied or directed) or just clumsy flirting (bad taste), but that requires judgment, not rules of absolutes (zero tolerance). I oppose zero tolerance laws simply because the are an over reaction to bad judgements and end up worse position.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.