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.

Comments

Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[nightcats]

it is far easier to classify someone than to understand him; or even to make the effort.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I would have thought it was common sense for how appropriate it is to be sending naked pictures of oneself, even at the age of 14.

A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?

And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[adolf]

Huh?

1. We don't know that it was unsolicited.

2. We don't know that he's not innocent or normal. I remember when I was a normal-ish 14-year-old boy. I can't honestly say that my mentality at that time would have precluded me sending such pictures in such a way because the technology didn't exist, but I can say that as an adult I've never felt compelled to photograph my bits for sharing with others. But again, at 14: Maybe, if I had the tools.

3. We don't know her intent in distribution. I think that a teenaged girl would likely be all giggles about the thing, without malicious intent. (Have you met a teenaged girl? My own is 14.)

4. We don't know why he chose Snapchat. Perhaps simply because it was convenient, and he was simply familiar with the interface -- we cannot assume, based on what we know, that it was a deliberate decision driven by Snapchat's default nature of deleting things after a short time.

5. We don't know that she's some crypto-savvy script kiddie who went through extensive measures to bypass Snapchat's security. For all we know she did the obvious and simplest thing: She used one handheld device to take a photograph of an image on another handheld device. (The analog hole does not exclude Snapchat.)

That normal, innocent kids might be smart and clever does not mean that their every motivation is evil. Furthermore, normal, innocent kids making unwise decisions is a hallmark of normal, innocent kids: They're kids, FFS.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother? Power is power. Destroy one to scare and control one hundred

FTFY

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition

Oh yes they fucking are. I seriously don't know what's wrong with you perp-walk-lovin' murcans but I sincerely hope you get to enjoty a taste of your own medicine when those skeletons start peeking out of the closet.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Yeah pull the other one, it has bells on.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Working at a maximum security jail that housed young offenders, i can tell you that the youth of today mature much faster maybe due to faster access to information and all that hormone drug ridden food they eat. some of these 14 year olds had the bodies of men ! They were also facing serious charges like murder, assault, rape. Decisions they made were not the same as regular 14 year olds. One kid was in for his 2nd charge of murder. The first time he killed his sister. 2nd time he shot his grandfather. another kid was there because he raped a fellow cellmate...it was his third time. And these "kids" will have their records cleaned after they get out as "young offenders". The only thing that stops them is when they end up in the adult system. Age shouldnt be any reason to excuse criminal actions. Read about the murder of James Bulger and you will think differently about "kids". His murderers were only 10 years old.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Areyoukiddingme]

I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition...

Oh yes they fucking are.

No they're not. By the biological definition, once a specimen has reached sexual maturity, it is an adult. Is a 14 year old human physically mature? No. Is a 14 year old human emotionally mature? No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes. Effectively every 14 year old girl and damn near all of the 14 year old boys are capable of doing their part of what the species does to make more of their species.

So no, 14 year olds are not children by every definition. We would be better off if we acknowledged that and made allowances for it.

The creation of the category "teenager" should have filled that bill, but too many societies on Earth are positively schizophrenic about acknowledging the sexual realities of being a teenager. On the one hand, they're wishing with all their might that teenagers are still children—asexual, trusting, obedient, happy almost by default—and on the other, commercial advertising and entertainment sexually flaunts teenage bodies as the very peak of desirability and perfection, and it's all downhill after that. The reality is complicated, but it does include sex and sexual things.

So here we have a government getting all up in arms about a naked 14 year old boy. Do they think this is the first time in history a teenage girl saw a naked teenage boy unsolicited? Are they stupid? Teenage boys have been flashing teenage girls and vice versa since the dawn of time, when some near-monkey first said, "Shit, it's cold out here. I'ma wrap this bear skin around my naked ass." A week later, a near-monkey girl flipped up her skirt and mooned a boy, and a near-monkey boy dropped his drawers and waggled his penis at a girl, and it's been happening ever since. The use of the precious cell phone is fucking irrelevant, and the police register is fucking moronic. He didn't do a damn thing that hadn't been done before, and civilization didn't fall because of it, then or now.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[ag0ny]

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong.

You're an idiot, there's no other way to explain your way of thinking.

A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.

You're arguing that it's acceptable to have laws that give children who make mistakes a criminal record. No, these laws are not acceptable, and they're a sign of how idiotic and shortsighted our society is becoming. People like you are the problem.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[SuricouRaven]

From the age of 16-18, it is legal to have sex in the UK, but not to look at it. Presumably they are supposed to keep their eyes closed.

Makes sense

[theCzechGuy]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?

Not a Sex Offender's Register

[mentil]

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.

Still better than the US

[watermark]

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.

Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am ..

[niks42]

.. 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.