Technology.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434645,00.html

NEWARK, Ohio — Central Ohio authorities have filed felony charges against a 15-year-old girl accused of taking nude cell phone photos of herself and sending them to high school classmates.

Police say the Newark Licking Valley student was arrested Friday and held over the weekend. On Monday, she entered denials to juvenile charges of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and possession of criminal tools.

A spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office says an adult convicted of the child pornography charge would have to register as a sexual offender, but a judge would have flexibility on the matter with a convicted juvenile.

A prosecutor says Licking County authorities also considering charges for students who received the photos.

Man, the girl shouldn't be doing that....but these charges are just silly!!

Stating the obvious joke here:
Licking County? Must be the oral capitol of the world.

Yup..thats the root of the problem right there.. 'Licking Valley'....

How I long to spent my time in licking valley...

The charges are there for a reason, though. Once the file is sent to somebody else it's out of her control. She basically just started a child porn ring, wittingly or not. Where do you draw the line?

I assume the judge will give some sort of reduced penalty or let her off in the end.

Where do you draw the line?

How 'bout common sense.

Punish the girl. Charge her with indecent exposure and telephone harassment or something like that.

Charging her with child porn and considering a cell phone cam a 'criminal tool'? Charging people for receiving her photo?

If these people run into an insane judge, they could be labeled as sexual predators for the rest of their lives. If they run into a sane judge, they still waste courtroom resources on a case that a responsible prosecutor wouldn't bother with. Maybe prosecutors have less discretion than I imagine though.

I was asked to help as an expert witness to a lawyer defending a child porn case a couple of years ago. The client was a slimy scumbag and was definitely guilty of soliciting and posessing the porn--I had no problem with that. I did have a serious issue with the prosecutor charging him with producing and distributing child porn because the perv copied his files to a zip drive.

This whole 'shotgun the charges and see what sticks' strategy scares the shit out of me. I'm starting to think that lawyers should be held liable for cases that they file and lose.

many a porn site are dedicated to cell phone cam pics & vids.

but yeah, some of the charges are a bit harsh.

Regarding the 'criminal tool' thing...

If a cell phone camera is a criminal tool, is it possible to create child pornography without using a tool of some sort? Seems like it'd be tough--so why are these two separate charges? She can't create child porn without a 'criminal tool', but her cell phone isn't a criminal tool if she's not convicted of the child porn charge. I know I'd learn better if I were in law school, but it seems to me like she's being charged twice for the same crime.

Shouldn't 'criminal tools' be things that are designed for criminal purposes (things like lock picks, weapons, cable black boxes and meth lab equipment?) rather than any item that was used in a crime.

If I buy a random camera off of Ebay, and it has the fingerprints of a molo on it, am I in possession of a 'criminal tool'? Can I be investigated and charged for it?

I'm tempted to go to law school just so I can understand why the system functions this way. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems ripe for abuse.

I'm not going to be able to make any accurate judgments until I get a look at the pictures in question.

I agree, but you can't legislate "common sense."

I'd guess that a "criminal tool" is anything that's used to commit a crime. In other words, it's totally at the cop's discretion (much as common sense would fall at a judge's discretion).

nearly all pertinent terms in a criminal code are either defined somewhere in the code or via case law. you just have to read.

Typical liberal elitist coming in here with your fancy book learning.

i know dalen has them on his cell phone.

How were you qualified to be an expert witness?

Zip drive, lol. He wouldn't have been able to access them anyway.

I don't see how the recipients can be charged, because there is no way to stop an unwanted text message.

I have never heard of a minor being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of THEMSELVES. There are way too many things wrong with this. I agree with mugwump - indecent exposure and harrassment should be the harshest charges filed, if they must charge her. I'd think some serious counseling is more in order.

Now, if those classmates she sent them to have been forwarding the pics to all their buddies, they might have some serious issues with the law.

The lawyer was looking for someone to help with understanding technical issues and a friend recommended me to him. Basically, he needed someone with technical knowledge to explain things like file systems and IRC to him and go to columbus to see what they found on the PC, how they pulled it off the hard drive, etc... He told me I might end up on the stand, but it wasn't likely.

Working with the lawyer probably would have been a good side gig, if I had played my cards right. Instead, I came back from Columbus and told him that I thought the defendant was provably guilty of everything except for the 'producing and distributing' charge (they still had the zip drive, but lost the disks). The lawyer probably could have accepted that, but I don't think he appreciated it when I told him that the def needed serious help and belonged in prison.

For my trouble, I received $850 for time and travel expenses. Prior to then, if someone said 'child porn' I always imagined dirty old men looking at pictures of naked teenage girls. It isn't and I'd gladly give the money back if I could have the images I saw burned out of my memory.

I've heard of this a few times over the last year or so. It's her own fault for having an illegal body, man.

I think this is a law that we need to reexamine in light of technology. We can say 'she needs counseling' but honestly...

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU GIVE HORMONALLY IMBALANCED TEENAGERS CAMERA PHONES!!!!!!!!

For crying out loud...I'm sure if I was 16, I'd trade shots with my girlfriend.

I wouldn't be forwarding them around though. The girl needs counseling for that desperate cry for attention.

she's too old.

Yeah, I know that there's a related doctrine re accomplice liability that says the class of person a criminal law is intended to protect cannot be charged for their involvement in the crime. So a prostitute willingly smuggled across state lines cannot be charged with accessory to trafficking. I don't know if there's a similar doctrine here (where the act wouldn't be illegal if other people weren't involved), but there should be.

I can only imagine. Hell, I knew a couple guys in college who found it hysterical to go to parties and take girls cameras and take a couple quick snaps of their balls and put the camera back. This was pre-digital cameras.

Moronic, sophomoric? Yes. But when I think of the girl bringing her pics home from being developed and finding a special surprise I can't help but crack up.

I can't imagine what the kids are doing with today's technology. Porn apparently.