Once again, we're attempting to legislate lifestyle. Children should be treated as sex offenders only when they commit acts of violence and actually are sex offenders. Sexting is hardly that and sexting falls right into a parent's responsibility, not the State. Sexting is little more than "Show me yours and I'll show you mine," something almost every living adult has done when they were kids.
showing one's own body in that manner, regardless of age, should never be unlawful and under no circumstances should such a simple action have such serious consequences.<br />
But in this age of paranoia anyone who commits even the least transgression suffers the full penalty. Maybe it is time we banned clothes, got rid of big brother and returned to a simpler life where we are free to be ourselves without repression. In th eprocess let us bring sanity back into laws so only crimes against people and property are dealt with and punished properly; all the stuff we can do tha tmerely offends or embarasses or causes self hamr is not to be legislated.
The laws haven't caught up with reality. I have seen cases where 2 children, same age, share a nude pic together, and have been charged with distribution and and solicitation of child ****. From that angle, the law has overstepped its boundaries.
It's not *********** when two dogs **** each other. I'm just sayin'...
The sex offender registry has been perverted. It was intended to be a tool to protect the public and is being trivialized. <br />
I've read about an 18 year old female high school student giving oral sex to her 15 year old boyfriend. There are five states that will put you on the list for procuring the services of a prostitute and 13 states that will add you for public urination.<br />
Is there anyone that has never "had to go" so bad that they had no option otherwise?<br />
Filling the registry with these low and no risk "perpetrators" dilutes the good that it can do. Local law enforcement are obligated to check that the "perpetrators" are living where listed on a regular basis adding to law enforcement costs.<br />
No we are going to waste more money for kids using high tech "show and tell"? What a waste.
onlinegrandpa and dedre got it right. It's high-tech 'ill show mine, if u show me urs"... nothin more... In the case of kids swapping pics two each other only -- maybe i can see counseling, but no prosecution whatsoever -- the exception being if the pics are sent unsolicited and would 'shock the conscience' (still that's subjective). <br />
The "justice" system (and i use the term lightly) is way too slow to catch up to technology - and in my view prosecution should take into consideration the intent and perhaps the age(s) of the sexters. There are romeo & juliet provisions in consent laws, so maybe these should be expanded to include consensual sexting among teens? <br />
The issues get more complicated as media and technologies advance. For example - there's an explosion of webcam sales along with their use on internet chat sites. No doubt in the U.S. and elsewhere this could open the doors to persecution by well meaning authorities following misguided, outdated, or draconian rules governing (consensual) behavior.
The law is always like, what was it, about 4-6 years behind technology.<br />
This issue has already crept up all over crime shows and such, and still no clear-cut answer really.
It's too harsh. One should not be paying for 7th grade mistakes forever.
**** is **** and your not too young to be charged with kiddie ****...so don't do it.