15 year-old boy forced to register as sex offender

[Gormwood]

This is a bit ridiculous that the boy is the only one being punished here, as if the girls didn't participate in the sharing of nudes. I don't think any of them should be registered as sex offenders, considering they're all minors and that no physical sexual activity was involved. I'd even go as far as saying, that none of them should be legally reprimanded at all.

The girls didn't keep the dick pics only to get caught with them by police investigating separate sexual allegations against them.

[Gravlen]

The Colorado courts have just recenty decided it's even a punishment, and remanded a case to the juvenile courts to see if a lifetime registration on the sex offender registry for things you did as a juvenile could be seen as cruel and unusual.

Tbh I don't like the registry at all. If a person is so dangerous they have to be on a registry, they should probably be in jail, and we should sentence accordingly.

Yeah, I feel like it's an abdication of responsibility by the State. Either the person is too dangerous to be free, in which case the person belongs in a prison, in a treatment facility or in some sort of rehabilitation program, or he's not a danger and has served his time and should be left alone. Moving the responsibility over to private hands to determine if a guy is dangerous or not is an inadequate response to the problem.

[Gravlen]

This is a bit ridiculous that the boy is the only one being punished here, as if the girls didn't participate in the sharing of nudes. I don't think any of them should be registered as sex offenders, considering they're all minors and that no physical sexual activity was involved. I'd even go as far as saying, that none of them should be legally reprimanded at all.

He didn't get punished for sharing the nudes though. He got punished for possessing the nudes, which were of underage girls. The girls had deleted the pictures he sent to them.

[Cappuccina]

This is a bit ridiculous that the boy is the only one being punished here, as if the girls didn't participate in the sharing of nudes. I don't think any of them should be registered as sex offenders, considering they're all minors and that no physical sexual activity was involved. I'd even go as far as saying, that none of them should be legally reprimanded at all.

The girls didn't keep the dick pics only to get caught with them by police investigating separate sexual allegations against them.

The fact he kept them is irrelevant to the situation tbh. And what separate allegations are you referring to?

[Galloism]

Tbh I don't like the registry at all. If a person is so dangerous they have to be on a registry, they should probably be in jail, and we should sentence accordingly.

Yeah, I feel like it's an abdication of responsibility by the State. Either the person is too dangerous to be free, in which case the person belongs in a prison, in a treatment facility or in some sort of rehabilitation program, or he's not a danger and has served his time and should be left alone. Moving the responsibility over to private hands to determine if a guy is dangerous or not is an inadequate response to the problem.

This might be the most we've agreed in recent times.

I've also seen a bunch of stupid things due to the registry. I had a supervisor once that was on the registry - him and this girl had been going together for a couple years since they were both 16, which was perfectly legal. He a few months older than her.

He turned 18, and she wouldn't turn 18 for a few more months, and he got nabbed for lewd acts with a child, so he was on the sex offender registry for... 25 years I think it was.

He was a fantastic developer, but anytime we had to meet with contractors or anyone outside the company, they would do the equivalent of hiding him in the closet while I acted like I was the group super.

[Cappuccina]

This is a bit ridiculous that the boy is the only one being punished here, as if the girls didn't participate in the sharing of nudes. I don't think any of them should be registered as sex offenders, considering they're all minors and that no physical sexual activity was involved. I'd even go as far as saying, that none of them should be legally reprimanded at all.

He didn't get punished for sharing the nudes though. He got punished for possessing the nudes, which were of underage girls. The girls had deleted the pictures he sent to them.

The guy is also a underage (younger than the two girls), so what's the relevance? Minors can legally date and have sex with eachother, and not be charged with rape, what's the logic here?

[Ifreann]

He didn't get punished for sharing the nudes though. He got punished for possessing the nudes, which were of underage girls. The girls had deleted the pictures he sent to them.

The guy is also a underage (younger than the two girls), so what's the relevance?

The relevance of him possessing naked pictures of under-age girls is that the crime he committed was possessing naked pictures of under-age girls.

[Gravlen]

The girls didn't keep the dick pics only to get caught with them by police investigating separate sexual allegations against them.

The fact he kept them is irrelevant to the situation tbh.

It's very relevant, because that's what lead to his conviction for possessing sexually exploitative material, i.e. child porn.

And what separate allegations are you referring to?

The pictures were found during a separate investigation into allegations by two separate girls that he had raped them.

1 Two teenage girls [Not the girls in the case we're talking about in this thread - Gravlen] alleged that a teenage boy, the juvenile T.B., had raped them. During the investigation into those allegations, the police discovered that the juvenile had used his cell phone to solicit, to receive, and to store nude photographs of teenage girls. The police identified and confirmed the ages of two of the girls depicted in the photographs, E.H. and L.B.

¶ 2 The prosecution filed a delinquency petition that charged the juvenile with sexual assault, kidnapping, third degree assault, aggravated juvenile offender, and, based on the photographs of E.H. and L.B., two counts of sexual exploitation of a child.

He didn't get punished for sharing the nudes though. He got punished for possessing the nudes, which were of underage girls. The girls had deleted the pictures he sent to them.

The guy is also a underage (younger than the two girls),

As young as one, and younger than the other.

so what's the relevance?

Under the law, such pictures of nude children are prohibited.

Minors can legally date and have sex with eachother, and not be charged with rape, what's the logic here?

The logic led to Colorado creating an exemption for these kinds of cases, but it came too late for this boy. Had this happened today he would not have been criminally prosecuted, but instead faced a program "addressing the risks and consequences of such behavior" and potentially a $50 fine.

[Nova Cyberia]

And your proposed standard is asking multiple times or threatening to break up with is rape ?

Is it really informed consent if you are harassed into doing it?

Would you care to provide evidence that he met the legal standard for harassment?

[Nova Cyberia]

Seriously, the amount of folks (usually leftists) in this thread accusing him of harassment is hilarious. Do any of you have actual proof that he met the legal standard for harassment under Colorado law? Because if so, I'd love to see it.

[Diopolis]

Seriously, the amount of folks (usually leftists) in this thread accusing him of harassment is hilarious. Do any of you have actual proof that he met the legal standard for harassment under Colorado law? Because if so, I'd love to see it.

He likely didn't. Colorado sets a high bar for legal harassment.
That being said, it sounds like they may well be charging him with a lesser crime(possessing child sexual material) because they can't nail him for the greater crime(rape).

[Vassenor]

Seriously, the amount of folks (usually leftists) in this thread accusing him of harassment is hilarious. Do any of you have actual proof that he met the legal standard for harassment under Colorado law? Because if so, I'd love to see it.

He likely didn't. Colorado sets a high bar for legal harassment.
That being said, it sounds like they may well be charging him with a lesser crime(possessing child sexual material) because they can't nail him for the greater crime(rape).

And yet the court documents make reference to him doing it. The fact people keep resorting to the "exact words" defence shows they know that.

[Ifreann]

Seriously, the amount of folks (usually leftists) in this thread accusing him of harassment is hilarious. Do any of you have actual proof that he met the legal standard for harassment under Colorado law? Because if so, I'd love to see it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't suggested that he did anything illegal. You know, beyond the illegal things we know he did and that he was convicted of doing. "Harassment" isn't exclusively a legal term. We can say that one person is harassing another without meaning that they are committing a crime called harassment.

[Gravlen]

Seriously, the amount of folks (usually leftists) in this thread accusing him of harassment is hilarious. Do any of you have actual proof that he met the legal standard for harassment under Colorado law? Because if so, I'd love to see it.

He likely didn't. Colorado sets a high bar for legal harassment.
That being said, it sounds like they may well be charging him with a lesser crime(possessing child sexual material) because they can't nail him for the greater crime(rape).

They charged him for the lesser crime together with the major crimes. It did not come as a response to him being aquitted.

That's about the charges themselves. The punishment meted out, however, that's possibly a different story....

[Senkaku]

It's like kind of a serious problem that high school kids can technically get written up for producing/distributing child porn just for sending nudes to one another-- if he'd been sharing their pictures to others without their consent or something, maybe there'd be more grounds, but this is ridiculous.

As for the judge's shit-- ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior. However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’ -- I'm sure they could've made up a legal justification to let him off. It's not good to be putting millions of teenagers in jeopardy for pretty normal and tame sexual behavior that just doesn't happen to fit pre-smartphone conceptions of how people interact.

[Senkaku]

And your proposed standard is asking multiple times or threatening to break up with is rape ?

Is it really informed consent if you are harassed into doing it?

Speaking from experience, when you're just sexting with some guy, you can always block them if they start getting too clingy or demanding. It's really not that difficult (or unreasonable to think 15-17 year olds could or would do that).

The kid definitely doesn't sound like a prince (having two of them unaware of one another + repeatedly asking for nudes), but I really don't think that should meet the standard of criminality. It just makes him kind of a dick.

[Fartsniffage]

It's like kind of a serious problem that high school kids can technically get written up for producing/distributing child porn just for sending nudes to one another-- if he'd been sharing their pictures to others without their consent or something, maybe there'd be more grounds, but this is ridiculous.

As for the judge's shit-- ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior. However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’ -- I'm sure they could've made up a legal justification to let him off. It's not good to be putting millions of teenagers in jeopardy for pretty normal and tame sexual behavior that just doesn't happen to fit pre-smartphone conceptions of how people interact.

If the judge had done that then it would have been a precedent for every person currently in prison for weed based charges in now legal states to challenge their sentence.

[Senkaku]

It's like kind of a serious problem that high school kids can technically get written up for producing/distributing child porn just for sending nudes to one another-- if he'd been sharing their pictures to others without their consent or something, maybe there'd be more grounds, but this is ridiculous.

As for the judge's shit-- ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior. However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’ -- I'm sure they could've made up a legal justification to let him off. It's not good to be putting millions of teenagers in jeopardy for pretty normal and tame sexual behavior that just doesn't happen to fit pre-smartphone conceptions of how people interact.

If the judge had done that then it would have been a precedent for every person currently in prison for weed based charges in now legal states to challenge their sentence.

you say that like I think that would be a bad thing

(I do understand the principle, I just think it's unfortunate in this case)

[Ifreann]

It's like kind of a serious problem that high school kids can technically get written up for producing/distributing child porn just for sending nudes to one another-- if he'd been sharing their pictures to others without their consent or something, maybe there'd be more grounds, but this is ridiculous.

As for the judge's shit-- ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior. However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’ -- I'm sure they could've made up a legal justification to let him off. It's not good to be putting millions of teenagers in jeopardy for pretty normal and tame sexual behavior that just doesn't happen to fit pre-smartphone conceptions of how people interact.

The law has already been changed. Millions of teenagers are not in jeopardy. But TB was convicted before the law was changed. Note what the judge said "we must apply the law in effect at the time." At the time.

[Aclion]

If the judge had done that then it would have been a precedent for every person currently in prison for weed based charges in now legal states to challenge their sentence.

Good.

[Senkaku]

It's like kind of a serious problem that high school kids can technically get written up for producing/distributing child porn just for sending nudes to one another-- if he'd been sharing their pictures to others without their consent or something, maybe there'd be more grounds, but this is ridiculous.

As for the judge's shit-- ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior. However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’ -- I'm sure they could've made up a legal justification to let him off. It's not good to be putting millions of teenagers in jeopardy for pretty normal and tame sexual behavior that just doesn't happen to fit pre-smartphone conceptions of how people interact.

The law has already been changed. Millions of teenagers are not in jeopardy. But TB was convicted before the law was changed. Note what the judge said "we must apply the law in effect at the time." At the time.

Maybe in CO? I'm pretty sure a lot of other states have laws like this on the books tho, but yes I can read thanks Iffy

[Ifreann]

The law has already been changed. Millions of teenagers are not in jeopardy. But TB was convicted before the law was changed. Note what the judge said "we must apply the law in effect at the time." At the time.

Maybe in CO? I'm pretty sure a lot of other states have laws like this on the books tho, but yes I can read thanks Iffy

A Colorado judge can no more strike down the laws of other states than they can apply laws retroactively or arbitrarily free people who did break the law and were convicted.

[Galloism]

It's like kind of a serious problem that high school kids can technically get written up for producing/distributing child porn just for sending nudes to one another-- if he'd been sharing their pictures to others without their consent or something, maybe there'd be more grounds, but this is ridiculous.

As for the judge's shit-- ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior. However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’ -- I'm sure they could've made up a legal justification to let him off. It's not good to be putting millions of teenagers in jeopardy for pretty normal and tame sexual behavior that just doesn't happen to fit pre-smartphone conceptions of how people interact.

If the judge had done that then it would have been a precedent for every person currently in prison for weed based charges in now legal states to challenge their sentence.

Yeah, some Colorado cities are vacating those crimes for marijuana, but it's not a CO Supreme Court thing, just a city thing.

https://coloradosun.com/2018/12/04/mari ... ed-sealed/

[Senkaku]

Maybe in CO? I'm pretty sure a lot of other states have laws like this on the books tho, but yes I can read thanks Iffy

A Colorado judge can no more strike down the laws of other states than they can apply laws retroactively or arbitrarily free people who did break the law and were convicted.

I... know that? The comment was rooted in the theory that there are teenagers living in other states... who are sending nudes to each other?

If you're trying to pick a fight you're going to have to do better than this

[Ifreann]

A Colorado judge can no more strike down the laws of other states than they can apply laws retroactively or arbitrarily free people who did break the law and were convicted.

I... know that? The comment was rooted in the theory that there are teenagers living in other states... who are sending nudes to each other?

If you're trying to pick a fight you're going to have to do better than this

I assumed you were still criticising the judge.