New Mexico now allows teen sexting

[Racket_Man]

between teens without the possibility of child pron or sex crimes charges if caught

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new...7Kz&OCID=HPDHP

[Greenday]

How...sensible.

[wolfie]

So long as only cases where the person taking and sending the photo is also the person in the photo, and where the person possessing the photo is either the person in the photo or received it directly from them, are exempted, this is overdue. After all, a teenage girl shouldn't face "manufacturing and distributing child pornography" charges for sending a nude selfie to her boyfriend, and he shouldn't face "possession of child pornography" charges for having the photo.

In "3rd-party" cases (e.g. after a messy breakup, a guy forwards photos sent by his now-ex girlfriend), keep throwing the book at them.

[s_stabeler]

In "3rd-party" cases (e.g. after a messy breakup, a guy forwards photos sent by his now-ex girlfriend), keep throwing the book at them.

yes and no. While I agree that it should be punished, it might be a good idea to treat it slightly differently- essentially, while they should be punished, it IS more of a stupid kid behaviour in that particular example, he probably should not be lumped in with people who- for example- deliberately make child porn. (an obvious difference is they probably shouldn't be made to register as a sex offender, or- and this might be a good idea anyway- instead of having a single register for everyone who commits a sex crime, have separate registers (for example, an obvious way to split the registry would be between actual sexual predators- as in, people who go out looking for a kid to abuse- and people like a pair of teens that forgot to wait until both were legal.(or, to give another example, a case like this were someone acted without thinking, but isn't necessarily a danger to other people)

[Canarr]

'That change is an immensely good idea. I have no idea how any sensible person could really think that it's acceptable to treat teenagers sending each other naked pictures of themselves should be treated as peddlers of child pornography. That is beyond stupid.

From the article quoted:

“Most people, from a commonsense perspective, agree that this is not behavior that should be criminalized,” said Steven Robert Allen, policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, which helped craft the legislation. “It’s misguided behavior and certainly something where parents should get involved. But kids shouldn’t be charged … It’s just absurd.”

Before the law was passed on Thursday, if minors in New Mexico were caught sexting – typically with a parent discovering photos on a child’s phone and then reporting it to the authorities – the youth could face charges of possessing, distributing and manufacturing child abuse images.

Prosecutors previously could also file separate charges for each individual image, meaning teens who rapidly exchanged dozens of photos via texts or other smartphone messaging applications could potentially be sentenced to significant prison sentences, said Rikki-Lee Chavez, legislative coordinator for the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, which also supported the measure.

“Teens in the sexting context could be facing huge amounts of time for a bad decision that is common practice for kids now,” Chavez said.

And here's another article they linked to - about two teenagers who got caught sexting each other:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/80223...hild-porn-laws

When authorities discovered that a high school couple had sent each other nude selfies, the two 16-year-olds were plunged into a legal morass with the potential to be branded as sex offenders for decades.

The Fayetteville teens were accused of being both the victims of child pornography and the perpetrators of the crime. And under a quirk in the law, the legal system treated them as adults for purposes of prosecuting them, but also considered them minors by deeming their selfies child pornography.

The case illustrates the quandary authorities face with sexting cases. Most states have yet to update child pornography laws to account for minors who are caught exchanging explicit selfies. The laws, some written decades ago, carry stiff penalties including prison time and a requirement to register as a sex offender.

Can anyone really argue that this isn't absurd?

[wolfie]

and this might be a good idea anyway- instead of having a single register for everyone who commits a sex crime, have separate registers (for example, an obvious way to split the registry would be between actual sexual predators- as in, people who go out looking for a kid to abuse- and people like a pair of teens that forgot to wait until both were legal.(or, to give another example, a case like this were someone acted without thinking, but isn't necessarily a danger to other people)

This "low-level" registry should give a synopsis of what the offender did, and include people like the drunk who, while stumbling home when the bars closed at 2 in the morning, took a leak against a schoolyard fence. VERY different from someone who flashes a group of kindergarten students out for recess.

[s_stabeler]

actually, no. Why? because the idea is to separate out people who, essentially, are not actually a threat to kids in the area. If the guy who flashed kindergarten kids out for recess was simply drunk, then he should have just as much right not to have his life ruined- which, putting what he did on the public registry would do. if he was doing it because he gets off on it, then he should be in the high-level registry as a sexual predator, not the low-level registry.

[Canarr]

Why would you even want to have a low-level sex offender registry, if you're going to put people on there who aren't sex offenders at all?

[BlaqueKatt]

or- and this might be a good idea anyway- instead of having a single register for everyone who commits a sex crime, have separate registers (for example, an obvious way to split the registry would be between actual sexual predators

Wisconsin has a separate sexual predator registry.

This "low-level" registry should give a synopsis of what the offender did, and include people like the drunk who, while stumbling home when the bars closed at 2 in the morning, took a leak against a schoolyard fence. VERY different from someone who flashes a group of kindergarten students out for recess.

I really despise this, it's nothing more than a strawman

There is not a single state that requires a conviction and registration for peeing in public. These states have laws against exposing one's genitalia to the view of a minor or another person who may be offended. If you are peeing into a bush and no one can see your genitalia, there is no crime and no requirement for registration.

of the 13 states with laws that cover public exposure(which were written because actual offenders were exposing themselves to kids and using peeing as an excuse) there's 463 registered for "public indecency", human rights watch checked 50 of the 433 registered in OK , 12 were incarcerated and 22 were put on probation-that doesn't happen to "someone just peeing"

[Greenday]

Why would you even want to have a low-level sex offender registry, if you're going to put people on there who aren't sex offenders at all?

I was wondering this myself. I'm unsure of the purpose of such a thing.

[Aragarthiel]

Why would you even want to have a low-level sex offender registry, if you're going to put people on there who aren't sex offenders at all?

I'm wondering how many people who deserve to be on the higher registry would take a plea deal or such to be bumped down to the lower-level registry, effectively rendering separate registries useless.

[s_stabeler]

a) someone who isn't a sex offender wouldn't be on the registry at all- it's intended for people who currently have to sign the sex offenders registry, but aren't actually a threat to other people.
b) as for plea deals causing someone to go on the wrong registry, the idea of the registries is so that someone who deserves a second chance has the ability to not have their life blighted by something they did in a moment of stupidity. As such, the ability to plea bargain down to the lower registry is not actually a flaw in the system. (if you get convicted of sex crimes while still on the lower registry, you may well be transferred to the higher one)

[Canarr]

a) someone who isn't a sex offender wouldn't be on the registry at all- it's intended for people who currently have to sign the sex offenders registry, but aren't actually a threat to other people.

Which was actually my point: if someone isn't a threat to other people, why would he need to be registered at all?

b) as for plea deals causing someone to go on the wrong registry, the idea of the registries is so that someone who deserves a second chance has the ability to not have their life blighted by something they did in a moment of stupidity. As such, the ability to plea bargain down to the lower registry is not actually a flaw in the system. (if you get convicted of sex crimes while still on the lower registry, you may well be transferred to the higher one)

Okay, on principle, I find the US sex offender registry horrible. It's kind of like the medieval punishment of the stocks, where you'd stake someone out in full view of their community and invite everybody to throw things at them; only, it never ends. Sex offenders can't even move to get away from the judgement of their community, because they have to register again whereever they move. But I digress.

I'm not sure whether a low-level registry would make things better. Sure, it might actually be a way for someone who just did something stupid to not have his entire life ruined forever, but it's still horrible.

Can't you just get rid of the stupid thing?

[protege]

Can't you just get rid of the stupid thing?

Unfortunately, if the offender list was disposed of, it wouldn't be long before it was reinstated. Why? You just know someone would do something, and the victim (or victim's family) would scream to every media outlet about how the person was an offender...and law enforcement knew about it, and did nothing.

[s_stabeler]

Which was actually my point: if someone isn't a threat to other people, why would he need to be registered at all?



Okay, on principle, I find the US sex offender registry horrible. It's kind of like the medieval punishment of the stocks, where you'd stake someone out in full view of their community and invite everybody to throw things at them; only, it never ends. Sex offenders can't even move to get away from the judgement of their community, because they have to register again whereever they move. But I digress.

I'm not sure whether a low-level registry would make things better. Sure, it might actually be a way for someone who just did something stupid to not have his entire life ruined forever, but it's still horrible.

Can't you just get rid of the stupid thing?

it's more to separate out the necessity to keep an eye on sex offenders to prevent re-offending and to warn people of possible sexual predators- indeed, the low-level registry can even be unpublished.

Frankly, i can also see an argument for allowing people to be removed from the Sex Offender's Registry anyway- the idea being that if it's proven that you are no more threat to others than a random man on the street, you can be released from the restrictions imposed on sex offenders.