Does this law need tweaking?

Something ain’t right here.

Authorities say three teenage girls have been charged with sending nude pictures to an Iowa man who’s been charged for possessing the photos.

The girls are ages 16 and 17 and have been charged as adults with felony exploitation of a minor. Online court records say 19-year-old Alex Case is charged with sexual exploitation of a minor.

Buena Vista County Sheriff Gary Launderville says that under Iowa law, it’s a felony to send such images and a misdemeanor to possess them. Launderville says that makes the girls both victims and defendants.

How does it make sense that these girls are being charged as adults with felonies for sending photos of themselves? Are we going to protect them from sexual exploitation by making them do hard prison time and saddling them with life-long felony raps? Isn’t our goal to here to protect minors? How does ruining their lives do that?

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Does this law need tweaking?

  1. RJ says:

    Sounds about right, the sending of a child porn photo charge is not negated by it being a self picture.

    Not sure how D/A is gonna prosecute as victim and defendant… I bet he gets a hammer and the girls get a lolly pop.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    I will make a couple of dangerous points here…

    When an adult man admires the body of a 17 year old female, it is indicative of a degree of under socialization. It is not, however, indicative of pedophilia. Many Playboy Playmates at 18 are just a few months older. There is something badly mentally deformed and dangerously deranged about a man who looks with lust at a seven year old. The same claim cannot be made regarding a man who looks with lust at 17 year old. He just needs to be better socialized so as to understand what is and isn’t culturally and legally accepted. He is not, however, demented.

    A 16 or 17 year old girl who sends nude photos of herself to an adult man is badly in need of counseling, not punishment that will dog her for the rest of her life.

    That’s my two cents.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Here is Miley Cyrus on her 18th birthday. The same picture taken the day before may be exploitative as well as socially and legally unacceptable, but it wouldn’t – or shouldn’t – be considered in the same class as actual child pornography. Should it?

  3. Van-a-gram says:

    From Vanagram’s Hall of Justice:

    1. I have seen many a girl and/or pictures of girls where it would be impossible to ascertain their age — even within multiple years. So, I am somewhat at odds with RD’s comments above. If I were shown a smoking hot picture of a 26 year old and said “wow she’s hot” that is certainly not pedophilia. However, if someone subsequently told me “she’s only 17” I’m not sure that equates to a need for ‘better socialization’ on my part either. The point, I think, is that if your intent is ooggle 17 year olds, then you indeed need better socialization.
    2. Regarding the law issue above, I agree with RD entirely,and would continue to say that the guy in receipt of these pictures COULD be entirely innocent. Can a girl snap a photo of herself, text it to your phone, and now you are a felon for being (perhaps unknowingly) in possession of it?

    Holy smokes is that a can of worms! “Hey Jill, I know you hate your step-father, so let’s take a nudie photo of us and send it to his phone — he doesn’t even know how to open a text! We then tell the cops! We’ll get him totally BUSTED!”

  4. R.D. Walker says:

    “The point, I think, is that if your intent is ooggle 17 year olds, then you indeed need better socialization.”

    Agreed. Whatever the case, it ain’t pedophilia.

    For example, if you think this 16 year old girl is hot you aren’t a pedo, you probably dig 30-something floozies.

    (Link is barely, slightly NSFW.)

  5. Van-a-gram says:

    NSFS — not safe for stomach. –Blech–

    But don’t knock 30 year old floozies….

  6. Uke says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with Van’s Hall of Justice post. Good modification to the point about socialization.

    Fact of the matter is, a lot of 16-18 year old girls do their damndest to look like they’re 18, 21, 25, whatever. If they happen to trick a male into physically reacting the way he normally would in the presence of an 18/21/25 year old… so what? We don’t search that shit out, it just so happens that some girls try to be jailbait.

    The law leading to the OP indeed needs tweaking. Something just ain’t right there.