Curious as to thoughts on this...
In summary:
-Student records sexual encounter with a 16 year old girl.
-Student allegedly shares this recording with his friends and classmates
-Girl in recording catches wind of this and tells school administration.
-Admin calls student that made the video into principal's office, with school resource officer present and questions student.
-Resource officer tells student that he could be charged with possession of child pornography.
-Admin and Resource Officer call student's mother on Speakerphone and explain the situation. Officer tells mother that they can likely take care of this without charges.
-Students is sent to wait outside the office for his mother to get there.
-Student leaves campus and jumps off a building.
-Grief stricken parents are going to file a massive lawsuit against the school and police department for driving their son to suicide.
Obviously a horrible situation all around. Just curious as to whether anybody thinks they have a legitimate case.
Article and details here:
Chicago Tribune: School disciplinary incident ends with a Naperville teen's suicide: 'They scared him to death' - (
New Window )
"This psychologist cannot count the number of adolescent sex offenders I have met who have a sense that what they are doing is 'wrong' but were ignorant that their conduct was criminal, let alone a felony, or actions which could put them on the Sex Offender Registry. In the teenage digital social world, if both parties want to talk about sex, that seems like 'consent' to them. Ignorance does not excuse this conduct, but it does help to explain why he did this, and to the degree that ignorance was an underlying cause of his crime, this problem can be easily fixed with education."
That's the other thing. It's being made out here that he was practically put in an isolated jail cell with a noose and a loaded gun.
Once the meeting was over and the mother was on her way, he was asked to sit outside in the waiting room of the office while awaiting the arrival of his mother. That is standard procedure. The kid got up and walked out of campus.
What would you have them do? Assign an officer to him to hold him there? He wasn't in custody. He was asked to wait outside the principals office, as thousands of students are asked to do every day.
Did they charge him with that? Yes or no? Did they tell his mother, in his presence, that this can likely be dealt with without charges? Yes or no?
They're both really bad right? And can affect your future even after release?
I know you will counter with the indignity of having to register as a sex offender. But if the kid was so stupid/naive not to realize what he was doing was wrong how could he know consequences that were not explained to him?
Also the article states, and the mother confirmed, that the officer was trying to keep this out of the courts. Meaning no jail time and quite possibly no requirement to register as a sex offender.
Dude, you need to calm down and read.
Quote:
However I do think that once they chose to go down that road of having the police interrogate and threaten him with possibly being charged with a serious crime they should never have let him leave the office until the parents had arrived and taken responsibility for him. That is the one thing I disagree with.
That's the other thing. It's being made out here that he was practically put in an isolated jail cell with a noose and a loaded gun.
Once the meeting was over and the mother was on her way, he was asked to sit outside in the waiting room of the office while awaiting the arrival of his mother. That is standard procedure. The kid got up and walked out of campus.
What would you have them do? Assign an officer to him to hold him there? He wasn't in custody. He was asked to wait outside the principals office, as thousands of students are asked to do every day.
Again, I don't see where the parents have a case. I just think that once they chose to go down the road that they did prior to the parents arriving they had a responsibility to ensure he remains there until the parents can assume responsibility.
And yes thousands of kids are asked to sit and wait unsupervised but I am certain the majority of cases are overwhelming for more mundane offenses. Laying a possible felony sexual crime on a child and then letting him sit there alone is not the same thing as if he had shot a spitball in class.
That said, IMO that is poor judgment on their parts which they will have to personally live with. I agree it doesn't warrant a lawsuit.
I've agreed with you most of the way here, but not sure I see the logic on this one. How would claiming they were never gonna charge him help their case? If anything it would make them seem more irresponsible, since they then threatened a kid with false information that led to his suicide.
At least if they were going to charge him, they'd be informing the child of the circumstances as you'd expect them to do.
"She (Maureen Walgren) stated Corey would fulfill it without a problem," Heun wrote in his report.
The kid secretly recorded his encounter, then played it for some of his friends. It got back to the girl, who was understandably very upset by it.
The kid killed himself, and we can only speculate as to why. Maybe it's because he was so afraid of the consequences of being charged with child pornography, but maybe it was because he betrayed the one girl who was giving it to him and he felt terrible about hurting her.
So, yeah, they MIGHT do that. They might also charge him with child porn.
It's a messy, hairy situation. Any of these kids, including the victim, could have ended their life over this kind of embarrassment.
It is not likely possible that the school was resourced enough to be able to supervise all of the students as they came in and out of the administrator's office.
My discussion would be more about right and wrong, not f-ck the police.
Quote:
Heun suggested the case might be resolved with what is typically called a "station adjustment," a legally sanctioned way of reprimanding minors without formally arresting them.
So, yeah, they MIGHT do that. They might also charge him with child porn.
Got you. Fair enough.
I don't think minors who willingly record themselves, either video/photo/audio should be considered the victims in the same way that those who are unwillingly recorded.
If a teenager or group of teenagers secretly recorded girls where they had an expectation of privacy, whether that was in the privacy of a bedroom or in a locker room, they should be held accountable to a very, very high standard. I don't think felony charges of production/possession/distribution of child pornography are out of the question.
There are other questions about whether the consequences of such charges/convictions are appropriate, and seemingly are influencing the discussion on this thread.
Some times we can conclude that people in authority didn't display the best wisdom given the circumstances and as a result the outcomes were not what they should have been. But they are just human and trying to do their best to deal with stressful situations on the fly. They can be guilty of having made some mistakes in how they handled things without automatically being legally responsible.
Um - if the recording includes sexual content of a minor - it's child pornography right?
You are correct that it would be better for the perps if they "simply" apply lesser charges.
Not sure who you are trying to protect, but try thinking about your daughter being secretly recorded having sex and then having that recording shared without her consent.
If it was your daughter - you wouldn't want to have the full weight of the law going against those who did her harm?
If so, you are truly more generous in your mercy than I suspect most parents would be.
Some times we can conclude that people in authority didn't display the best wisdom given the circumstances and as a result the outcomes were not what they should have been. But they are just human and trying to do their best to deal with stressful situations on the fly. They can be guilty of having made some mistakes in how they handled things without automatically being legally responsible.
Should have reversed "completely" and "nothing", hopefully the point wasn't lost. .
I have a 14 y/o daughter and 16 y/o son. My guess is this kid had more issues than simply getting caught recording a sexual encounter.
It is a sad situation but the school has a duty to protect the innocent students as well. This kid was a major asshole in recording and then showing this video to others. He got called out on it and lost it. But if my daughter was the girl....I would want that kid labeled as a sexual predator and to have charges pressed. Hard lessons....but much needed.
Now, instead of the perp committing suicide, the girl does so. Does the school deserve to be held legally liable for not holding her until parents come pick her up?
Should she be held in the same room and with the same people who she has just learned have been witnesses to her personal moment? How should these kids be supervised and held?
Logistically what some people expect from the school is not realistic given the resources available to them.
Hell, adjudicating it with an old-fashioned ass kicking is a major improvement on a permanent scarlet letter. The Puritans of old would have just put the kid in the stocks for a while.
I have a 14 y/o daughter and 16 y/o son. My guess is this kid had more issues than simply getting caught recording a sexual encounter.
It is a sad situation but the school has a duty to protect the innocent students as well. This kid was a major asshole in recording and then showing this video to others. He got called out on it and lost it. But if my daughter was the girl....I would want that kid labeled as a sexual predator and to have charges pressed. Hard lessons....but much needed.
Minors don't even get tried as adults for Murder, so I'd agree with you.
Ideally they have the wisdom for someone (school nurse, guidance counselor) to sit with her until the parents arrive. But if not, while unfortunate I don't think they are legally responsible.
Dude...this is the swizzle stick warrior, so yeah...think about that.
BTW, Dan and Britt - asking "well, what if this were YOUR daughter" is a bit disingenuous, since the entire purpose of criminal law is to remove the emotions from justice as much as possible so as to avoid the excesses that inevitably mark vigilante justice. I would have laughed my ass off if the guy who shot my grandfather way back when had been beaten to death with a claw hammer when he was in prison, but that doesn't mean that a)I'm an impartial observer b)that claw hammer beatings are an appropriate punishment.
Also, there has been changes to the sex offender laws recently that have helped protect minors who are convicted of such crimes. I've been trained on that, but can't speak with conviction as my memory of the details is a little fuzzy right now.
Either way - it seems the better discussion for us might be about what those consequences should be.
I'm with you - I don't think a 14 or 16 year old who uses poor judgment should have to carry the same burden that say, a 24 or 26 year old should.
BTW, Dan and Britt - asking "well, what if this were YOUR daughter" is a bit disingenuous, since the entire purpose of criminal law is to remove the emotions from justice as much as possible so as to avoid the excesses that inevitably mark vigilante justice. I would have laughed my ass off if the guy who shot my grandfather way back when had been beaten to death with a claw hammer when he was in prison, but that doesn't mean that a)I'm an impartial observer b)that claw hammer beatings are an appropriate punishment.
I agree. That line of question is appeasing to one's emotions. So by that logic, only fathers of daughter's can make the right calls in their emotional states? The kid fucked up by recording the sexual encounter. Charge him with invasion of privacy or any other unlawful recording of a sex act with his peer. But to think that it's appropriate to charge a teen with sex crime because of this doesn't seem right, especially when such crimes have lifetime impact.
And coming from a couple of educators defending the actions of the school while vilifying a stupid kid's stupid actions (even if it is criminal) by bringing in the emotional aspects of the victim is cheap. The school being completely wrong in their approach (by trying to scare him) and the teen being completely wrong in his criminal actions are not mutually exclusive.
And coming from a couple of educators defending the actions of the school while vilifying a stupid kid's stupid actions (even if it is criminal) by bringing in the emotional aspects of the victim is cheap. The school being completely wrong in their approach (by trying to scare him) and the teen being completely wrong in his criminal actions are not mutually exclusive.
So those who are charged with educating students who are facing risks shouldn't be using fear to educate them on those risks?
I agree about the dichotomy of arguments here - they aren't the same thing and can/should be argued separately.
The arguments encouraging the consideration of the victims point of view are made to counter the dismissal of the seriousness of the offense, not in relation to whether the potential punishment fits the alleged crime.
See, I'm in favor of, not opposed to, the separation of these arguments (as I've tried to do on this thread).
It's in the separation of these arguments that we find both common ground and distinctions in belief.
Greg appears to be arguing against using the law as it is written due to a concern about the possible punishment. If I accepted his version of those possible punishments I might find it easier to agree with him.
2)The consequences of conviction on a sexual offense are so severe and so lasting that they inevitably have an enormous deleterious effect on the convicted.
3)Someone who threatens a teen with such charges should realize how devastating the threat of such charges would be, both in terms of the possible punishment and the social shame.
4)A kid who has such a video or pictures, even in this case where there was no consent, should not be marked as a violent sexual predator (assuming no other offenses).
5)Process and procedure is a poor excuse to hide behind.
More than one assumption here.
First - you are assuming the trigger. This is what the family's attorneys want you to do. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. Again, it could be that he was distraught with guilt over his actions or the hurt he caused, or couldn't live with the embarrassment he caused his family. Or possibly he was only thinking about a possible life-time consequence and was looking to avoid it. My guess is that it's a lot more complex than your assumption.
Second - the consequence is assumed to be life-long. Are you sure that a conviction at his age would mean life-long registering? I've already told you that there have been updates to the law - could very well be that you are off in your assumption.
This story brings up at least three separate arguments that have been addressed on this thread:
1. School liability: Did the school handle the investigation properly? If not, was there a realistic way to better handle it?
2. Criminal prosecution: Should minors who record and distribute sex acts be charged with child pornography? What about if those acts are surreptitiously recorded/possessed/distributed?
3. Consequences: How long should sex-offender status be linked to a convicted felon? What about if they are a minor?
You seem to be allowing your concern with #3 (where we most likely agree) influence your arguments in #1 and #2 (where we might agree).
That isn't a sexual offense though
Quote:
"On what planet is a 16 year old making a video with another 16 year old "child pornography." Illegal due to the lack of consent? Absolutely. But child pornography? For a girl that, for all we know, may have actually been weeks or months older? That would be an obscenely inappropriate charge."
I agree. But, as I have said, certainly some charges were warranted."
That after they broke up is when he made the video public.
Whether she is slightly older or not does not make a difference.
We all knew better than our parents and the younger generations know better than us. It's just the way it is.
It's a tragedy all the way around. Why did the girl allow herself to be recorded? Why did the boy decide it was alright to release that video after they broke up?
Any one of us old farts would have done the same thing if we had the technology growing up.
The power of being accepted by ones' peers at that age trumps all.
I will opine one thing. If I were the father of that girl, I would sue the parents of that boy if they go ahead with a lawsuit. It's a tragic situation. By god if one is going to make money, they both should.
You are correct - they were written to protect children, not with the intent of punishing them.
Maybe true - certainly in some cases. We've all read about the drunk who was caught publicly urinating and had to register as a sex offender for life. The thing is that the laws are being rewritten and it is not safe to assume they are the same as they were even five years ago.
No argument with you there. These charges are serious and even the threat of them can be devastating.
I don't know why he would be marked as violent nor have a read anywhere that anyone suggests he should be.
To each their own. I certainly wouldn't expect to make an all-knowing definitive statement of liability of the judgment of someone on the field of battle, having never been there, without being told about the processes and procedures that those in the field face in similar circumstances. I don't believe for a minute that they would hesitate to point out that I know nothing about what it's like. I would welcome the insights they could share.
I'm not directly comparing these two very different situations, just saying that if you want to judge the wisdom of those in a particular situation it might help to listen to those who have been in that situation.
Quote:
and just the "taping without consent" charge he could have been put on the sexual offender registry for the rest of his life.
That isn't a sexual offense though
Really?
Ask a certain sports reporter.
She'll beg to differ.
That even makes it worse.
Quote:
She didn't know he was recording.
That even makes it worse.
You should know that in this case, it is unlikely that there would have ever been a conviction of child pornography. The girl who was secretly recorded was not viewed in the recording. It was dark and the girl could be heard, but not viewed.
No.. only the ones who have done something to deserve such a threat.
Because she wasn't a child. If you don't think that sexual offence and conviction doesn't come up when a prior's check is run?, well you're squeezing marbles.
Quote:
In comment 13479744 Deej said:
Quote:
with pics of another 16 year old nude is a sex offender. I dont feel safer at night knowing that such a teen is charged with a crime.
A sex offender? No. but, I do think it would absolutely appropriate to charge him with a crime. What type of crime is open for debate. but, what he did is not innocent.
I think that's a theory of crime that was employed by Stalin.
2) I agree with those saying the child pornography threat seems a bit much. This was clearly done as a misguided threat. But, then their counter claim that they can handle this without any charges wasn't for them to say. That is up to the girl and her parents and the authorities.