Blurring the lines: Is this guy actually a sex offender?
Here’s an interesting case out of the UK (where noticeably a lot of “sex offender” news stories are coming lately). It’s a case that challenges our understanding of justice, rehabilitation, and the labels we assign people.
A man was convicted for possessing indecent images of children. A serious, serious crime. However, the unsettling detail is that the man was 18 when arrested and he was charged for crimes he began engaging in at just 13 years old.
The court’s decision to label him a “sex offender” is a bit concerning. I mean, he was looking at images of his peers. In a real world context, it’s completely normal for teens to be sexually interested in people their own age. Can we, or should we, equate the actions of a 13-year-old with those of an adult?
This enduring label will stick to the guy through out the years he’s trying to establish a career, find a spouse, start a family, raise his kids. The label will carry as if he were in his 20s, 30s and even 40s, looking at underage images, when in fact he was underage himself.
What about considering the nuances of adolescent development and the potential for rehabilitation? Oh yeah… this label has nothing to do with rehabilitation. Labeling a teenager as a “sex offender” can have lifelong ramifications, affecting employment, relationships, and mental health.
Perhaps a more nuanced approach would serve justice more effectively in this case?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ben
Unfortunately I think that there would be a great many who would choose to be tied to a post if it meant that the restrictions would go away after a week.
Courts keep losing autonomy to give judgements that are appropriate for the cases presented. Lawmakers try and make everything a cookie cutter one size fits all approach, but every case has nuance. Judges want to see justice served in the balance if also not taking rights away from the accused. Then there’s the cruel and unusual parts. Would you agree to be shackled to a post in the town square for a week to be let off the registry? This is pretty close to what we’re left with.
I was convicted in the US for a simple possession of CP case. The feds never proved that anyone depicted in the images were actually under the age of 18. How can anyone be labeled and forced to register as a sex offender when there is no evidence of minors? 20 years later and I am still trying to understand.
If the crime was committed with intent, punishment must be received accordingly.
Currently 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) includes the clause, “such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” in the definition of child pornography;
I don’t know when the word “indistinguishable” entered into the law, but I wonder if 20 years ago computer-generated images were realistic enough to be on the radar and covered by the statute. Today no actual victim is required, but the image constitutes child pornography if an “ordinary person” couldn’t tell the difference. That definition seems to be most useful to the prosecution as leverage during plea bargaining. If the case went to trial, wouldn’t 12 ordinary persons need to determine it was indistinguishable? Does any prosecutor really want to expose a jury to child pornography?
This is as egregious as the so-called Romeo and Juliet cases where police wait until a young person. Usually a young male turns 17 to 18 so they can charge him with CP for having a 16-year-old girlfriend. This was once an issue that people kept in the family and the government has no compelling interest to be involved in this at all. Same with this young man. Unfortunately, have in this war on sex lost our ever-loving minds and we have 9-year-olds on the sex offender registry here in the states. What did a 9-year-old do that is irredeemable?