Jump to content


Maurice Washington Faces Charges


Recommended Posts


3 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I am just glad that some of the folks on this board are not in a position of power. Some people really need a level head to assess the severity of a crime. 

 

Also I am tired of people beating the child porn lingo to make this whole thing sound like he is a deviant pedophile 

No, he sent child porn.  Sorry you don't like it but he was deviant.  

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Red Dead Redemption said:

Absolutism FTW!!!!!!!!!

Maryland’s Unjust Court Decision on Sexting

A Maryland teen shared a video of her own sex act. She was punished as a child pornographer.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/31/maryland-court-teen-girl-video-law

 

The top court in Maryland ruled this week that a teen who sent a sexually explicit cellphone video of herself to two friends violated state child pornography law.

 

The student identified as SK was 16 at the time and therefore “legally able to consent to engage in sexual conduct”. According to the ruling, she and her two best friends swapped “silly photos and videos” in a cellphone-based group chat “in an effort to ‘one-up’ each other”.

 

The other group members were identified as AT, a 16-year-old female, and KS, a 17-year-old male. During the 2016-17 school year, SK sent them a “one-minute video of herself performing [oral sex] on a male”.

 

Prosecutors charged SK as a juvenile with filming a minor engaging in sexual conduct, distributing child pornography and displaying an obscene item to a minor. 

 

The judges said they did recognize that there may be compelling policy reasons for treating teenage sexting different from child pornography and said legislation differentiating the two “ought to be considered by [Maryland’s] general assembly in the future”.

 

SK, humiliated and horrified, found herself charged as a child pornographer. The system failed her at every step, from the school resource officer who treated her like a criminal, to the prosecutor who inexplicably brought a criminal case against her, to the courts that affirmed the prosecutors’ ridiculous reading of the law.”

 

Rebecca Roiphe, a professor of law at New York Law School and former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, agreed.

“This is a ridiculous reading of the statute,” she said in an email. “The law uses two different terms, ‘person’ to describe the perpetrator and ‘minor’ to describe the victim. The legislature clearly did not intend to criminalize the victim.

 

“I think the case illustrates how troubling the enforcement of sex crimes can be and how important it is that prosecutors use their discretion wisely.”

 

 

Interesting that even though at 16 she was legally able to consent to engage in sexual conduct, she was nevertheless charged with child pornography simply because of the technicality that she was still a minor.

 

Absolutism FTW!!!!!11111oneoneone

Link to comment

49 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

My post, if you were replying to me, wasn't about age of consent, it was about severity of the punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh?

 

 

Not directed specifically at you, but people are silly when it comes to the law. Something being illegal is a reason not to do it. It's not a reason not to question whether the law makes sense. Laws can and do change. And sometimes they change because there are examples that showed why the law needed to be adjusted. We are living in a time now when 14-18 year olds have nude selfies on their phones. And that would have been the case 30 years ago if smart phones existed then. One example of a reason to make changes to child porn laws has been posted already; a 16 year old could take a nude photo of themselves and be charged with it; that's just plain stupid.

 

Also, people are punished in different ways for the same crimes based on the circumstances. I believe this will be one of those times.

Clearly your entire knowledge of the legal system comes from Google search.  He is not being charged by federal guidelines.  Laws should change because we have cell phones?  LOL!!!   BY that reasoning we should have changed them when we developed cameras.  

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Okay, I can live with that.

 

Now answer this...do you think what he did is the same as a 50 year old man taking pictures of a 5 year old girl that he tricked into playing dress up?  

If you can read, the answers are clearly stated above.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, HuskerPowerVA said:

Clearly your entire knowledge of the legal system comes from Google search.  He is not being charged by federal guidelines.  Laws should change because we have cell phones?  LOL!!!   BY that reasoning we should have changed them when we developed cameras.  

If you can read, the answers are clearly stated above.  

Pretend I can't read what you posted before.

 

Do you think what Washington did is the same as a 50 year old man that tricked a 5 year old girl into playing dress up, took pictures of her naked and then sold them.  Yes or no...do you think it is the same.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

11 minutes ago, HuskerPowerVA said:

No, he sent child porn.  Sorry you don't like it but he was deviant.  

 

So, every 16 year old who has sent nudes to their significant other in high school is a deviant? I'm guessing you weren't in high school with cell phones because based on my experience 90% of my school was a deviant child pornographer by your definition. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HuskerPowerVA said:

Thanks for providing a comparison that proves that you have zero grasp of anything written here. 

 

Are you suggesting there might be mitigating circumstances?

 

He broke the law. He stole a truck. It's black and white, isn't it?

 

Should he be charged with a felony?

 

Feel free to seek assistance from a resident 7th grader if you need help with answering a simple yes or no question

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

He won't answer the question.  Trust me, we all know this type.  

 

He pretends that a 50 year old that is taking pictures of a 5 year old girl and selling those naked pictures is the same as a HS girl sending a boob picture...

 

I don't blame him, I would not answer it either.  He/She pained him/herself into a corner.

 

He/She also went with the "I hope you are not a parent" card...

 

Dude, I am around HS kids all day long...trust me..."your" little perfect princess...is not what you think.

  • Plus1 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

So, every 16 year old who has sent nudes to their significant other in high school is a deviant? I'm guessing you weren't in high school with cell phones because based on my experience 90% of my school was a deviant child pornographer by your definition. 

If you keep a video of a 15 year old and send it years later, yes, you are.   Sorry technology is an excuse for you to be a creep.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...