http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/14/teen-g...-of-self-i

Quote:Quote:

Zachary, now 19, is in jail awaiting sentencing for five pictures his teenage girlfriend sent him of herself in her underwear. He faced a choice between a possible (though unlikely) maximum sentence of 350 years in prison, or lifetime on the sex offender registry as a "sexually violent offender"—even though he never met the girl in person. Here's what happened.

About two years ago, when Zachary was a 17-year-old high school senior in Stafford County, Virginia, a girl in his computer club invited him over to visit. She introduced him to her younger sister, age 13. This younger sister told Zachary he reminded her of a friend: this friend, also a 13-year-old girl, shared Zachary's love of dragons and videogames.

The two 13-year-olds started skyping Zachary together. Eventually Zachary and the dragon-lover struck up a online friendship, which developed into a online romance. By the summer, a month after Zachary turned 18, the girl sent him five pictures of herself in her underwear. Her face was not visible, nor were her private parts.

That's according to information provided by Zachary's parents, as well as an evaluation with Zachary conducted by a psychologist. Zachary is incredibly smart, according to the psychologist, though socially awkward and emotionally immature. Importantly, he does not possess "distorted" ideas about sex, according to the psychologist.

Even so, Zachary was arrested and charged with 20 felonies, including indecent liberties with a minor, using a computer to propose sex, and "child porn reproduce/transmit/sell," even though he did not send or sell the pictures to anyone. All this, from five underwear pictures. If convicted, Zachary's father told me, he faced a theoretically possible maximum sentence of 350 years.

Instead, he took a plea bargain. This is what prosecutors do: scare defendants into a deal. Zachary agreed to plead guilty to two counts of "indecent liberties with a minor." For this, he will be registered as a violent sex offender for the rest of his life.

Yes, "violent"—even though he never met the girl in person.

Zachary's dad wrote to the authorities asking about this, and got a letter back from the Virginia State Police reiterating that, "This conviction requires Zachary to register as a sexually violent offender."

The letter, wich was obtained by Reason, added that in three years, "a violent sex offender or murderer" can petition to register less frequently than every three months.

"How do you like that?" said the dad in a phone conversation with me. "Same category as a murderer."

As part of the plea, Zachary also agreed never to appeal. He will be sentenced on March 9. Until then, he remains in jail.

If this sounds like a punishment wildly out of whack with the crime, welcome to the world of teens, computers, and prosecutors who want to look tough on sex offenders. The girl did not wish to prosecute Zachary, according to his dad. He told me the pictures came to light because she had been having emotional issues, possibly due to her parents' impending divorce. Eventually she was admitted to a mental health facility for treatment, and while there she revealed the relationship to a counselor. The counselor reported this to her mother, the police, or both (this part is unclear), leading the cops to execute a search warrant of Zachary's electronic devices where they found the five photos and the chat logs.

Until that day, Zachary had never been suspected of, or charged with, any criminal activity other than one count of distracted driving, which he paid off with 15 hours of shelving library books. He was, at the time of his arrest, attending community college in computer graphics and delivering Domino's Pizza. He was also, by his account, a virgin.

The family hired two psychologists to evaluate Zachary. (Those evaluations were also obtained by Reason.) One psychologist, Mike Fray, found him to be "not a physical threat to this girl or to any other young girls." The other, Evan S. Nelson, summed up this case and what is wrong with all the cases Zachary's story represents:

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.

Zachary's not a sexual predator, in the psychologist's view. He's a teen who did something stupid—that he quite plausibly didn't understand was illegal. And yet the state of Virginia, and in particular prosecutor Ryan Frank, has chosen to pretend that the only way to keep Zachary from feverishly preying on young flesh is to destroy his life.

This is so obviously flawed that Virginia Speaker of the House of Delegates William J. Howell has written a letter on Zachary's behalf:

Based on the information I have, I believe Zachary was unaware of the magnitude of impropriety in his behavior... It is my understanding that the local sheriff's office performed a forensic analysis on Zachary's computer and found zero incidents of pornography or trolling for females. While the aforementioned incident was highly inappropriate, it appears that there are no signs of general deviance in his character but rather immaturity and naivete....

As my record indicates, I am certainly not soft on crime and I am not suggesting that Zachary be spared any consequence of his actions. That said, I do believe this may be more of an incident of adolescent immaturity and poor judgment than of inherently deviant behavior and thus may not warrant being placed on the sex offender registry.

Outraged readers should root for two things. First, that this case prompts the Virginia legislature to review the laws that enable draconian persecutions like the one against Zachary.

Second, that Zachary be given a punishment that truly fits the crime. If you recall the case of another Zach—Zach Anderson, a 19-year-old who had sex with a girl he honestly believed was 17 (because she said so) but was actually 14—he was originally sentenced to 25 years on the sex offender registry. But after public outcry, he got two years' probation instead, on a "diversion program." A program like this is sometimes available for first-time offenders. It sounds far more reasonable. Or maybe Zachary could do some community service—like speaking at high school assemblies to warn students that what seems like consensual teenage shenanigans could land them on the registry for the rest of their lives.

"I know I'd never do it again because I don't want to go back to jail again in my life," Zachary told Nelson during his psychological evaluation. "And if nothing else, this has given me a fear of women."

tl;dr- 17 year old awkward beta forms online relationship with 13 year old girl, after he turns 18 she sends him underwear pics, prosecutors throw the book at him in ridiculous fashion.

It's hard to tell whether the wildly overzealous application of sex crime laws in this country stems from a puritanical social conservative sentiment, or from SJWs' pathological disdain for male sexuality. Either way, I believe this issue deserves more attention, as harmless young men's lives are being methodically destroyed by this nonsense.

Quote: (02-14-2017 07:15 PM)Delta Wrote:  

It's hard to tell whether the wildly overzealous application of sex crime laws in this country stems from a puritanical social conservative sentiment, or from SJWs' pathological disdain for male sexuality.

Grinding someone through an inflexible bureaucracy in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law is SJW all the way.

Quote: (02-14-2017 07:57 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (02-14-2017 07:15 PM)Delta Wrote:  

It's hard to tell whether the wildly overzealous application of sex crime laws in this country stems from a puritanical social conservative sentiment, or from SJWs' pathological disdain for male sexuality.

Grinding someone through an inflexible bureaucracy in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law is SJW all the way.

It's also a femiservative approach. The religious right would find it hard to defend the 18-year-old, because according to their feminist interpretation of Scripture, when he lusted after a girl, he committed adultery with her in his heart.

How much actual harm was caused? A possible life sentence? Wildly out of proportion to the harm principle.

Meanwhile, 30 yr old woman teacher fucks a 13 yr old boy and gets a slap on the wrist. Murica

Quote: (02-14-2017 08:13 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

Quote: (02-14-2017 07:57 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (02-14-2017 07:15 PM)Delta Wrote:  

It's hard to tell whether the wildly overzealous application of sex crime laws in this country stems from a puritanical social conservative sentiment, or from SJWs' pathological disdain for male sexuality.

Grinding someone through an inflexible bureaucracy in flagrant violation of the spirit of the law is SJW all the way.

It's also a femiservative approach. The religious right would find it hard to defend the 18-year-old, because according to their feminist interpretation of Scripture, when he lusted after a girl, he committed adultery with her in his heart.

You're missing the real motivation: it's an easy conviction, easy money for fat cops with quotas to reach per month.

The way these laws are usually set up, the very fact of possession all but proves the crime. All you have to do is seize the phone, prove it's registered to him, and that's the end of it. No need to collect DNA, no need to get a bunch of IQ-90 witnesses to speculate about whether he was wearing a blue cap or a red one on the day, no search warrants. Easy money.

And there's also that, because police have had individual discretion hammered out of them by BLM movements and similar demanding that they be transparent with every single decision on prosecution they make, regular cops are shit-scared of getting done by IA as a paedophile enabler if they don't take a 17 year old with naughty pictures to the cleaners.

And lastly: in jurisdictions where District Attorneys often have to campaign for their positions, there is an incentive to be overzealous on the prosecution of minor crimes. This is one where the Westminster system has it over the US one: DAs, or public prosecutors, are firmly part of the executive branch and are appointed, not elected; while this isn't a panacea on the issue of independence, it's often easier to oppose one's boss than it is the mob.

I doubt he'll get life, but for whatever reason in US law the sentences regarding transmission of sexual images via text or electronic means are ridiculously draconian, to the point that in some states the boy would likely get a lighter sentence if he actually had sex with the girl than if he received nude photos of her.

Might be due to the media panics regarding nude photos being distributed on the internet or sent to other people at school.

Even in the cases with female teachers sleeping with students, I recall the sentences being much harsher in cases where she actually sent nude pictures to the guy.

Quote: (02-14-2017 08:54 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

You're missing the real motivation: it's an easy conviction, easy money for fat cops with quotas to reach per month.

The way these laws are usually set up, the very fact of possession all but proves the crime. All you have to do is seize the phone, prove it's registered to him, and that's the end of it. No need to collect DNA, no need to get a bunch of IQ-90 witnesses to speculate about whether he was wearing a blue cap or a red one on the day, no search warrants. Easy money.

And there's also that, because police have had individual discretion hammered out of them by BLM movements and similar demanding that they be transparent with every single decision on prosecution they make, regular cops are shit-scared of getting done by IA as a paedophile enabler if they don't take a 17 year old with naughty pictures to the cleaners.

And lastly: in jurisdictions where District Attorneys often have to campaign for their positions, there is an incentive to be overzealous on the prosecution of minor crimes. This is one where the Westminster system has it over the US one: DAs, or public prosecutors, are firmly part of the executive branch and are appointed, not elected; while this isn't a panacea on the issue of independence, it's often easier to oppose one's boss than it is the mob.

By the way, I call bullshit about the story's suggestion that he'll get a "sexually violent predator" designation, if all he did was receive photos. Looking at the Virginia statute, all the offenses listed there are stuff like rape, object penetration, etc. Not child porn. If the facts are what the articles says they are, then the Commonwealth overcharged him, as they tend to do, and the harsher charges will end up being dropped or dismissed.

I forgot to mention in my earlier post -- I used to belong to a church that was pastored by a police detective. We had a juvenile and domestic relations judge in the congregation, and he would sometimes give her spiritual counsel on how she was supposed to rule in various cases. Sometimes, if she didn't follow his advice, he would bring this up before the whole congregation.

There was one situation in which a kid got charged with a felony because he took a video of he and his girlfriend having sex, and showed it to some friends at school, before deleting it from his phone. The judge in our congregation allowed the charge to be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor. My pastor asked rhetorically, "What good can come from recording a sexual act? How demeaning is that, showing it to his friends!" and said she shouldn't have accepted the plea bargain. The judge said she didn't want to give the kid a felony record, and the pastor asked, what if the kid does something bad in the future, and the court in that future case doesn't know that he committed this very serious crime, because it was plea bargained down to a misdemeanor?

The judge then said that the evidence was weak, because the video had been deleted. The pastor then said, if the evidence was that weak, maybe the case should've just been dismissed altogether. He then said it would be better if the court would try every case, rather than accepting plea bargains. (I can't say I disagree with that.)

This was a Bible-based church, heavily influenced by Baptist teachings. So there you have the femiservative perspective. It's not just a matter of these cases being easy to prosecute; it's also that femiservatives really take child porn very seriously. And of course, the Bible says nothing about a crime being less serious, or not a crime at all, if the person committing it is a minor.

On the other hand, there was another situation in that church, in which a girl told the church that her older brother had molested her years earlier. Her parents were aghast, but the pastor said, "You've made this into a family tragedy, but what would you have done if you'd caught him doing that? You would've spanked his butt and told him not to do it again, and that would've been the end of it." So in the pastor's eyes, child porn was actually more serious than molestation.

I got into a discussion about this with a counselor of mine once. She said that if she was molested, and someone jacked off to video of that, she would want him thrown in jail. The idea of someone sitting at a computer masturbating to pictures of children being abused, or exploited, or whatever the case may be, just really pisses people off, and they demand severe retribution for that. The guy who actually abused the kid maybe only spent a few minutes doing that, but the guy who looks at child porn might be watching it over and over, spending hours doing that before he finally gets caught, so in that sense, he seems to them like the more vicious one.

Is this any different than looking at swimsuit pics she herself uploads to Instagram?

Just chuck another one in the the bottomless pit of young lives ruined by this arbitrary 18 year old age of consent law. Not defining a difference between pre-puberty and post-puberty is idiotic and defies human nature and countless situations like this occurring as a result. This is why we can't just pretend politics doesn't exist, because SJWs and puritanical progressives would have us locked up in sex offender camps before we even had a chance to violate their insane new age rape laws like they're testing in the people's republic of California.

The zealous frothing at the mouth desire to annihilate this awkward virgin's life over fucking nothing by so called grown rational adults is despicable. Where is the common sense? I can't even believe they're wasting tax payer money on such nonsense. That girl goes to the beach and they can lock everyone up who even accidentally glances at her. Even if they were the same age when it happened this kid would be fucked. Even if she had been a day away from 18 and he was one day over 18 he'd be fucked. And now he'll likely be a virgin for life and kill off his family line as he's taught women=jail. He'll probably never even look at one again.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every day here.

Quote: (02-14-2017 11:14 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

The zealous frothing at the mouth desire to annihilate this awkward virgin's life over fucking nothing by so called grown rational adults is despicable.

The first time I read that, I thought you were emphasizing that literally, he fucked nothing..

It's recognized as a problem in law enforcement circles actually, from what I"ve read in the news papers, the problem is that politicians are loath to change the legislation and look weak on child porn to their opponents.

I don't understand this - does any man in can be sent to prison and/or registered as sex offender for life by sending him nude photos of underage girls? It seems that him chatting with that girl only made the sentence harsher, but the main crime is simply having underwear (not even nude!) photos on his phone disregarding the way these photos got there.

You know what - I don't really care about economy that much and I don't see how living under constant stress of being accused of rape or pedophilia is any better then living under Islam as shitty as it is. If during his presidency Trump doesn't address these blatant injustices and doesn't do something to fight this corrupt system of male discrimination in courts then his actions are meaningless. What good is living in a great country if any random female you know or sometimes even don't know can sue you and get you sentenced over the most trivial of bullshit sometimes over nothing at all?

What would RBerkley have to say about this?

Quote: (02-14-2017 07:15 PM)Delta Wrote:  

It's hard to tell whether the wildly overzealous application of sex crime laws in this country stems from a puritanical social conservative sentiment, or from SJWs' pathological disdain for male sexuality. Either way, I believe this issue deserves more attention, as harmless young men's lives are being methodically destroyed by this nonsense.

Both, my friend, both. SJW came from the Puritan US, not from Catholic world.

This is one example I will provide my sons in a long list of examples as to why the government is not their friend, is never to be trusted, and is assumed to be hostile in all dealings.

I think that if someone happened to drop a dime on both the DA and the prosecutor and the cops found dealer quantities of cocaine in their respective cars then that would be a lovely outcome.

The courts stopped being about justice or fairness the day they required people to be sent to prison to make judges and prosecutors seem like they're doing a good job. This boy is one such statistic.

"We sent 120 sex offenders to prison this year". He will fall under such a title and he cannot fight it without significant financial aid.

Fucked up. The girl's parents should forgive him and let it go if possible. I never did anything like this, but I was dating a 15-year-old when I was 17. We broke up before I turned 18, but I'm sure that this would get an 18 year old today into huge trouble. Totally senseless.

A while back, I think in the ROK comment sections on a related article, there was a poster talking about who the majority of the sex offenders are in his area. He apparently worked in the Sheriff's office or some other government agency that handled the registrar. His observation:

The majority of those registered were guys in their '20s who at around age 18 had a gf under the age of 18. These guys were the victims of 'bad breakups' or angry parents (of the girl) with the GF / parents then accusing the men of statutory rape.

So you have guys who's crime was banging a 16 or 17 year old at age 18. So they get to spend the rest of their lives treated as a criminal on the order of someone like Sundusky who liked to butt rape kids.

The law has to be changed to acknowledge a difference between consensual sex between teenagers and the likes of a 40 year old guy drugging and raping say a 12 year old boy or girl. If not, then the law is not just.

Just a interesting anecdote from me. When I was 14, 15 or so, decent number of girls my age were in relationships with at least 20 year old guys. It was weird for us males (competition) and for parents, but no one said anything remotely like "pedophilia" or these guys being "sex offenders".

I'm only 29 but similar to sterling_archer I knew 15 year olds dating 20 year olds and 16 up to 30 year old men.

The 16 and 30 was semi-legal though as Massachusetts laws on AOC are incredibly vague it's 16 or 18 depending on how you read it, I stay 18+ for safety and 16 year olds are fucking retarded.

Quote: (02-15-2017 01:46 AM)fokker Wrote:  

What would RBerkley have to say about this?

I'd prolly chat up with that 13-year-old chick & tell her that you can't trust female feminazi authority figures because they are there to fuck any teenage relationship over.

What about those feminazis who claim that "Nudity is not sexual" when they bathe fully naked with their 5-year-old son in a compromising way for those feminazi magazines? What about that cunt "Spiritual Tasha Mama" who is already infamous on Facebook for posting a video of several boys sucking her tits while she naked on the floor for "breastfeeding", but post one wrong word & FB police come after ya?

Prolly be guessing that in that chick's junior high, there is a feminazi teacher signing Change.org petitions in her office time to enforce Draconian & regressive sex crime laws, while sucking some 12-year-old school bully's cock & then taking him to the nearby 5-star hotel to "teach" him how to fuck her in the ass.

Thing with these newer generation of school chicks is that they think that every thing is a joke in spite of the feminazi regressive shit being covertly placed on them. They use their fucking I-phone,Ipad or latest Samsung Galaxy to film any shit just to post it online for fun. These school chicks think that if they set their account to "Private" or "Friends Only" that they are privacy assured. Fuck that yo. They got feminazi teachers, police, bitter old women who want to see blood and death of teenage life.

When a feminazi teacher is giving these school chicks "the talk" about how every person born with a penis is a child molester or rape supporter, these chicks don't know what's in store for them in the future. That feminazi teacher gonna be taking a football team of underage cock up her fucking ass & pussy like maggots eating a flesh wound while encouraging laws to criminalize teenage couples in high school.

If that 13-year-old chick learned that social media is not private, & that feminazi teachers & counsellors are looking for blood, that 18-year-old wasn't even gonna be in this legal mess facing almost 400 years in prison just because he flirted with a chick 4-5 years younger than himself.

Yet those feminazi empowered teachers fucking underage male students like animals & they don't get into that trouble. When those female teachers, 5 to 10 years later complain that they need tax dollars to pay for their anal incontinence from all of that cock they took from the high school football team, someone should tell those cunts to fuck off and eat shit.

Feminazis & tradcons fucking up young people!

Quote: (02-15-2017 10:24 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

A while back, I think in the ROK comment sections on a related article, there was a poster talking about who the majority of the sex offenders are in his area. He apparently worked in the Sheriff's office or some other government agency that handled the registrar. His observation:

The majority of those registered were guys in their '20s who at around age 18 had a gf under the age of 18. These guys were the victims of 'bad breakups' or angry parents (of the girl) with the GF / parents then accusing the men of statutory rape.

So you have guys who's crime was banging a 16 or 17 year old at age 18. So they get to spend the rest of their lives treated as a criminal on the order of someone like Sundusky who liked to butt rape kids.

The law has to be changed to acknowledge a difference between consensual sex between teenagers and the likes of a 40 year old guy drugging and raping say a 12 year old boy or girl. If not, then the law is not just.

When I was in HS I was hooking up with this girl in the year below me. She was 3-4 months younger; I was one of the younger people in my class. We were involved for like two years off and on. She was sort of my mistress since I technically had a girlfriend.

I knew her father from being at her place and he didn't like me at all; he never wanted me around. She was a virgin when we got together and she came from a really religious family. Well at one point when we were fighting--you know, young lover drama--she told her father she'd been sleeping with me.

So this fucking guy tried to have me charged with statutory rape!

Since the age difference was actually quite small and whatever we did was totally legal--we actually got caught by a cop banging in a car one time and he just looked at our driver licenses and told us to find a goddamn room --nothing came of it. I didn't force her to do anything. She was super enthusiastic every step of the way. Her father couldn't have done anything to me, but she didn't know that and really fought against him over it. Nice of her, not to throw me under the bus in a fit of pique.

But what a cocksucker, eh?

This is a girl who would show up at my house during her lunch break (after I graduated early and was attending a local college) to get banged out. I lost track of how many times I woke up in the middle of the day--I was on a night schedule--to this horny little blonde chick climbing in bed with me. But because I dared to sleep with this guy's "angelic" little daughter, he wanted to ruin my life. And if circumstances had been a little bit different, he might have succeeded.

Maybe it's not very nice to say, but I sure didn't shed a tear when I heard he had a stroke about 5 years later. What a fucking prick.

^ That's fucked up...Tryna get charged for a 3-4 month age difference? Insane.

I said before...Feminazis & trad-cons are similar in regressive sex crime legislation & Puritan lameness.

Your ex-gf's father would probably claim that his 10-year-old son was "lucky" to fuck his 25 to 80-year-old feminazi teacher in her worn out pussy, & he'd probably use the Bible to stone his son to death if his female teacher complained that she was "waped" because she didn't consent for 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds during sexual intercourse in her place of residence while both of them were drunk & intoxicated....