Prosecutors Still Want To Charge Girl Who Sent Naked Photo Of Herself For Child Porn

from the crime-and-punishment dept

Fri, Jan 15th 2010 3:57pm — Mike Masnick

You may recall last year that prosecutors in Pennsylvania wanted to charge some girls who had taken either nude or partially unclothed photos of themselves, and then sent them via their mobile phones, with "child porn" charges. This seems pretty ridiculous no matter how you look at it, and it was good that a judge temporarily blocked the prosecutor from moving forward. You would hope that this would give the prosecutor a chance to rethink this idea, and perhaps realize that it's beyond extreme.

Instead? The prosecutor is appealing the ruling and still wants to charge at least one girl with child porn charges. The ACLU is fighting back, not just for this particular girl, but apparently over the threats of felony charges on 16-girls, who were then forced to participate in a "re-education" class to avoid charges. I have no problem with children being educated about why such things are really bad ideas, but to threaten them with felony charges, especially when even the mothers of one of the girls says that photos were just some girls goofing around, and in most cases no worse than what you'd find it a typical Victoria's Secret catalog? That seems like a prosecutor going too far.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: pennsylvania, sexting

81 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Quick Brown Fox, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:02pm

Will slumber parties be next?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:14pm

Occasionally, one must destroy the village in order to save it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:17pm

Re:
I can think of a few villages in the US that could go with being destroyed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ratt, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:23pm

"in most cases no worse than what you'd find it a typical Victoria's Secret catalog"

In that case, all of the models are over 18.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:31pm

prosecutors...
out to make a name for themselves. Probably planning to run for office on a "protect children" platform. I think it would be funny if the prosecutor's own children were involved; do you think they would be prosecuted too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:), 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:40pm

Some people are histerical.
Some people get blinded when they hear the words "child pornography".
Now the funny part is that the law is to protect children from exploitation but probably those childs are being exploited for political gain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:52pm

I'll say this again and I'll get tons of criticism for it, but...

Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.

You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. If the law is wrong, the burden is on the state's legislature to change it. The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the laws of his state, not to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist when you disagree with them.

Everyone who thinks the girls should not be prosecuted should write their local state's legislator and demand their child pornography laws should be changed. Only then will this problem be fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:57pm

If an underage girl looks at herself naked in a mirror, can she be arrested for viewing child porn?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:59pm

Re:
The state's legislature won't be changing anything--they're too busy passing more ill-conceived laws. (no pun)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 4:59pm

Re:
Absurd... The prosecutor always has the power to interpret extenuating circumstances and choose not to prosecute the crime. In this case you are flat wrong and so is the prosecutor who is exploiting these children rather than protecting them. This charge will not help the girl straighten herself out and be more discerning in the future... it will encourage her to go into the porn industry since she won't be able to get any other professional job with these absurd charges on her record.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re:
"In this case you are flat wrong and so is the prosecutor who is exploiting these children rather than protecting them"

So you think the real solution is to leave this stupid law on the books as it is? That's your solution? Wow. Great plan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:03pm

if parents take pictures of there new babies in the bathtub, it that considered child porn? If so, my mom, and most of her generation are guilty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ColonelPanik, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:07pm

Age of consent?
Pennsylvania 16M/F 16M/M 16F/F

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

So she can say yes but not show her body?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:11pm

Re: Age of consent?
Same is true in Sweden--age of consent 15, must be 18 for nude photography.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Him ThatIs, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:12pm

Re: Ima Fish
Going to extremes for petty occurances does not make sense. there is a thing called common sense and don't forget judgement calls. If a mother(yours/mine) shows those cute little naked baby pictures, is she a child pornagrapher?
This is a case where the PARENTS should discipline. The girls were being kids. Forcing the stigma of child pornagraphers on them and their permanent record for this is textbook hateful.
We should step back and consider the real picture here. The girls weren't trying to harm anyone, they have already been punished beyond the extent of their crime. They are kids. They WILL do stupid things, and I can gaurantee that you and I had done far worse as young people. Stop looking to hurt others and look to protect them, guide them and care for them. If you won't do that, then who is the bad person here.

Peace to all with an open mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:16pm

Re: Re: Ima Fish
"Going to extremes for petty occurances does not make sense. there is a thing called common sense and don't forget judgement calls."

Sure, let's assume your judgment as prosecutor is good and you decide not to prosecute these girls. But what about the next prosecutor, what if he's a religious nut? Or the one after that, she's trying to prove she's tough on crime?

The only real solution is to change the law. That will solve the problem, not just bury it for someone else to dig up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:17pm

This really is absurd simply to the point of prosecuting the person for exploiting themselves. Even if she wasn't old enough to consent, there wasn't a second party participating in the decision making process. The recipient of the image didn't have to acknowledge anything before receiving it.

These laws are intended to protect minors from being exploited, not to punish children for making bad choices. How doesn't destroying the minors life over a stupid decision that will already haunt them for a very long time, make any sense? Punishment for stupid decisions that do not impact others should be left to the minors parents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Volucris (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:23pm

Re: Some people are histerical.
What's funny is that these girls are being treated as "children" when it comes to the act, but as adults when it comes to the law.

To be culpable of a felony implies the knowledge that something sinister is being done. If that's the case, it sort of takes the 'child' out of 'child pornography.' What fun to have a felony attached to your name because you technically fell beneath an arbitrary number.

Once you strip away the scary buzzword, the prosecutor is either going after girls who didn't truly do anything wrong or children who didn't know any better.

You're right, the lawyer is exploiting them more than they ever could have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:32pm

Re: Re:
"I can think of a few villages in the US that could go with being destroyed"

Lets start with Texas, then.... well I think that about covers them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:40pm

Re:
Apparently. I read about a couple who had their kids taken away recently for that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 5:42pm

Re:
If she's producing child porn then she's a child and should not be prosecuted as an adult. If she's an adult then it's not child porn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stephen, 15 Jan 2010 @ 6:05pm

their real crime
like the guy who jumped the tape at newark airport, the girls' real crime was embarrassing the authorities and showing them to be fools. thus they must be pressed on, for they consider themselves infallible and to do otherwise would hurt their image.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FITZ, 15 Jan 2010 @ 6:12pm

Re:
That means "In some cases, worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's Secret catalog". And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the orangebox, 15 Jan 2010 @ 6:56pm

missing the point!
The point is that 16 girls were forced/given the choice to attend re education probrams on the evils of what their awful undie pics have done to regular society. that in it self should have been equal punishment/rehab. Now some jerk off DA with delusions of grandeur wants to make a career choice to chase teens to jail time...what a loser that D.A. is..maybe he should watch less law and order and read the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:01pm

Re: Re:
> And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn.

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that mere nudity (even of a minor) is neither obscene nor pornography.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:03pm

What's funny is that these girls are being treated as "children" when it comes to the act, but as adults when it comes to the law.

Nicely put.

That means "In some cases, worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's Secret catalog". And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn.

The quote was "NO worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's secret catalog". Nudity, even underage nudity, does not automatically equal pornography in the eyes of the law. A case must be made for that distinction. Perhaps the pictures do qualify, but probably not if they're being compared to a lingerie catalog that's handed out like flyers in malls across the country ever day...

There have been a number of mainstream films shown in theaters throughout the years that feature underage nudity and I'm not aware of a single one of them experiencing any legal fallout as a result.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:03pm

Re:
> Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that mere nudity (even of a minor) is neither obscene nor pornography.

> You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault.
> The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the
> laws of his state

Baloney. Prosecutors plea out cases and drop charges all the time. Prosecutors have wide discretion in both who and what to prosecute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:04pm

Re: Re:
"Absurd... The prosecutor always has the power to interpret extenuating circumstances and choose not to prosecute the crime."

The term you're looking for is 'prosecutoral discression.'

This is a case that could use some.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:05pm

Re:
> If an underage girl looks at herself naked in a mirror, can she be
> arrested for viewing child porn?

Or if she masturbates, can she be charged with sexual assault on a minor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:07pm

think of the children!
Clearly, the prosecutor is seeking to protect the children-- by convicting them as felons, ruining their lives, and throwing in jail with dangerous criminals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
The Village where this prosecutor sleeps in PA should be a candidate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 7:54pm

Re: think of the children!
The prosecutor should be considered a child pornographer.

Wyoming County PA DA George Skumanick Jr is the prosecutor in question and thoroughly lacking in common sense and decency. I think an old fashioned stoning is a proper response to idiots like this. At least firing him in the next election is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
angelwolf71885, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
more like lets start with California ide like to see that state because the USA nuclear missile testing ground without any notice to the people who live there

eliminate the socialist threat
then we can talk about Texas
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re:
Absurd... The prosecutor always has the power to interpret extenuating circumstances and choose not to prosecute the crime.

Yeah, it's called selective enforcement. So how about we just make everything illegal and then use selective enforcement?

Of course then you'd have to rely on the prosecutor's discretion and isn't that discretion what you're complaining here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:03pm

Re: prosecutors...
I think it would be funny if the prosecutor's own children were involved; do you think they would be prosecuted too?

Of course not. That would go against the "common sense" selective enforcement some here are promoting. See, that's the thing about selective enforcement: it makes it much easier to have bad laws on the books because they won't be applied to "important" people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:09pm

Re:
If an underage girl looks at herself naked in a mirror, can she be arrested for viewing child porn?

No, because no image is being recorded. But, if she takes a picture of herself naked in a mirror then yes, she can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2010 @ 10:21pm

Re: Re:
Or if she masturbates, can she be charged with sexual assault on a minor?

Some states might say "yes". They view it as their duty to protect their citizens from committing immoral acts (such as masturbation or other non-reproductive sex acts) on themselves. Accordingly, some states have decided that it is better to send people to prison than to let them masturbate. I can well imagine that they would consider masturbation by a child to be a felony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chill, 15 Jan 2010 @ 11:23pm

Re: Re:
does one record an image when they view it? I think not good sir.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Azrael, 16 Jan 2010 @ 12:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
" eliminate the socialist threat "

yes, because thinking about the well being of your fellow man is evil and against the pursuit of profit while drowning in your enemies blood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 16 Jan 2010 @ 3:07am

Re: Re: think of the children!
"Wyoming County PA DA George Skumanick Jr is the prosecutor in question and thoroughly lacking in common sense and decency. I think an old fashioned stoning is a proper response to idiots like this."

Well that's going a bit far - but clearly he is the one in need of re-education.

Here is a book that he ought to read:

http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 16 Jan 2010 @ 5:49am

Re: Re:
"And, while they are minors, I'm pretty sure that means child porn."

Wow, some 2000+ years of culture disagree. Last I checked the image of a nude "child" doesn't instantaneously turn everyone into a sexual rape frenzy.

Nor does something magical happen between the last second of being 17 and the first second of being 18.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 16 Jan 2010 @ 5:51am

Re:
In order...

Yes. I still find it odd that a picture of something that isn't a crime is a crime.

No. Prosecutors have quite a bit of leeway.

Yes. The laws do need to be made sensible, and without this, this situation will happen again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
antitheman, 16 Jan 2010 @ 8:28am

this has happened
what you say has happened. look at www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Apr-27-Sun-2003/opinion/21184422.html
this one might be a bit iffy but i just saw a similar, but even more innocent incidence on the news. can't find the article on the net though... same deal as this. The problem is the retarded prosecutor, yes change the law too, but if laws must be so exact and followed to the letter that there is no room for discretion, like imafish suggests, you wouldn't need the prosecutors, attorneys, etc. You would just follow what was written to the letter. Doesn't seem like a wise way to do things...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackSombra (profile), 16 Jan 2010 @ 9:01am

Re:
You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. Yes it is http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 16 Jan 2010 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
The point is that prosecuting these girls may not solve the problem. That is, if these girls go to prison and are forever labeled child sex offenders, what are the chances that would get the laws changed? 75%, 30%, 5%? Nobody really knows. Yet you advocate destroying their lives on an unknown chance that we can help this not happen to others in the future? Let's start with not letting it happen now, and go from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 11:24am

Most of their families agreed to undertake a "re-education" program called for by the prosecutor, but three refused. Prosecutors were seeking to press charges against one of the three girls. The law should be enforced. They were offered an easy way out but the parents refused to use this as a way to teach a lesson to the girls. The fact that the girls will be stamped as sex offenders will be on the parents not on the prosecutors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 16 Jan 2010 @ 11:52am

Re:
They were offered an easy way out but the parents refused to use this as a way to teach a lesson to the girls. The fact that the girls will be stamped as sex offenders will be on the parents not on the prosecutors.

So you want to ruin the girls' lives in order to teach the parents a lesson?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re:
Nice straw man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 11:59am

Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 12:16pm

Re:
Oh come on. Like the laws are not selectively enforced now. All kinds of laws go unenforced. Is it too much to ask a prosecuting attorney to use some common sense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's bullshit. What state throws a kid in jail for masturbating?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wow, some 2000+ years of culture disagree. Last I checked the image of a nude "child" doesn't instantaneously turn everyone into a sexual rape frenzy.

There people today who seem to think otherwise.

Nor does something magical happen between the last second of being 17 and the first second of being 18.

According to the (magical) law, it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re:
So you want to ruin the girls' lives in order to teach the parents a lesson?
No but apparently the parents do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's bullshit. What state throws a kid in jail for masturbating?

All of them if they take pictures and send them to people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's bullshit. What state throws a kid in jail for masturbating?

Texas passed a law against selling and possessing dildos because they didn't even want *adults* masturbating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice straw man.

Not at all. Maybe you should look that term up before using it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
The term you're looking for is 'prosecutoral discression.'
This is a case that could use some.

That's exactly what's happening in this case. You just don't so happen to like the prosecutor's discretion. Too bad. When you get to be the prosecutor there, you can use your own discretion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
The point is that prosecuting these girls may not solve the problem.

The police, the prosecutor and the legislature all seem to disagree with you. Let's see what the court says now. Of course, you're so much smarter than all of them, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re:
...she's a child and should not be prosecuted as an adult.

I don't believe she is. She's being prosecuted as a minor who committed a crime. Minors are not immune from the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 16 Jan 2010 @ 3:24pm

child porn
This is a clear cut case of the prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves and get in the law books where their case can be sited for years to come..Its truly no longer justice ..but the precentage rate of wins and losses that motivate the justice system now..Give one of them a clear cut case of guilty to defend..and watch them run..
we try to teach our childern how to be good adults..now it seems we have to teach the adults how not to be childish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan Diederich, 16 Jan 2010 @ 3:27pm

Look at the numbers....
You can tell a law or practice is immoral when 50 out of 60 posters disagree with what is happening.

None of this would happen in a direct democracy, except that just isnt feasible. But common sense should still prevail.

Of course they shouldnt be prosecuted, what on earth does this guy think he is doing.

Hmmmmmmm id love to put minors in jail with felony charges when they really did nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701, 16 Jan 2010 @ 3:40pm

Re: Re: Legal Insanity
> No, because no image is being recorded.

That only means they're blocked from technically charging her with child porn. Using the prosecutor's (dubious) logic in this case, a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be charged with felony indecency with a child and/or voyeurism, which are both offenses which result in sex offender status upon conviction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
smr3226, 16 Jan 2010 @ 6:05pm

Re: prosecutors
In the mean time several lives will be damaged if it goes to trial and any reasonable jury will acquit. Stupid laws beg for jury nullification. Child porn laws are intended to protect children, not harm them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2010 @ 9:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Legal Insanity
a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be charged with felony indecency with a child

Citation, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 16 Jan 2010 @ 11:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Insanity
> > a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be
> > charged with felony indecency with a child

> Citation, please.

Citation to what? It's a legal analysis based on the prosecutor's theory of the case at issue. If a minor can be charged with manufacturing child porn merely for taking pictures of herself, then other sex crimes would also apply to minors similarly situated:

-- If she masturbates, then sexual assault on a minor would apply.

--If she looks at herself naked, then voyeurism and felony indecency would apply.

If turning the victim of the crime into the perpetrator is valid for child porn, then it's logically valid for other sex crimes as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Jan 2010 @ 9:37am

Re:
The law should be enforced. They were offered an easy way out but the parents refused to use this as a way to teach a lesson to the girls. The fact that the girls will be stamped as sex offenders will be on the parents not on the prosecutors.

Come on - this is ridiculous.

The law is ridiculous and should be changed. This however doesn't excuse the prosecutor. The excuse you are making for him is the "only following orders" excuse which does not hold water. The re-education program is also a ridiculous and the parents are quite right to refuse to co-operate with it.

Anyone who defends the law or the prosecutor, or blames the parents or the kids is desperately in need of "common sense re-education" and needs to read this book:

http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html
or go on one of the courses that are run based on it.

To repeat:

yes of course the law should be changed.

BUT no it should not be enforced in the meantime.

The law will never be perfect.

The prosecutor will never be perfect.

BUT between them we ought to be able to get to a better state than either on their own could manage. That is why we have both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Jan 2010 @ 11:44am

Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
These types of situations require a more senior (and sensible) authority to say "No that is not what the law says."

Consider the case in the UK where two policewomen were prevented from arranging reciprocal childcare because someone in OFSTED thought that the law required such arrangements to be regulated like paid for nurseries.

There was an outcry (and a petition) and the government slapped ofsted down as follows:

"However, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced on 12 October that it was never the Government’s intention to intervene in the arrangements parents make with friends to look after each other’s children, where there are no payments between them and the motivation is one of mutual aid. He has asked Ofsted to treat, with immediate effect, all these types of reciprocal childcare arrangements as beyond the scope of the childcare arrangements regulated under the Childcare Act 2006. He also announced that he is setting in train the process required to clarify the relevant legislation to exempt from registration these reciprocal childcare arrangements between friends. "

More details here: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20902

Seems like you need a senior person to say "That was never the intention of the law"

Unfortunately in the US it seems to be a little too easy for tinpot dictators like this prosecutor to set themselves up with no-one able to slap them down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kenneth Welch, 17 Jan 2010 @ 2:04pm

Let the whores burn for it
...maybe they'll stop being such sluts now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 17 Jan 2010 @ 5:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorta my point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 17 Jan 2010 @ 5:38pm

Re:
Do we get to ruin the Prosecutor's life for making a bad decision as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Jan 2010 @ 8:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That's exactly what's happening in this case. You just don't so happen to like the prosecutor's discretion. Too bad. When you get to be the prosecutor there, you can use your own discretion."

Um yeah. The entire term implies that actual prosecutor could be an insane jackass.

Because that's his discretion.

So, it worked as well as you'd expect, if you were George Orwell. I think he's a basket case. He's basking in his glory. The system works as expected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pete, 17 Jan 2010 @ 9:23pm

Re: Re:
Yeah - cause laws that are inconsistently applied are just awesome... You're a moron. Not knowing whether something is likely to get you in jail, or laws that are just applied to 'bad guys' make the entire population live in fear. Simple laws, that are universally applied, allow a population to know what's right and what's wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 9:37pm

Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
These types of situations require a more senior (and sensible) authority to say "No that is not what the law says."

In the US the person with the "authority" to say what the law means is called a "judge". That's what US courts are for.

Unfortunately in the US it seems to be a little too easy for tinpot dictators like this prosecutor to set themselves up with no-one able to slap them down.

Courts and judges. I don't know what you have in the UK if not that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 9:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think everything should be up to MY discretion. I should be Emperor of the Universe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2010 @ 9:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The system works as expected.

Yeah, ain't "prosecutorial discretion" beautiful?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Jan 2010 @ 12:47am

Re: Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
"Courts and judges. I don't know what you have in the UK if not that."

Yes we have those too - and juries as well - and I suppose the judge in this case will eventually fix this problem - but sometimes it helps if there is someone else in the system who can fix theproblem a bit quicker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackSombra (profile), 18 Jan 2010 @ 2:17am

Re: Re: Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
Plus it's better if thing's can be stopped from getting so far as Courts and judges due to time it takes (and wholr time leaving the defendant left hanging) and the cost to both the individual and the state.

If basic common sense can be used before resorting to the courts then it should be
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You Ass, 18 Jan 2010 @ 7:25am

Re:
Hope its your village
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 18 Jan 2010 @ 8:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
Of course, you're so much smarter than all of them, aren't you?

That does seem fairly likely if the summary of this story is accurate. There's nothing about being cops, prosecutors, or legislators that necessitates genius, and wisdom is definitely not a prerequisite. What do you suggest, I just turn off my critical thinking and assume these guys must be on the ball, because they're getting paid to do this stuff?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HonGyakku, 16 Oct 2011 @ 8:19am

Re:
this is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard. "Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals." Really?????? The law also states not to touch these minors inappropriately or in inappropriate places. Yet, i bet YOUR children bathe themselves, are you ready to prosecute them for touching under aged sexual parts? I bet you bathed them as children...are YOU now a child molester? are they child molesters for touching themselves? What about for looking at themselves in a mirror? That is "the likeness of" isnt it? youre ridiculous! By your own ratinale you would have to agree to these equally ridiculous arguments! How about using some common sense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]