Poll: Should he still be punished?

[C95J]

Here´s the scenario:

A 13-year old is caught looking at child porn. Nothing sick like torture or even sex, just nude girls in his age. Should he still be punished? Should the punishment be less severe?

Me? I dunno. There´s a gray and gray morality thing going on here.

I voted no, because I guess that would be harsh, as porn on the internet is sort of a free, legal service on the internet. But for him, because of his age, he should be told that it is wrong, that there are serious laws against it, and if he does it again then he will get into a lot of trouble for it. I'm gonna take a guess and say that he didn't know of that law at the time, so he shouldn't really receive the punishment.

Was this an actual event, or just a scenario for interest? Did he actually get punished for this, how did the police react I am intrigued??

 

[gigastrike]

Isn't it illegal for anyone his age to look at any kind of porn, period?

 

[Phoenix09215]

He should be punished in full. Because its still illegal because hes under age to be viewing porn none the less.

But yeah i do tottally agree its a very gray area.

I have to agree... The law states that it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to view pornography. Plus, its child pornography which is also a much worse crime. So yeah he is young, and he probably doesn't understand but he has to learn? I'm not saying he should be severely punished but surely he has to face the consequences?

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

I think he should be lightly punished.

There's nothing unquestionably wrong about what he's doing but he should be warned that he ain't getting away with this shit for long before it's illegal...however it's technically illegal anyway because he isn't the legal age to view porn(Where i live anyway).

 

[gellert1984]

Spoilered because this isnt a very nice topic.

Spoiler

yep, its not sexist if the male is punished.

UK Law Re: Rape, note that the UK does not have statutory rape laws.

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if:?

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"), which came into force on May 1, 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth.

If a woman forces herself on a man its considered a form of sexual assault not outright rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#English_law

I can find no reference to a sexual relationship between two underage children resulting in the trial of the male but not the female, however a casual read through the relevant wiki provides us with 'In some jurisdictions (such as California), if two minors have sex with each other they would both be guilty of engaging in unlawful sex with the other person (misdemeanor instead of felony).' and Romeo and Juliet laws.

Take from that what you will.

 

[MagicBucket]

Even though they are his own age, he's still feeding the demand for such fiddledumdum, and that just ain't cool! The reason for child pornography laws is to stop people from committing these abuses. Don't feed the fire.

 

[Requx]

Well, its a kid...thats such a gray area I mean gennerally the stuff that happens in child porn is usually terrible and would change the kid, that said your sexuality comes out when your 13, if the kids he was watching had no like abuse and where his age I wouldnt see a huge problem it in it cuz its his age....Still call the police and try to shut it down though, just dont jail the kid or anyhting cuz then hell be messed up forever

 

[8bitmaster]

I went with pancakes cause something that has nothing to do with the question at hand is always a good option.

 

[manaman]

At thirteen the kid should not be punished by law, but at the parents discretion. The child should not be allowed to view child pornography, but it hardly seems a matter that needs government intervention.

I don't agree that children should be getting in trouble with the law for sending and receiving nude pictures of themselves on their phones, or online, unless one party is older then the law would allow a legal sexual relationship. However distributing those pictures (even among friends at school only) should be punishable under the law.

 

[Jedoro]

They're his age, what's the problem?

 

[Dogstile]

Course not. I was attracted to 13 year olds when I was 13, i'm attracted to 17 year olds now that i'm 17. I'm assuming its normal.

Sex laws are stupid anyway. So many people in the UK are "sex offenders" who are simply 16 year olds who have slept with 15 year olds. OH TEH NOES.