Child porn and prosecution policy: bias charges?

The story is problematic for several reasons:

1.1) the charges, as reported below, should never have existed as the image is not even pornographic – this is purely a legal argument/point

1.2) the charges should not have been started either given the context of the case. The principal is the one who has ordered the investigation; his employee reported it and obviously the student’s mother had an interest in damaging his reputation. Because he was a man, it was easy to label him (and libel). That the prosecutors refused to see the context and proceeded with the charges is contrary to any good policy of prosecution – that the policy argument/point

2) the background of the case is those children/teenagers sending photos of themselves or others nude via mobile phones. Two issues: what kind of society are we where it is viewed as trendy to be exposed nude to everybody? I am not prude, but frankly, I don’t see the point; the offence of child porn is protect children against adults: can it be to protect children against themselves?

School Administrator Accused Of Child Porn Because He Investigated Sexting At School” (TechDirt, 6 April 2009)

Advertisements

About Audrey Guinchard

Senior Lecturer @ University of Essex (UK)
This entry was posted in General - Criminalisation, Investigation-3- Miscelleanous, Offences - Child pornography. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s