Crime fighting jumps the shark: Cops want to take explicit pics of teen to prove teen sent explicit pics

DISCLAIMER: I will assume that if you are reading this you haven’t heard about the news story I’m about to cover. This is safe to assume, since if you had heard about it, you would have been rendered blind with rage and likely deceased after flinging yourself into traffic or off the nearest tall building out of utter despair for the state of our criminal justice system and society at large. As we progress, I’ll just cross my fingers and hope that you have survived the rest of this post without the aforementioned or other life-threatening afflictions or injuries.

Police, prosecutors, and a judge in Virginia have colluded (trust me on this, that’s the right word) to require a 17-year-old boy to be photographed by police in a state of sexual arousal in order to prove that he is guilty of sending similar images to his 15-year-old girlfriend. At this point, you would be excused for laughing this off as the far-fetched plot of a Law & Order: SVU episode or sadistic snuff film. Well, hold on to your hats. It gets worse. The judge has issued a warrant for the requested photos, which may be “staged” by injecting the “suspect” at a hospital in order to induce the required erection, the teenage boy (not the cops…) would be charged with a felony and listed as a sex offender, and the cops already took photos of the boy’s offending member when he was arrested.

I will address the rest of this post in the form of questions to the law enforcement officials involved, since I’m guessing the rest of my readers’ are busy scraping the bits of their head that exploded off the walls.

• Why is it a crime for teenage love interests to exchange explicit photos?

Yes, it’s dumb, gross, and in this age of electronic ubiquity and perpetuity extremely unwise. But is it a crime? Would it be a crime for the teenagers to be naked in front of each other? Does Virginia charge teens with indecent exposure for changing in the locker room after football practice?

• Who is the victim here?

The boy sent a video of himself to his girlfriend after she sent him a similarly explicit photo. She was clearly not victimized. In fact, the boy is only being charged because her aunt saw the video and filed a report. Child pornography statutes are designed to prohibit people from exploiting children for their own twisted enjoyment. No children were exploited here. Both teens’ futures could certainly be jeopardized by repercussions of their irresponsible actions, but they will definitely be damaged by felony charges and sex offender status. The point of the criminal justice system should be to punish people who harm others, not to ruin the lives of people who do things we don’t approve of but that don’t actually hurt anyone.

• A felony? Really?

A conviction for this “crime” would sentence the juvenile “offender” to jail until he is at least 21, force him to register as a sex offender and endure that stigma for the rest of his life, and cost him the rights to vote, own firearms, and serve on juries. All for letting his girlfriend see his junk. There are certain crimes for which punishments this harsh are suitable. This is not one of them. It is not even a “crime” except by technicality.

• Hospitals have drugs they can inject to give someone an erection?

I mean, really? And someone sworn to protect and serve the people actually thought and seeks to use this by force? Really?

• Would the coerced photos be shown in court?

Or just the originals? Would the entire jury and court gallery be subject to prosecution on receiving child pornography at that case? Or should we go ahead and charge the entire internet with a felony for reading this story? Perhaps we should attach arousal-detection devices to every American to find out if they enjoyed reading about this incident too much. We have found the bogeyman, and he is us.

• What part of “unreasonable searches and seizures” do you not understand?

It is self-evidently unreasonable to compel the “victim” (who is also the alleged perpetrator!) of what the state views as child pornography to be subject to the reproduction of that material as part of a criminal search. If this were a female toddler, would the state have the same requirements? The mind reels, the stomach churns, the blood boils at the thought.

• Do you fear for your jobs?

You should. Every government official, from the arresting officer to the warrant-issuing judge should be fired, recalled, and/or brought up on official oppression charges for this. Whether the “adults” involved are attempting to make a name for themselves to further their career, teach kids a lesson by making examples out of these kids by ruining their lives, or just diligently following orders, protocol, and procedure is irrelevant. The first two are generally terrible enough tactics on their own, but the last is the most insidious. At some point while you’re “just doing your job”, you have to take a moment, engage your brain, and realize what you’re part of is literally insane. We should not have anyone in public service incapable of doing that.