Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself
ldent42
Posts: 7,859
https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha
A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself—which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?
Unfortunately, that’s the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend—with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.
I wrote about Copening’s story on Tuesday. Since then, I’ve learned new information that makes the local sheriff’s office’s actions seem even more ludicrous.
But first, to recap: Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening’s phone and discovered them.
Why did they search his phone? It’s not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening’s phone.
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.
But consider this: North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.
I discovered this when I asked Fayetteville Observer Executive Editor Mike Adams about his publication’s decision to release the names of the teens (something countless other local news reports did as well). He explained to me that it’s the company’s policy to publish the names of adults charged with felony crimes, which includes Copening and Denson, in this case. But The Observer didn’t fully comprehend that Copening and Denson were also the victims—and, by some bizarre quirk of the law, minors in a different sense—until after its original reporting on the issue had already been published.
“I don’t think sexting was considered when this sexual exploitation law was put on the books,” Adams told me.
Indeed. Maybe the legislature should revisit the issue. In the meantime, there is still no excuse for local cops to pursue charges against Copening. They have already humiliated him and damaged (perhaps irreversibly) his high school football career over mildly worrisome behavior that should not even constitute a crime. Cumberland County should exercise some discretion—perhaps some maturity as well—and let this matter go.
The Observer's Paul Woolverton also covered the insanity of North Caorlina's sexual exploitation law as applied in this case. Read his excellent story here.
A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself—which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?
Unfortunately, that’s the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend—with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.
I wrote about Copening’s story on Tuesday. Since then, I’ve learned new information that makes the local sheriff’s office’s actions seem even more ludicrous.
But first, to recap: Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening’s phone and discovered them.
Why did they search his phone? It’s not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening’s phone.
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.
But consider this: North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.
I discovered this when I asked Fayetteville Observer Executive Editor Mike Adams about his publication’s decision to release the names of the teens (something countless other local news reports did as well). He explained to me that it’s the company’s policy to publish the names of adults charged with felony crimes, which includes Copening and Denson, in this case. But The Observer didn’t fully comprehend that Copening and Denson were also the victims—and, by some bizarre quirk of the law, minors in a different sense—until after its original reporting on the issue had already been published.
“I don’t think sexting was considered when this sexual exploitation law was put on the books,” Adams told me.
Indeed. Maybe the legislature should revisit the issue. In the meantime, there is still no excuse for local cops to pursue charges against Copening. They have already humiliated him and damaged (perhaps irreversibly) his high school football career over mildly worrisome behavior that should not even constitute a crime. Cumberland County should exercise some discretion—perhaps some maturity as well—and let this matter go.
The Observer's Paul Woolverton also covered the insanity of North Caorlina's sexual exploitation law as applied in this case. Read his excellent story here.
NYC 06/24/08-Auckland 11/27/09-Chch 11/29/09-Newark 05/18/10-Atlanta 09/22/12-Chicago 07/19/13-Brooklyn 10/18/13 & 10/19/13-Hartford 10/25/13-Baltimore 10/27/13-Auckland 1/17/14-GC 1/19/14-Melbourne 1/24/14-Sydney 1/26/14-Amsterdam 6/16/14 & 6/17/14-Milan 6/20/14-Berlin 6/26/14-Leeds 7/8/14-Milton Keynes 7/11/14-St. Louis 10/3/14-NYC 9/26/15
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
0
Comments
Could it be as simple as some macho cops that refuse to back down or is it more complicated?
Common sense should win out on this.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exploitation
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And how can he be both a minor (sexual exploitation of a minor - himself), and an adult at the same time? He's either one or the other. If he's being tried as an adult, then he shouldn't be considered a minor (which means he didn't exploit a minor). If the crime is exploitation of a minor, then he should be tried as the minor being exploited. The whole thing is convoluted.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Older generations (no offense whispering lol) want to impose a sexuality gone mad that they see on TV onto the youth as though they are the driving force. They aren't, 16 year olds don't give a shit about who's hot on TV, they are chasing tail in the real world. It is the old perverts that drive the "sex culture" we get shoved down our throats. They either see their past through rose colored lenses (forgetting their own sexual exploits) or are jealous of the ease with which kids today are able to communicate and explore their sexual desires through technology. Most are probably jealous and myopic, as if they wouldn't have sexted had they been able to in their day.
The result is douchebags like the idiots in this county who think they know what's best for a pair of teens doing what teens naturally do, with no harm no foul between the two.
Now we have teens with records (sex offenders?) for doing nothing more than the hypocrite adults who are punishing them did, or would have done.
It's the same thing as adults who had their fun with drugs but want to stop youngsters from having their fun "because they know what bad things can happen". Guess what, everybody knows, get over it.
My Son was spending some quality time with a young lady while at a party on a Saturday night.They chose a pool house as there place to go.This was a football team party so all his teammates were also at the party.
When in the pool house,I was told they left some lights on.Most people partying by the pool knew they were in there.Being kids,A few of his teammates wanted to fuck with him and break his chops .
So these friends of his took their cell phones and held them up to a high window and took a few pictures of the couple while undressed.All for shits and gigs.My son and his mate where both 17.The father of the girl caught wind of these pictures,and all hell broke loose.
Well,long story short the girls father was a big school donor(it was a private Christian School)My son is not a Christian and was looked down upon by some board members.If it wasn't for my kids Football skills,he would have been ousted from that school long before this event.But he was one of the primary star players and they were in the middle of there 2nd state championship run.(That brings in big $$$,and here in the south that trumps all else)
When the father found out his precious was fooling around with the little Jew boy and there were pictures being spread,he went to the board and principle and was seeking punishment as school codes were broken.
Many teammates were brought in for questioning as well as both sets of parents.3 phones were handed to me and I was told there is child porn on there(because of the pics of my son) and they recommended We press charges against the kids who took the pictures(my sons two best buddies and child hood best friends)
Of course I did not and said it was ridiculous.They other parents also thought better of it and just wanted it to go away.So phones were scrubbed and confiscated short term and the kids who both should have been kicked out of school were put on the super hypocritical double secret probation.
Some of the bible thumpers wanted charges and arrests.Ridiculous.
These kids are older, but 12 and 13 year olds exchange images of themselves... and sometimes those images are not kept exclusively. Many kids lose control of images when they thought they were being discreet, but in fact they were reckless.
Mechanisms need to be in place, but these penalties are harsh to say the least. I don't have the answer outside of placing the burden of responsibility on the parents who many times, despite their best efforts, will fail regardless.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
The real crime is now both minors private nude pictures have been looked at by many fking strangers, in the name of the investigation. Wink wink.
RR, thanks for sharing your case which put this in better perspective. In Your example, your son and GF did not give consent so they should have legal recourse. Think your family made wise decision and let it die rather than furthering the episode and creating more stress on the younguns and parents