<p>Could there be charges brought against the young men for creating and distributing child pornography?
In a sexting case a while back that was one of the charges brought against a young woman who willingly took explicit photos that were mailed to her boyfriend, who then forwarded the shots.</p>
<p>MizzBee, it is shocking to me that there have not been child pornography charges filed.</p>
<p>Razor - Do you have any idea how callous and narrow minded you sound? Are you friends with the boy’s families or somehow related to the case? Repeatedly insisting that everyone agree that your narrow definition of rape IS THE RIGHT ONE is revolting.</p>
<p>Razor,</p>
<p>I am disgusted by your posts. I wonder how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of those boys’ fingers (you do know that there is a hole in your body, even if you are a man, where those fingers can be inserted?).</p>
<p>Truly, idgaf what the “law” says. These boys raped this young woman whether the law classifies it as such or not. The pathetic excuse of a human who hurt me is a rapist even though he was never convicted. As are all others who violate a person sexually and are never convicted or convicted of a lesser crime. Those who beat their wives but are never convicted of domestic violence are still abusers. I can’t fathom letting a law decide how a victim views her assailant. I very much doubt that Savannah feels less raped because the law says it wasn’t TECHNICALLY rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My sentiment exactly. I am just fuming about this argument here about what constitutes a rape. I’ve never been assaulted in my life, so in theory I should not take it so personally, but I absolutely do.</p>
<p>I don’t care whether what the boys did is “only” sexual abuse or is rape under Kentucky law. We all know from the boys own statements what they did. Some of us may consider that rape; others may not. As long as everyone knows what they admit to doing, I don’t see a defamation claim. </p>
<p>I had hoped that this thread could be useful in the discussion of some of the issues it raises. I think at this point it’s really jumped the shark.</p>
<p>Jonri, I think YOU did raise some interesting questions. It appears that the police were very careful not to violate the law. It is interesting to wonder, did the boys suspect they would be picked up for questioning, and if so, were they honest with their parents about what had happened. It’s hard for me to believe if they were honest with their parents, the parents would not have immediately told them to get rid of all pictures, and called an attorney (who would likely not have allowed questioning).</p>
<p>jonri, I’m sorry, you have raised interesting and important legal questions and we have by and large ignored them. I agree that this is one of those cases that is likely to result in bad laws being passed. I must say that I do feel uneasy about the transcripts of juvenile proceedings being released. Very uneasy.</p>
<p>Jonri, Thank you for raising the legal issues you have. I have been glad to see such support of a victim of sexual assault. However, we should look closely at how this was handled. I am very concerned with the casual nature with which our children approach taking and posting humiliating photos of each other. The casual way in which the boys approached that part of their crime “we thought it would be funny” is really the most chilling part of this to me. Some have speculated that the voyeurism charge is what was given to the perps in lieu of CP charges.</p>
<p>I would agree with razorsharp to this extent: by the traditional definitions of rape, and apparently by the legal definition in Kentucky, this specific grotesque sexual crime wasn’t “rape.” By some other definitions, it was.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is, if these guys want to complain that they’re unfairly being labelled (or libeled) as rapists, they’re out of luck. No court in the land would give them a penny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound?</p>
<p>I telling you what Ky law says. I didn’t write the law. If I had written the statutes, I would have included digital penetration as a degree of rape. Try applying logic instead of your emotions. Maybe you will be able to figure it out.</p>
<p>Razor, everyone understands what you saying. We just do not agree.</p>
<p>Obviously lerkin and deega123 don’t have a clue what I am saying. They have made personal attacks because they cannot refute the law I have cited. If someone can cite another source of Ky law, I would be happy to change my opinion.</p>
<p>Any kayf, I am pretty sure are not speaking for anyone other than yourself.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, I understand your point that under KY law this particular act may not be “rape,” but I fail to understand your purpose in making it, and making it repeatedly. Perhaps you could enlighten me.</p>
<p>Razor - I understand your point completely. That doesn’t preclude me from thinking that the manner in which you are making your point is callous and narrow minded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because several posters have called the boys rapists when in fact they are not rapists under Ky law and have not been convicted of rape. Maybe alleging criminal violations is a joke to you, but to me it is a serious matter. There is no room for error when one alleges something as serious as criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined by the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred and no where else. </p>
<p>If people are arguing the sentences are light because the boys are rapists, the argument is simply wrong. If people are arguing (as I do) that the sentences are light because sexual abuse is a felony and the boys were not incarcerated, then the argument is at least based on facts of Ky law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And your personal attack tells me you are ignorant and narrow minded.</p>
<p>I realize not under Ky law. In my mind, and in the FBIs, they are still rapists.</p>
<p>They are also child pornographers, not just voyeurs, another reason why the sentence is too light.</p>
<p>I would like to go back to some of the more general issues with it. To me there is a question, how do parents reconcile helping with (at least paying, presumably) for a rigorous defense, with demanding that child accept responsibility? I dont know what the parents and kid say to each other when the lawyer issues statements that say the girl destroyed their lives. Does the kid buy into that? Do the parents?</p>