Sex with 17 Year Old Ok, 8 years in Prison for taking Pictures

[madanthonywayne]

The Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man sentenced to 8 years in prison for taking pictures of he and his 17 year old girlfriend having sex.

Full disclosure, the guy was 32 and already a registered sex offender. However, since the age of consent is 17 in Illinois, the actual sex was perfectly legal. But for taking pictures.......you go to jail for 8 years.

Does this make any sense?

Forget about the specifics of this case (large age difference, the guy already a registered sex offender), does it make sense that a person can go to jail for 8 years for taking a picture of oneself engaged in a legal act?

Would this apply to a couple of 17 year olds taking pictures of each other or even of themselves? Or what if it turned out that the girl had been the one who took the pictures? Would she then go to jail for 8 years for child pornography?

In a case that highlights one of the unusual incongruities of state laws, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a downstate man didn’t commit a crime when he had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, but he did break the law when he took pictures of them in the act.

Marshall Hollins was arrested in downstate Freeport in March 2009, and charged with three counts of child pornography after photographing himself having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, but he was not charged with statutory rape, since the age of consent for sex in Illinois is 17. But, in Illinois, it is illegal to photograph anyone under the age of 18 engaged in a sexual act.

After a bench trial later that year, Hollins — who was 32 at the time — was convicted and sentenced to 8 years in prison, but he appealed his conviction.

In a 5-2 ruling on Thursday, the high court upheld his conviction and sentence.

Police began investigating Hollins after the girl’s mother complained about Hollins having sex with the girl. Hollins was 32 at the time and already a registered sex offender. She also showed police four or five pictures that Hollins had emailed to her daughter, showing them having sex.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06...with-17-year-old-was-legal-pictures-were-not/

 

[Balerion]

That doesn't make much sense, no. But the court was right to uphold it, because that's what the law states.

I do recall hearing of teen girls getting into legal trouble for sending nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriends, for whatever it's worth.

 

[youreyes]

My guess is that as a sex offender he has less rights and taking pictures of having sex is not allowed.

 

[quadraphonics]

does it make sense that a person can go to jail for 8 years for taking a picture of oneself engaged in a legal act?

Sure, if said legal sex act would, if photographed, be child pornography.

Would this apply to a couple of 17 year olds taking pictures of each other or even of themselves?

Would your opinion change if we were talking about 10 year olds? That would be unambiguous child pornography, right? Do you think that child pornography is okay so long as the people recording it are themselves children?

That said, probably the crime in question should be distributing said pictures, rather than simply "taking" them. Although in practice I doubt there's any difference, as it's hard to see how you could be so charged if you never let anyone know the pictures exist.

All that said, I'd say the main thing this case suggests is that we should have some gradiation in our laws regarding underage sex/photos. There's actual kiddie porn, and then there's jailbait, and it wouldn't kill us to refuse to treat the latter as the former. Although it would probably kill the career of any politician that suggested it.

Or what if it turned out that the girl had been the one who took the pictures? Would she then go to jail for 8 years for child pornography?

Yeah, as JDawg already said, there have been cases of high school girls running afoul of kiddie porn laws for sexting.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

My guess is that as a sex offender he has less rights and taking pictures of having sex is not allowed.

If the age of consent is 17, how can she be considered a child legally. Also, I assume if he is a registered sex offender that he did serve his time, or whatever? I've heard of people getting sex offender status for taking a drunk piss in a bush and being seen doing it. That seems a little extreme considering what being labeled as a sex offender does to the rest of your life.

 

[Luis A.C.ROMANELLI]

USAdos...THE LIBERTY COUNTRY ! ! !

We can go on and shut ANYWONE ! ! !...Also 3 PRESIDENTS and etctrs.,etc,etc ! ! !...Everything is OK !...Have a nice DAY !

 

[Repo Man]

I imagine there was room for some prosecutorial discretion in this case. Because of the fact that the guy in question was obviously a predator, they got him on what they could. I can't muster too much sympathy for this guy, but the fact that some nineteen year old could get a similar sentence for a similar situation is troubling. These photos were undeniably illegal, but they don't belong in the same category as actual kiddie porn (my definition: pre pubescent children) is silly.

 

[Asguard]

19 year old? Try 2 16 year olds sending each other pics and both being charged with child porn for "abusing" themselves. That's what's currently happerning

 

[KilljoyKlown]

19 year old? Try 2 16 year old's sending each other pics and both being charged with child porn for "abusing" themselves. That's what's currently happening

One can only assume the law was created to take predators out of society and not meant to ruin the lives of kids sending naked pictures to eachother. How then can this be corrected before anymore young people have their lives ruined by the uncaring stigma of being labeled a sex offender for the rest of their lives?:shrug:

 

[youreyes]

lol this country is fu*** up