|
'murca: Man's sex legal, cell phone pics of sex illegal
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Illinois has its quirks.
This one, though, might puzzle some.
For the state's Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man who used his cell phone to take photos of himself and his 17-year-old girlfriend having sex.
The age of consent in Illinois is 17, so the sex was legal. However, as CBS Chicago reports it, Marshall Hollins, who was 32 years old at the time, was convicted of child pornography in 2009 for taking the photos.
He was given an eight-year sentence, but his appeal to Illinois' Supreme Court was heard this week, with the court's verdict -- to uphold his conviction -- handed down Thursday. |
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-5...of-sex-illegal/ |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Would have been the same if it was 18 and 17, or 17 and 17. |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
Hey look, Nou's poating about child porn laws.
 |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| 8 years in jail is such a ridiculously stupid sentence for that. no wonder we have more people incarcerated per capita than any other country |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| that's not "'murca", its how the statutes are applied in many countries. taking explicit photos of minors is illegal. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's not "'murca", its how the statutes are applied in many countries. taking explicit photos of minors is illegal. |
Yea I know. :p The 'murca is mainly for him getting 8 years for it (though this was his second sex related offense so that probably plays in to it).
Not as bad as the girl who took pictures of herself masturbating and sent them to a couple guys and she got charged with child abuse... lmao. |
|
|
| Zharen |
| I'll admit, 8 years is really harsh for something so trivial, but the guy really shouldn't have been ing a 17 year old in the first place. 32 to 17 just don't sit right to me. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
the guy really shouldn't have been ing a 17 year old in the first place. 32 to 17 just don't sit right to me. |
he met the minimum standard as required by one in his position(s) ;) |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
It's kind of like how paying people to have sex is illegal but paying them to have sex and video it is legal
i.e. hookers and porn |
|
|
| lostpsyte |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I'll admit, 8 years is really harsh for something so trivial, but the guy really shouldn't have been ing a 17 year old in the first place. 32 to 17 just don't sit right to me. |
That is not trivial, pictures of you ing someone is wayyy dirtier than nudes.
Still though, if he didn't send it to anyone else they should've just let him delete it. |
|
|
| Igaryok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I'll admit, 8 years is really harsh for something so trivial, but the guy really shouldn't have been ing a 17 year old in the first place. 32 to 17 just don't sit right to me. |
What bothers you about it? The fact that he's almost twice her age or that she is under 18? |
|
|
|
|
