MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Cops Want to Give Teen an Erection and Photograph It... You Know, For Evidence

Good grief, how many pictures of a teenage boy's penis does one police department need?

SextingWikimedia CommonsYou read that right.

The authorities in Prince William County, Virginia, are pursuing child pornography charges against a 17 year old who exchanged nude picture texts with his 15-year-old girlfriend. The police have even filed a warrant that would permit them to take the teen to the hospital, give him an erection-producing injection, and photograph his penis. Prosecutors want to compare this photograph to the one the teen sent to his girlfriend, establishing that they depict the same thing.

Some astute logicians might point out the irony of the police effectively creating child pornography in order to prosecute someone for creating child pornography, though long-time readers of Reason know that law enforcement has a history of doing precisely that.

Carlos Flores Laboy, the teen's guardian, told The Washington Post that police efforts to prosecute this case were "crazy."

Carlos Flores Laboy, appointed the teen’s guardian ad litem in the case, said he thought it was just as illegal for the Manassas City police to create their own child pornography as to investigate the teen for it. “They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner,” Flores Laboy said, “to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible.” The guardian added, “As a parent myself, I was floored. It’s child abuse. We’re wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That’s what we’re doing.”

Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this? It’s just crazy.”

Keep in mind that police have already taken photographs of the teen's private parts after arresting him and holding him in juvenile jail to await charges. Good grief, how many pictures of a teenage boy's penis does one police department need?

The teen has so far refused to plead guilty. If convicted, he could stay in jail until he turns 21.

Check out ReasonTV's coverage of the absurdities of the sex offender registry below.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian!||

    OK, go on...

  • Tim||

    Dear Penthouse
    I never thought I'd be writing a letter like this but...

  • DesigNate||

    Man, those are some sick fucks.

    Also, a 17 y/o texting nudie photos of themselves to friends/girlfriends, whatever is not fucking child pr0n.

    That is all.

  • some guy||

    It is according to Prince William County, and that's all that matters. I wonder if there is a carve-out in the law that lets the police take these pictures of minors, or if the DA is just ignoring the law in this case because FYTW.

  • MJGreen||

    And don't anyone dare think this should be laughed off. This is about the RULE OF LAW. If the city fails to prosecute this CRIME, then there will be ANARCHY!!

  • Free Society||

    If only...

  • MegaloMonocle||

    I wonder if there is a carve-out in the law that lets the police take these pictures of minors,

    There isn't. You're welcome.

  • briannnnn||

    Then why do they have special penis comparison software at the ready!?!?!?

  • RJ The Terrible||

    It started with a few beers after work, then, you know, guys get competitive but no one wants to do a side by side ...

    epic asshattery

  • briannnnn||

    Aha!

  • np||

    A 17 year old is legally no different and has no more rights than a 7 year old.

    Except said 17 yr old can face felony charges.

    The sad part is that while there is a fighting chance now, if it had occured after his 18th birthday, it would've been clear cut mandatory sex offender registriation, and 20 years mandatory minimum if he didn't plea.

    That would still be true even if his 15/16 y.o. girlfriend sent him her nude selfies unsolicited.

  • Sudden||

    Correction:

    When a 17 year old takes a dick pic himself to send to his intimate friend, it is child pornography.

    However, when a police officer forces a minor into an erection using drugs and takes a photo of his erect cock against his well, it is not child pornography but noble and heroic work.

    WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?!

  • Sudden||

    against his *will*

  • Bean Counter||

    "well" works too. As in "against his well-being"

  • Zeb||

    The police are being creepy idiots here, but the law is to blame as well. Technically he is guilty. The law really needs to distinguish between child abuse and perfectly normal teenage sexuality. That's the biggest problem here. We already know that cops are assholes who love authority for its own sake.

  • Mark22||

    No, technically he is innocent until proven guilty. And proving him guilty is such an extraordinarily stupid idea in this case that he should stay innocent.

  • Suicidy||

    So if a minor makes nude movies/pics of themselves, they are producing child porn? What a bunch of fucking laughable bulkshit.

  • Kevin47||

    That, literally, is the law.

  • mr simple||

    Det Abbot really needs pictures of this boy's penis. From many different angles.

    Also, exchanged? Is the girl also being prosecuted? SLD: Neither of them should be.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If I were AG I would put every cop in prison that had anything to do with the pictures they already took.

  • Game of Thrones fan||

    ...erection-producing injection

    Where can I obtain such injection? Asking for a friend.

  • ||

    I believe they're talking about Caverject

    Alprostadil is sold in the United States as urethral suppositories and in injectable form. The suppositories are sold under the brand name MUSE. The injectable forms are Edex and Caverject. Muse delivers alprostadil as a penile suppository, inserted into the urethra, at least ten minutes before the erection will be needed. Caverject and Edex are similarly fast-acting, but instead are injected by syringe directly into the corpus cavernosum of the penis.
  • Free Society||

    That paragraph makes my dick hurt.

  • Free Society||

    Spooky nut-punch at a distance.

  • ||

    Yeah, I didn't appreciate reading the phrase "urethral suppositories" before I'd finished my coffee.

    I apologize for paying it forward.

  • MJGreen||

    Jesus. He's a 17 year old guy. You wouldn't need to do all of that to get an erection outta him.

  • Suicidy||

    Can't a hot nurse or female cop just show him her tits? He is 17 after all. And I'm sure many of those pervy male cops offered to 'lend a hand'.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "A teenage boy can get an erection sitting in a pew at his father's funeral."—Adam Carolla

  • Bean Counter||

    Jeeessusss! They're doing that to a kid? What a bunch of sadistic fucks!

  • Loki||

    urethral suppositories

    As if my private's didn't already hurt thanks to this nutpunch of a story.

  • Otisjay||

  • ||

    "Where can I obtain such injection?"

    When you find out where, avoid it. You don't want to go there.

  • John||

    At some point the method of collecting evidence becomes a punishment in itself. The cops, provided they have a legal warrant, certainly have a right to search this kid or even put his dick in a lineup for identification. I do not see however where the police have the power to conduct what amounts to a medical procedure against his will. Suppose someone accused of a crime had had plastic surgery since the time of the crime. Could police in the name of their search power force the accused to undergo a reversal of that surgery so that the victim could identify him? I would hope not. That is exactly what is going on here.

    Search means just that, search. It doesn't mean injecting you with shit or forcing you to undergo medical procedures. Sadly, I bet the police win this motion because we have no rights if the case involves sex or children. But they absolutely should not.

  • ||

    "At some point the method of collecting evidence becomes a punishment in itself."

    I think that is the motive here. Many cops are sadists.

  • John||

    I think you are right.

  • Free Society||

    It takes a certain kind of asshole to wake up every morning to enforce the whims of a legislature. It's a job that particularly appealing to sociopaths.

  • Suicidy||

    Sadists, and possibly a bunch of faggots too.

  • Loki||

    Like the Marilyn Manson song goes, "Cops and queers make good looking models."

    Left unsaid is that they're often one and the same. NTTAWWT, as long as they don't get their jollies off by giving 17 year olds erection so they can photograph it, that is.

  • Sudden||

    The cops, provided they have a legal warrant, certainly have a right to search this kid

    No John, they have the power. The only rights police have are the same rights inherent to all people, rights designed to protect them from government interference. Their investigatory powers are exactly that, powers. Not rights.

    Sorry for being a pedant, but language matters. To borrow from Doctor Zhivago: call things by their right names.

  • John||

    That is a fair point. They have the legal authority to search him. You are correct, they do not have the "right" to do so.

  • Zeb||

    Just curious, would you include searches of bodily cavities and forced blood tests in the unacceptable forced medical procedures? I've always thought that went too far too. As easy as it is to get a warrant most of the time, I think a higher standard is needed before you violate a person's bodily integrity like that.

  • John||

    That is a tough one. I think those are okay with a warrant since ultimately they are just looking or drawing something. That to me is different than injecting a chemical into someone against their will. The line ought to be that they cannot inject anything or do any procedure beyond drawing bodily fluids or looking in a body cavity.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Just curious, would you include searches of bodily cavities and forced blood tests in the unacceptable forced medical procedures?

    Well, those aren't medical procedures when done for evidence collection. That's why I've never allowed them in my hospitals unless the suspect gives written consent. And, yes, the cops have been pissed and had to take their prisoner away.

  • Zeb||

    Well, those aren't medical procedures when done for evidence collection.

    If that's true, then neither is the boner injection.

    That's why I've never allowed them in my hospitals unless the suspect gives written consent. And, yes, the cops have been pissed and had to take their prisoner away.

    Good for you. Hospitals are for treating the sick, not making cops' jobs easier.

  • OO=======D||

    And, yes, the cops have been pissed and had to take their prisoner away

    MADE IT MA! TOP OF THE WORLD!

  • perlhaqr||

    That's bad ass of you. Thank you.

  • Suicidy||

    Any cop that wants to grope my hot spicy boner, or stick his fingers in my asshole is a fucking dead cop.

  • Suicidy||

    Can you send me a picture first? I would like to make an informed decision. Not much into the assplay though.

  • ||

    When the cops can give you a colonoscopy against your will while looking for drugs because he thought he saw you clinch your butt cheeks, whats a little penis suppository to bitch about.

    The kids parents should just hope the police don't send them the bill.

  • NealAppeal||

    Cops will continue because the punishment is paid leave, maybe a reprimand, and the taxpayers will pay off the lawsuit.

  • Loki||

    At some point the method of collecting evidence becomes a punishment in itself.

    "You know kid, you'd make things a lot easier on yourself if you'd just go ahead and plead guilty..."

  • perlhaqr||

    Search means just that, search. It doesn't mean injecting you with shit or forcing you to undergo medical procedures.

    Tell that to the Border Patrol. Please.

  • ||

    Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis.

    Special software? Someone can't look at the pictures and say "why yes, this is the same penis!" or possibly check the EXIF data from the image to see if it was taken on the same phone model?

  • GILMORE||

    " Someone can't look at the pictures and say "why yes, this is the same penis!"

    I think *somebody* has 'expert witness' ambitions.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I call to the court jesse.in.mb, well-known penis expert.

  • ||

    Actually, having that on my CV would be glorious.

  • Rich||

    Perhaps not. After all, if a penis is well-known, almost by definition less expertise is required.

  • JW||

    Without knowing the dick-to-floor ration, this is all just a bunch of flatfoot guesswork.

  • JW||

    Goddamn it.

    ration = ratio

  • GiveMeLibertyorGiveMePie||

    If you are going to be an expert you need to now the efficiency metrics of bringing dicks to completion. So let's call your above ratio D2f. You can have men stand tip to tip and work from the middle out. But if one was longer than average you could position it up or down to bridge between others with a different d2f and therefore it would create a varying range of acceptable d2fs factored by length. Just have to jerk it in an angle. Let's call that thetaD.

  • NealAppeal||

    Imagine if the penis expert was blind.

  • ||

    I don't like turning my hobbies into work.

  • Free Society||

    So some software engineer woke up one morning, abandoned his work on new facial recognition software and shifted his resources to the future, penis recognition systems.

    "Imagine a future where credit cards are thing of the past, where about half the people in line can swipe their cock to pay for groceries."

  • ||

    You can already use your dick to log in to Apple's Touch ID.

  • Free Society||

    The future is now!

  • Warren's Strapon||

    Must have some pretty big buttons.

    Heyo!

  • anon||

    recognition software and shifted his resources to the future, penis recognition systems.

    Funny enough, I bet you could put more names to photos (in aggregate) on the internet with penis recognition software than facial recognition software.

  • NealAppeal||

    That is sexist. How will women pay for groceries? It is their job to buy groceries.

  • ||

    You'd need to register the images to do it correctly and correct for differences in perspective, etc. Which they won't do.

  • John||

    But unless there is something in the picture that I know the size and distance from the camera, how can I ever know the actual size of any of the images in the original picture? Without that, how can I compare it to another image? This would seem to me especially true if you are trying to compare the two pictures down to a very small scale.

    Say I have a picture of some dick taken from above. The actual proportions of that dick are going to depend on how close the camera is to the dick right? Suppose a guy is really tall and takes a picture with the camera at chest height, won't his dick look smaller in the picture than the dick of a short guy who did the same thing?

    I don't see how you can figure out the proportion of the original picture with any kind of accuracy.

  • Sudden||

    Say I have a picture of some dick taken from above.

    A picture of God's dick?!?!?

    Contrary to popular opinion, I bet it's actually pretty small. The real high achievers are usually compensating for something.

  • ||

    Sweet Jesus. Only a bunch of straight guys could make comparing dicks this difficult*. Cocks don't all look the same. Compare two fairly similarly erect, top-down views and you'll know immediately if they're the same cock or not. I have seen many cocks in my life and never met my cock-twin.

    *I almost said hard and caught myself.

  • Rich||

    my cock-twin

    Nice band name.

  • John||

    About half way through that post I noticed the ridiculous number of times I was using the word dick and just went with it.

    Yes, not all dicks are the same. But we are talking beyond a reasonable doubt here. So, "it looks a lot like his dick" doesn't cut it. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt his dick. And that takes a lot of precision.

  • anon||

    Only a bunch of straight guys could make comparing dicks this difficult*.

    I dunno, all you dicks look the same to me!

  • Rich||

    It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt his dick.

    "No one can deny it's entirely within the realm of possibility that is a *sheep* dick!"

  • Suicidy||

    This all vaguely reminds me of that scene in Porky's where the female gym coach Ballbricker wanted a line up of the boys to identify the one who exposed himself through the peephole in the girl's shower. And the male coach suggests getting a police sketch artist to draw it so as to put out flyers with the caption 'Wanted: Dick at large'.

    Funny how life imitates art.

  • ||

    Which is why it would make more sense to look at the EXIF data from the image, or even do a dead pixel/aberration comparison on the camera than to try to compare cocks. Is there any baseline of proof that this software is accurate or successful in differentiating dicks?

  • anon||

    Which is why it would make more sense to look at the EXIF data from the image, or even do a dead pixel/aberration comparison on the camera than to try to compare cocks.

    But doing shit the easy way doesn't help them falsify evidence.

  • Harvard||

    WTF is Tony when we need something he's an expert on?

  • Rich||

    It's *special* software, John.

    Laymen Ordinary people wouldn't understand.

  • Suicidy||

    The pie is pics will be examined by Top Men.

  • Robert||

    The worst of it is, they're going to have to get a bunch of other 17 YO boys, inject them similarly, and see if they can pick out the matching one.

  • FYTW||

    This comment thread is turning into the season finale of Silicon Valley.

  • Malvolio||

    No matter where you place the camera, the distortion will always be an affine transformation. That is, there is some 9x9 matrix that can transform the one set of points into the other set of points.

  • Suicidy||

    By 'special software', did he mean stare at the photos while jerking his cock?

  • Loki||

    Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis.

    I'm calling bullshit. I seriously doubt if any such penis recognition SW actually exists. Instead, the cop is going to spend hours, and go through several bottles of Jergins and boxes of Kleenex, closely examining the two photos to determine if they are, in fact, the same penis.

  • GILMORE||

    "police have already taken photographs of the teen's private parts after arresting him and holding him in juvenile jail to await charges"

    At least now Manassas can refer to themselves as "Abu Ghraib on the Potomac"

  • John||

    And understand of course that they want to lock a kid up until he is 21 for doing something that adults, if the internet is any indication, do by the millions. If he was taking pictures of his dick and sending them to random girls, I would be okay with locking him up or getting him some treatment or something. But for doing it with his g/f? And of course, it is perfectly legal for him to have sex with her. He is under 18, so it is not statutory rape. So we have the situation here where he can have sex with her legally but will spend his entire youth in prison for sending her a picture of his dick, something he could show to her in person.

    If you want to know what evil really looks like, in all of its stupidity, rationalization and lunacy, the cops and DA who brought these charges is it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He is under 18, so it is not statutory rape.

    Is that true in VA?

  • The Tone Police||

    Yes. 15-17 YO exception there.

  • Matrix||

    They went after the boy. why not the girl? She sent him similar pictures, according to the article. Why is she immune to prosecution?

  • np||

    Girls are always the victims. And sometimes of themselves.

    "but what if she were your daughter?"

    Ya never hear, "but what he were your son?" now don't you?

  • anon||

    "but what if she were your daughter?"

    Ya never hear, "but what he were your son?" now don't you?

    Bit OT, but if it were my daughter I'd tell her:

    "Get over it. You'll see plenty more of those as you get older."

  • WTF||

    Why is she immune to prosecution?
    Because Pussy Pass.

  • Suicidy||

    I think those pics demand Mapuche closer scrutiny. Unless she's a fatty uggo.

  • Suicidy||

    'Much'.......Christ, auto correct is obtuse sometimes

  • MJGreen||

    He created child pornography.

    Of... of himself. And sent to his girlfriend. Not for public viewing or distribution, just a specific person. But he's a child, so it's child pornography!

  • John||

    See my comment below. We do not have any kind of rational framework to justify why mere position of child pornography is a crime. If it was just illegal to create child pornography, we could treat it like sex and these sorts of cases would not arise. If I as an adult take naked pictures of a minor, I am guilty of victimizing them since they can't consent to posing. What I am doing is no different than sneaking into someone's bedroom and taking shots of them without their consent. I am clearly a criminal there. But if the kid takes the pictures himself, it is no different than two minors having sex with each other. They can't consent to the act, so they can't be held criminally accountable for it.

    Thanks to possession of child pornography being a crime, that logic doesn't work. Sure we can't prosecute him for making it, but we can for possessing it and distributing it. The law is making him both the victim and the perpetrator of the same crime. It is absurd. But it is the logical result from the absurd proposition that mere possession of child porn is a crime.

  • ||

    I thought the rational framework was that legal possession of child pornography creates a market for CP, which creates incentive for the production of new CP, which victimizes future children.

    It's basically the same logic that had a friend of mine in hysterics when she found out that my wallet was 50-year-old elephant leather, or why auction houses have stopped selling even antique ivory.

  • John||

    No. It is more than that. It is not just creating a market. If it was, you would have to prove that the person possessing it bought it not just that they possess it. Or proving you didn't buy it and thus didn't contribute to the market would be an affirmative defense. But it is not that way. Possession is a crime no matter what. Moreover, if that were the justification, this kid wouldn't be guilty since he sent it to his g/f and did nothing to create the market or demand.

    The logic is that the act of looking at the stuff victimizes the child in the photo or film. So if you have it you are victimizing children.

  • Free Society||

    I would even classify it as thought crime. Similar to the prohibition of envisaging the king's death in medieval times.

  • John||

    I absolutely classify it as a thought crime. Forget the act of creating it or distributing it for a moment. Who and how is anyone being harmed when some deviant sits alone in his house and jerks off to these pictures? The whole thing is a legal fiction. The children in those pictures were victimized by the creep who took them. People they will never know or meet looking at those pictures doesn't victimize them anymore or less. If it did, children who were photographed by sick relatives and never had those pictures seen by anyone else would be in real terms less victimized than children whose pictures were sent out on the internet. And that is bullshit. Children in both circumstances are equally victimized. The reason why we punish the guy jerking off in his house is because we consider his thoughts to be criminal.

    Indeed, before the SCOTUS struck it down, most states made possessing virtual child porn the same as possessing the real stuff. Why would they have done that unless they considered it a thought crime?

  • Free Society||

    Perhaps those actively distributing the pictures and owners of servers knowingly hosting them should perhaps face some kind of prosecution, but certainly not with steeper penalties than is given to the actual molester who took the photos and did the raping. However simple possession of information as a crime is completely unreasonable.

  • Matrix||

    So if by merely viewing it, you are doing something wrong, does that mean people who view revenge sites victimize those people on there? After all, those pictures and videos were not posted with the consent of the person in those pictures and vids. Should the viewers be prosecuted or face lawsuits?

  • John||

    It should matrix. See my Erin Andrews example below. It doesn't because the whole concept is a legal fiction to cover up what is really going on, which is that child porn possession is a thought crime.

  • Free Society||

    So if by merely viewing it, you are doing something wrong, does that mean people who view revenge sites victimize those people on there?

    Everyone on this subthread seems to be on the same page about that. Not sure who you're talking to. But no, viewers should face no penalty at all.

  • perlhaqr||

    That's certainly the position of some people, yes.

  • Rasilio||

    And lets not forget the fact that in a good many of the cases there are not any actual children in the pictures.

    Anything from photoshop jobs where the post a childs face on an adults body, to drawings, to just using girls who look young will qualify as "child porn". They have even gone so far as to attempt to classify stories with no actual images of anyody as child porn if they happen to mention children engaging in sexual activities in an explicit manner but last I heard that one was shot down.

    Next you have the issue that just because the kids could not legally consent here and now does not mean they were below the legal age of consent at the time and in the place the images were made. No one forced Tracy Lords into Porn and she lied about her age to the producers but her first handful of movies are all considered child porn.

  • Zeb||

    No one forced Tracy Lords into Porn and she lied about her age to the producers but her first handful of movies are all considered child porn.

    Which is really nothing short of a crime against humanity.

  • Free Society||

    Moreover, if that were the justification, this kid wouldn't be guilty since he sent it to his g/f and did nothing to create the market or demand.

    Well the Commerce Clause clearly states that a moose fart in Alaska can effect market demand for corn in Iowa, ergo state line crossed and ye shall be regulated. Nothing aside from nothingness doesn't effect commerce and create a compelling government interest, according to the prevailing jurisprudence.

  • anon||

    Sorry FS, you're wrong: Nothingness affects everything precisely because of the lack of anything, therefore it too shall be regulated.

  • Free Society||

    Oh right. I forgot that they literally ruled that Commerece Clause regulates the non-existence of things.

  • anon||

    So if you have it you are victimizing children.

    What the fuck does this mean, John?

    Since when is looking at a photo victimizing someone?

    Is this just some jezebel bullshit?

  • John||

    What the fuck does this mean, John?

    Good question. And no it is not some Jezebel bullshit. I can assure you this is the justification given by every professional in the field.

    Here is the best I can figure it means. It means that every time someone sees the picture the child in it is "victimized" in the sense that someone is lusting after them all over again or something and that as bad as it is to have such pictures taken it is worse for the victim to have them out there on the net being looked it. The second part is as true as far as it goes. But that justifies punishing the pervert who took them and or originally stuck them on the net not everyone who sees it. By that logic, everyone who looked at the Erin Andrews hotel room videos was guilty of being a peeping Tom. She was most certainly a victim and didn't consent to those videos. And it certainly victimized her more by having them out on the net. But in that case those facts meant they sent the guy who took them and posted them on the net to jail. No one ever claimed that the people who looked were guilty to. Yet, by the logic of child porn, they are.

    Again, it is a thought crime.

  • anon||

    . I can assure you this is the justification given by every professional in the field.

    Just because that may be so does not exonerate it being jezebel bullshit.

  • anon||

    John: Also, I wasn't criticizing *you*, I was criticizing the justification/rationale behind this ... well, for lack of a more accurate term, bullshit.

  • John||

    I know anon that you were not criticizing me. I just wanted to make it clear that this justification is not something I pulled out of the swamps of the internet. It is the generally accepted justification in the LEO community.

  • ||

    Moreover, if that were the justification, this kid wouldn't be guilty since he sent it to his g/f and did nothing to create the market or demand.

    So, you're saying that laws are only used to punish people in the way the law was intended to be used? And that laws never end up taking on a logic of their own after they've been written to achieve a specific end?

    Most of these laws were written when every teen didn't have a camera and dissemination mechanism for the photos in their pocket. It may have been seen as the simplest way to squelch demand and lower the incentive to produce CP. Now it's prosecuted that way because "it's the law."

  • John||

    No, they are prosecuted that way because the law makes possession a crime and has nothing to do with creating a demand or anything else. It is a strict liability crime.

  • Suicidy||

    Plus cops and prosecutors are fucking weasel retards.

  • Free Society||

    So, you're saying that laws are only used to punish people in the way the law was intended to be used?

    No I think he's saying the law very premise of the law is irrational and therefore unjust.

  • Robert||

    Not only that, but if authorities wanted to depress the market value of kiddie porn, they could easily do so by publishing and disseminating widely all the existing kid porn they could find.

  • John||

    That is a brilliant point Robert. IF you want to take away the market, give the stuff you have away for free. No one would ever make a dime selling it again.

  • Free Society||

    Just think of what the internet and amateur porn has done to the for-sale porn industry.

  • Loki||

    Just think of what the internet and amateur porn has done to the for-sale porn industry.

    I can't remember the last time I heard of someone actually paying for pron, I can't fathom why anyone would ever again.

  • anon||

    It's basically the same logic that had a friend of mine in hysterics when she found out that my wallet was 50-year-old elephant leather, or why auction houses have stopped selling even antique ivory.

    You should point her to those research papers that show how hunting exotic animals actually helps propagate their species.

  • Free Society||

    The full extension of property rights over nature helps propagate their species.

  • anon||

    Yes. Basically, freedom is good. In so many ways.

  • Free Society||

    There is no problem that voluntary interaction and respect for human freedom can't solve.

  • Suicidy||

    Wrong! He needs to be sent to prison as a clear message that exploiting himself in this manner is not ok! Maybe incarceration and forced sodomy will bring some justice to this smut peddler!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    To add to the idiotic insanity of it all, the "child" he was engaged in child pornography of was himself. He's being accused of? Abusing himself?

  • Charles Easterly||

    "If you want to know what evil really looks like, in all of its stupidity, rationalization and lunacy, the cops and DA who brought these charges is it."

    "...for there is no folly of the beasts of the Earth which is not infinitely
    outdone by the madness of men."

    - Page 369, Moby Dick

  • anon99||

    Detective Abbott's contact info:

    703-257-8042
    dabbott@manassasva.gov

    He wants all the evidence you have.

  • Brandon||

    No thanks, I'm not sending him anything to masturbate to. He'll have to be content with the dick photos he's already managed to collect.

  • The Tone Police||

    Not that any of this is in any way acceptable, but he's 17: there are easier ways of exciting a 17YO young man.

  • Brandon||

    Like a slight breeze.

  • Matrix||

    So, a kid should become a sex offender because he took pics of his junk. But a police officer can take picture of the same kid's junk, and that's legal?

    W....T....F?

  • John||

    I prosecuted several child porn cases when I was I was a prosecutor. The victim advocates' justification for the mere posession of child porn being a crime was that every time someone looks at a piece of child porn, the child in the picture victimized. So I asked them, "okay, you and I have looked at these pictures, doesn't that mean that we are victimizing this child? And if so, why the hell are we doing it?" Lots of stammering and indignation would ensue.

    As far as I am concerned we do not have a coherent justification for our laws regarding minors and sex. The kind of lunacy in this case is the rational result of our irrational assumptions regarding these laws. We are essentially arresting this kid for victimizing himself.

  • Free Society||

    See what happens when the objective fact of self-ownership is ignored?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    As far as I am concerned we do not have a coherent justification for our laws regarding minors and sex.

    THIS!

  • Robert||

    we do not have a coherent justification for our laws regarding minors and sex.


    And a lot of other things.

  • ||

    Thank you for coming clean about your production of child pornography. So maybe you can explain to me if my son's penis ended up in a database some place? Where is my son's penis today? Is it in a hacker's computer in Germany? Did some officer such as yourself put it in his drawer to look at later? He was four years old when the picture was taken and my husband admitted to child pornography use. I told the officer I was worried my son's picture was in his collection so they decided to take one to prove he wasn't abused. If its in an electronic database, does that mean our contacts with international government agencies might have to include explanations about my four year old's photo of his privates? A pornographic photo of a child victim victimizes ME, too. Not just my son. Up goes tariffs, up goes import and export taxes. Up goes terrorist violence. We are the third largest producers of child pornography in the world. Yuck. If you included the police evidence files then we are probably number one on that list. We a gross nation of pedophilia. Gross. I am serious.

  • Free Society||

    The state will sexually abuse your child so as to bring down the hammer of justice down onto the child for sexually abusing himself. Ahhhh the internal contradictions and hypocrisy of statist justice, just incredible.

  • MasterDarque||

    They could get him a hooker, let him fuck one or all of their respective wives or girlfriends.

  • Matrix||

    And teen/adult daughters?

  • Idle Hands||

    well this statute exists still so were all guilty.
    § 18.2-344. Fornication.

    Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

  • Suicidy||

    So if I get married I can fuck anyone I want? They use a poor choice of words.

  • DWC||

    Apparently, enough will never, ever, ever be enough.

  • Spoonman.||

    Wouldn't a stripper be cheaper and less painful?

    That's not the goal, I know, but still.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I imagine a porn video would be even cheaper still.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Hell, he's seventeen. Just say "Tell me about your math teacher."

  • anon||

    Fuck, I could probably get a quarter chub out of that and I'm in my 30's.

  • Rich||

    Oh, yes -- osculating curves!

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    That was my first thought. When DIDN'T I have an erection when I was 17?

  • ||

    Gym class?

  • ||

    Showing porn to minors so that you can prosecute minors for creating porn!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's slightly better than creating porn of minors so you can prosecute minors for creating porn, right?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I's saving this story for the next time a proglodyte says that we are the government or some such nonsense.

    Oh you're the asshole creating child port to persecute at 17 yo boy?

  • Tim||

    This was a gag from PORKY's. You can't fool me.

  • Kabaragoyim||

    Tim, ya beat me to it. Beulah Ballbricker.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I'd know that penis anywhere. It has a mole on it.

    /BB

  • anon||

    I'd be OK with this if the cops and doctors involved were immediately arrested & prosecuted for cp. Justice, etc.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    BTW

    This whole statutory rape between kids thing and kiddie porn charges for kids sexting is out of fucking control.

    Proof positive that common sense prevailing is a horrible thing to count on when writing law. If you MAY be prosecuted, someone WILL be prosecuted.

  • anon||

    Proof positive that common sense prevailing is a horrible thing to count on when writing law. If you MAY be prosecuted, someone WILL be prosecuted.

    Precisely. I've learned the lowest common denominator for IQ is *really* low.

  • Xeones||

    50% of all people are of below-average intelligence. And average intelligence isn't all that great.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    That was my line, until someone here gently corrected me. 50% of all people are below median intelligence.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    50% of all people are of below-average intelligence.

    Depends. More likely 50% of people are average intelligence, with 25% above and 25% below. Otherwise the definition of "average" is pretty artificially restrictive (to represent just 1% of the population).

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Or what Francisco said.

  • anon||

    Look, we're supposed to be measuring our dicks in this thread anyways, not average/median intelligence.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    We aren't measuring dicks. Just comparing them be the eyeball test.

  • Loki||

    2/3 of people between +/- 1 standard deviation of mean intelligence. In IQ terms, that's between 80-120. I call these people "1-sigmas," and they're dumb as fuck.

  • anon||

    Also, when exactly did it become illegal to text dick pics?

    I'm pretty sure Chatroulette would be shut down by now...

  • ||

    I was searching for the link, and Tim beat me to the reference. But I'm surprised the thread was up so long without a reference to one of the best scenes in cinema history .

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L.....feature=kp

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    I would like to think the cops would be unable to find a doctor willing to induce an erection on a teenager for no valid medical purpose. Maybe they'll have to take him to the hospital of horrors in New Mexico where they force colonoscopies on you based on the cops' say so.

  • anon||

    I would like to think the cops would be unable to find a doctor willing to induce an erection on a teenager for no valid medical purpose.

    It's almost hilarious how naive that thought is.

  • John||

    Or better yet, that any doctor who did so would lose his license. You may be naive but you make a good point. No doctor should ever be willing to do this. The cops should be completely fucked on this issue but won't be.

  • Sudden||

    Police Chief: "Dr., we would like you to administer a painful catheter drug on a minor to force him into an erection so we can take multiple photos of it for a child pr0n investigation."

    Dr.: "I'm not really comfortable with that. It's a violation of my hippocratic oath."

    Police Chief: "Nice practice you got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Somebody needs to let these doctors know that, since this isn't a medical procedure (its not done for any clinical purpose), their malpractice insurance won't cover them if/when they get sued.

    Tell 'em that, and none of them will be willing to do the deed.

  • Suicidy||

    A little out of his purview, but Kermit Gosnell seems like he's up for anything. And I understand he has oodles of time on his hands.

  • Loki||

    It would be the first time he's ever shoved something into an orifice...

  • anon||

    nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

    Doesn't this protect you from being forced to provide a photo of your dick?

  • Rich||

    Nice try, but the perp, er, suspect has already given up that right via his sexting!

    /sarc

  • anon||

    Nice try, but the perp, er, suspect has already given up that right via his sexting!

    The sad part is this is about the logic they're using.

    My head really wants to explode thinking about it.

  • Suicidy||

    Only allegedly.

  • OldMexican||

    Cops Want to Give Teen an Erection and Photograph It... You Know, For Evidence


    Is one of the cops Tony? Sounds like an idea of his.

  • WTF||

    Well, Tony knows the constitution allows it, since it was never widely thought to be protected against for 200 years.

  • Harvard||

    Tony's laptop wallpaper is the once rumored shot of Clinton's crank, complete with identifiable curvature.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    A message to those of you who like to send pictures of your dick on the internet: hello monsters. I never thought I'd say this, but this is your moment to shine. Your country needs you!

    Detective Abbott
    dabbott@manassasva.gov

  • anon||

    For the first time in my life, I have a reason to send a dick pic.

  • Matrix||

    Everyone should just send him a photo of Warty's.

  • anon||

    Nah, not immediately recognizable as a dick. Might get arrested for death threats by a spiked club with a dead skunk.

  • Rasilio||

    I thought all existing photo's dick were destroyed by UN weapons inspectors?

  • anon||

    So Saddam did have WMD's after all!

  • John||

    I would say it is absolutely unreasonable. And the 5th Amendment self incrimination angle is an interesting one. Is an erection a testimonial act?

  • FYTW||

    Interesting question, actually (thus revealing how far afield Fifth Amendment jurisprudence has wandered).

    But I suspect it's not, in this case. They're not taking dick-pics for the purpose of measuring when the kid gets excited; they're just "fingerprinting" his junk, effectively.

  • John||

    The 5th Amendment analogy would be trying on clothes. Can the government make an accused try on clothes found at the scene of the crime to see if they fit? I don't think they can but am not sure.

  • John||

    I thought OJ volunteered to try on the gloves. They didn't make him. The mistake was Darden leaving the gloves up there and then Cochran shoved it up his ass by having OJ try them on. But I could be remembering wrong.

  • DFG||

    No, the prosecution asked the judge to instruct OJ to try the gloves on, and as you say it blew up in their faces when he convincingly pretended they didn't fit.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    This is why sarc is right that there are no good cops, because if there were, somebody would have tried to prevent thus.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Robby, you get mad props for actually linking to the statute. A bit of interweb courtesy that many of your colleagues at Reason don't seem to know how to do. Perhaps you could show them?

    Oh, and I saw no exemption in that statute for law enforcement taking dick pics of teenagers.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    One other thing:

    Who the fuck are the doctors and the hospital that will participate in this? This isn't medical treatment. If I got wind of this happening in my hospital, I would shut it down in an instant, unless and until I got a court order that specifically named the hospital, the doctor, and the procedure. Then I would go back to court, and ask the judge for immunity for any criminal or civil action that could be brought against us for assault, battery, and participation in the production of child porn. I'd make sure the media knew, so they could show up for the hearing.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Doctors and nurses are now whores for the Government Almighty. He who pays the piper, calls the tunes.

  • GregoryKoch||

    Ahh. Sex offender laws. Like the one that required a convicted child predator who was living in my neighborhood to knock on my door when I was THIRTEEN YEARS OLD AND HOME ALONE to tell me he was a sex offender. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this?

    PEDOPHILES

  • UnfrozenCavemanTaxpayer||

    No ethical medical professional would participate in any part of this.

  • dkmacmillan@gmail.com||

    What are the details of this case? Should he even be in trouble in the first place.

  • briannnnn||

    When did the cops get special penis comparison software?

  • Loki||

    When their bulk order of Jergins and Kleenex arrived...

  • bassasaurusrex||

    Folks don't worry, the photos will have as little masturbatory use to the police as possible. Once they use the penis comparison software to tack it onto pictures of Justin Bieber's body they will consider deleting it from their child porn repositories.

  • ||

    And of course, any doctor or other medical professional who actually administers the drug is as much of a ghoul and pedophile as the cop who dreamed this whole thing up.

  • Harvard||

    So, the kid gets the "erection lasting more than four hours", goes comatose from sudden dip in blood pressure and swallows his tongue.
    That little blue veiner then nets his reletives down to second cousin enough to retire in Monaco.

    Then....then can we fire Det. Abbott?

  • Suicidy||

    If I were that kids dad I would have Det. Abbots pelvis broken with a sledgehammer.

  • DFG||

    This sounds a bit like the South Park episode where local cops went undercover as prostitutes and were giving out blow jobs, but didn't arrest anyone until after he finished. Now I learn there is penis comparing software available to law enforcement and they want to force a 17 year old to get hard so they can take pictures. Satire is dead. It just can't keep up.

  • in4mation||

    Maybe the cops should be the fluffers?

  • Agent Cupcake||

    What happens if the kid is found not guilty? Who gets custody of the dick pics then?

  • Morrisovich||

    I think this is probably more about Detective Abbott than it is the anything else. Somebody needs to check all his media storage devices just to be sure.

  • Suicidy||

    And if he has an internet browsing history in chat rooms with the handle 'Pedobear'.

  • ULOST||

    Irony?!!! I was thinking disgustingly outrageous hypocrisy.

  • LaKeisha||

    If they both took nude pictures of themselves and sent them to each other, why are the police charging HIM with creating child porn, but not HER?

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Because common sense would finally prevail if the cops tried to take pictures of her vagina... for now.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Hillary Robinette Award 2011
    maSter Detective DaviD e. aBBOtt
    manaSSaS city POlice DePartment
    Master detective david E. abbott
    Hillary Robinette award
    Thorough sleuthing and interview skills enabled Detective David E. Abbot of the Manassas City Police
    Department to stop a serial child molester from striking again.

    The case broke in a very 21st century way. A juvenile supplied police with Facebook posts that
    indicated an inappropriate relationship between a high school teacher and student. Detective Abbot
    of the Manassas City Police Department followed this lead, discovering a series of crimes that spanned
    several decades and continents.
    Interviewing the alleged victim and his parents, Detective Abbott displayed professionalism and
    sensitivity as he learned that the student had indeed been molested. The suspect was arrested on
    charges including Aggravated Sexual Battery. A search of the basement apartment that the teacher
    rented in Manassas resulted in evidence that other minors had been abused as well.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    A second warrant
    for the subject’s primary residence in Maryland was executed. There, the magnitude of the case was
    discovered, with journals, videos and other evidence indicating that the suspect was involved in more
    than 30 years of abuse in at least three states and the country of Japan.
    For months, Detective Abbott worked closely with the FBI and law enforcement and prosecutors in
    other jurisdictions to sort through evidence and conduct interviews of potential victims and others who
    knew the suspect. To date, eleven more victims have been identified.
    Recently the teacher plead quilty to seven federal charges of producing and posessing child
    pornography. He will be sentenced to 25 years under the terms of a plea agreement.
    For his exhaustive investigative work that brought decades of abuse to a

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Detective Abbot is lookin for shit to win him awards, bitches.

    And if the life is normal and the law is not it doesn't matter... Detective Lord Jesus Abbot is a comin' fer ya...

    'Cuz he wants his fireplace lined with trophies he never won otherwise.

  • Bruce Majors Libertarian4Mayor||

    NCIS: Catalina Fluffer is a damn fine show on the Spice channel.

  • Wayne||

    "Carlos Flores Laboy, the teen's guardian, told The Washington Post that police efforts to prosecute this case were "crazy.""

    The police don't prosecute, the prosecutor does that. And there are doubts raised about this story:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ting-case/

  • Chocolatejeebus||

    Look, I've seen the pictures of the kid's flaccid penis and, except for the leather straps, they're very tasteful. Get off the cops' backs! Unless it arouses them, then I'm sure it will be encouraged.

  • ||

    I was in the court system when my husband admitted to police to having addictions to child pornography and being aroused by our son. I find it completely disgusting that when I tell police I am scared because we were exposed to child pornography, they chose to make their own. After I told them I went through my husband's collection to make sure my boys weren't in It, they took pictures of my son's privates to prove he wasn't molested. I still hate pictures to this day. I wonder if my son's penis is still in a database some place. They didn't even prosecute his dad after all that. They didn't even seize the computer. They were too busy making a collection of their own. I wonder if someone can hack their database and run off with their molestations pictures like a bad attitude. The police really do hurt me. I don't think they are kind or decent in any way whatsoever. On a side note, I was reading if you are here on reason.com, chances are the NSA is watching you. That's why I decided to join. NSA, please DO. Then DO something. Stop being little ghosties on a machine. That'd be great. Have a purpose in life. Beat on the bad guys. Like bust the police, that would be even better. Some internal monitoring of our government systems would be most welcome. You are most welcome to browse through my list of government abuses, including police porno. Thank you.

  • wingnutx||

    Well, bye.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online