3 ms·
> With "strict liability", they must prosecute minors. In the US at least, I don't think this is true. "Strict Liability" means they may prosecute regardless
by nkurz 3y ago
> With "strict liability", they must prosecute minors.
In the US at least, I don't think this is true. "Strict Liability" means they may prosecute regardless of intent. "Prosecutorial Discretion" is orthogonal, and means there is no must about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
(If you happen to have a non-paywall link to the article, please post!)
- fortran77 3y agoIf they don’t, it creates a power imbalance where any minor can transmit a picture and get someone else arrested with no repercussions.
- nkurz 3y agoNo? Since the minor can still be prosecuted, it's not true that there are "no repercussions". And since the same prosecutorial discretion applies to the recipient, it doesn't mean that they will be arrested. Mind you, I'm not a fan of selective enforcement, and I think it's something we should try to avoid. But I don't think the particular case you are referring to is likely to suffer from the downside you think is automatic.
- fortran77 3y ago> Since the minor can still be prosecuted, Exactly my point! That's why it's important not to have a "child porn" expemption in the law for minors. They must be prosecuted. And selective prosecution is wrong.