TED Conversations

Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Debate: Lifetime "sex offender" brand for teenagers

A California 14 year old girl has been assigned to the life registery for sex offenders. She sent a photo of her exposed breast to another teen via her cell phone. Under California law she sent sexually explicit materials to a minor and that in a sex crime.

I am all for life time "brands" for sexual preditors, rapists, etc .... My question is ... does the bad judgement of a teenager qualify her to be listed among the bad of the bad for life. Are there degrees of conduct that could be considered or is the one size fits all the right way to go.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 4 2012: Maybe the rationale used by California voters who allowed their representatives to make this law was, "If we don't make a example of this behavior it is likely that social media will become a hotbed of pornography." What they seem to have overlooked is the age of the perpetrator. This law needs amendment. As an aside, we have face recognition technology, why not other body part recognition technology used to make such transmissions impossible?
    • Nov 4 2012: "why not ... make such transmissions impossible?"

      Some of is happen to like such transmissions! The issue was not pornography. The issue here was only that a minor received it.

      What you suggest sounds like the Taliban solution ;-)
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2012: Taliban? Really? You sir have jumped to a conclusion. I did not advocate making all such transmissions impossible. I merely proposed the idea of using technology to make them impossible in circumstances where they would be inappropriate or illegal. Do you view parental control of TV and Internet as Taliban solutions?
        Also, your restructuring of my words by combining "why not" with "make such transmissions impossible" looks a lot like contextomy which is a fallacy of logic.
        • Nov 4 2012: Ah! You meant it like parental controls. I thought you meant it as a solution for everyone. I misunderstood the scope of your "such". That is not a logical fallacy -- as I did not omit the context of the deleted words "other body part recognition technology used" even in my own usage of "such" :-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.