United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: These Teens Kept Their Sexting Private, But Cops Found Out. Now They Face Sex Offender Registry, Jail.
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/01/t ... s-kept-their-sexting-private-b
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Robby Soave
Post Date: 2015-09-02 10:24:48 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2823
Comments: 83
Fayetteville, North Carolina, cops have charged 17-year-old Cormega Copening with sexual exploitation of a minor—his girlfriend, who is the same age—because the couple sent each other nude photos of themselves during their relationship. There’s no evidence the photos were ever sent to anyone else, and police only became aware of them because they searched Copening’s phone for unrelated reasons that haven't been specified. Even so, the teen—formerly the starting quarterback at his high school—faces decades on the Sex Offender Registry and up to ten years behind bars if convicted. He’s also been benched from the team while Jack Britt High School investigates the matter. Copening’s girlfriend—who remains unnamed in the news articles—is also facing charges, ABC11 reported. These teen-sexting witch hunts are almost always outrageous; they conflate child pornography with something far less sinister. It’s perfectly normal—and wildly common—for kids to express an interest in sex. Should authority figures discourage underage sexting? Sure. Should they ruin kids’ lives for doing it anyway? Absolutely not. But Copening’s situation is more outrageous than most. As far as I can tell, the pictures weren’t shared with anyone else—this isn’t a case where a boy texted a girl’s nude photos to all of his friends and caused her some considerable public humiliation. The photos were private, and remained that way, until the cops got hold of them. If there’s public humiliation here, police intervention is the cause. Consider as well that Copening reciprocated with photos of his own. Does not a mutual, voluntary exchange of photos undercut the notion that “sexual exploitation” is a factor here? It’s more than a little ridiculous to accuse these two of exploiting each other—although this is precisely what the authorities are doing, I presume (the specific charges against the girlfriend were not reported). Lastly, it bears repeating that these teens were 17. If they had waited until they were 18 to send the photos, no crime would have occurred. Eighteen-year-olds are recognized as fully-autonomous sexual adults. Kylie Jenner, who just turned 18, has been inundated with requests to make a sex tape (indeed, filmmakers began making these requests even before she turned 18). The law, by its very nature, permits no nuance: you are 18, or you’re not. But it’s ridiculous to think that teens are magically transformed into adults on their 18th birthday. Many of them—perhaps Copening and his girlfriend—might be ready for mature relationships that involve sex (or, at least, sexy pictures) prior to the government’s randomly-selected date. There’s one more disturbing angle to this story. If Copening is too young to send pictures of his own body, is he not also too young to be made a social pariah? Don’t news agencies often withhold publication of the names of crime victims when they are underage? Copening is a crime victim, according to the police, but multiple local news agencies reported his name and the full situation. They reported on his suspension from the high school football team. They showed his headshot. They pointed out the likelihood that he will have to register as a sex offender. The criminal charges and possible jail time are the worst consequences of the police investigation, but the smearing of Copening’s name and ruining of his high school experience are also unfortunate outcomes—each of them much worse than the harm from a nude photo swap that would have never come to light if the cops had minded their own business. 
Dreamstime
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
The level of potential punishment is extremely disproportionate.
Perhaps. But back in the day the father of the son and the father of the daughter could go to war over such happenings. Hatfields and McCoys etc. But a more reasoned approach is for the father of the daughter to work the matter with the father of the son. However, given the family unit today you cannot be assured either has a father that is present or cares. The moral of the story is to not expose your body to someone who is not your husband/wife.
There are more morals to the story than that. The law itself is excessively harsh, and THEREFORE ungodly. God never prescribed imprisonment, crushing, fines, or anything else, for mere nakedness. It was shameful, that is all. PRISON? Years on a registry that prevents work and habitation? It is pagan in its barbarism. Men are angry that they cannot control the sexual of youth, so they excessively crush one or two as an example to the others. Let us be very clear: these teenagers did something dumb and socially inappropriate, and that is all. The law should not be involved with this. And if it is, the law should be lenient and instructive to the teenagers, not barbaric and life ending. Any man who stands and bellows that these children should be crushed "to make an example" is standing there with a stone, and the accused are not even adulterers. Remember what Jesus warned: let he among you who is without sin (not without this SPECIFIC sin - Jesus did not narrow it like that, but we can: let he among you who is without SEXUAL sin) cast the first stone. And remember well what else Jesus warned: he who forgives will be forgiven, but he who will not forgive shall not be forgiven by the Father either. Think on that well. Every man who crushes these teenagers for something that is an imprudence, nothing more, has set the standard by which God will judge him for his sexual sins. What man casting that stone to crush has MERELY the sin of exposure to a lover, hmmm? The men who want to hound these teens into a hell on earth are casting their own souls into hell. God will not forgive them their sexual sins, and he will crush them at judgment BECAUSE they set the standards. In other words: if you yourself do not want to be thrown into the soul prison of hell for your own sexual sins, back off on these teenagers and forgive them. Have mercy on them, and God will have mercy on you. Refuse them mercy, and you have damned your own soul. Jesus said that - and he said it three times. He meant it. Take is literally, or burn in hell.
It's premature to say what the guy did, or what charges are contemplated or have been brought against him. The Observer article raises the possibility that there may be more to learn. Who is in the pictures that were being flogged about? One of the girls may have an important parent. Something is still missing from the story. This offense was almost a year ago, and the charge was brought in March.
The charge brought about this picture is excessive. If he has committed a crime elsewhere, charge him with that specific crime. This specific crime is a trivial offense that should be resolved by counseling. If there are other offenses, treat each accordingly. It is neither honest nor legitimate to trump up something small into something major in order to "get" somebody.
There are no replies to Comment # 52. End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The level of potential punishment is extremely disproportionate.
#43. To: redleghunter (#36)
#49. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#43)
Let us be very clear: these teenagers did something dumb and socially inappropriate, and that is all.
The investigations usually are into instances in which photos are shared among a group instead of just within a couple, he said. To his knowledge, Denson's and Copening's pictures weren't shared with anyone else. He said they were discovered during an investigation of other explicit photos that were being shared among teens without the consent of the person or persons pictured.
#52. To: nolu chan (#49)
Replies to Comment # 52.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]