That article is rather vague and choppy. It feels like things have been left out. It says that in some of the photos she is performing sexual acts. Maybe there are other people in the photos who were identified as children.

Although that is really sickening so I hope not.

Of course I'm not kidding. I hope you are joking! I can't believe that you wouldn't hold her to her actions! Like I said previously-she is 15 years old! She is almost an adult! She should be held responsible!

How many things did you get in trouble for when you were a child? Are your parents still responsible for your actions? :rolleyes:

Thy stopped being legally responsible for me when I turned 18, not 15. Unless you live in third world nation, the same applies to you, and to this 15 year old girl.

Odds are that her parents were AWOL, and yes, that makes them very responsible. Also, in my opinion, any parent who is too stupid to install software that would have prevented this, does not deserve legal custody. And sterilization should not be mandated, but certainly offered at no charge to the absentee parent. While we're at it, lets give the 15 year old a voucher for free sterilization for when she turns 18.

Not true. If this was true we wouldn't be convicting minors for their actions in the United States. It happens all the time. I just read about one case this morning. A 17 year old in Illinois beat a child w/ a bat & is being convicted of it. Now, w/ your theory, you would basically be saying that its his parents fault. I think your theory is flawed.

But if the parents of the victim wanted to bring a civil lawsuit against the 17year old, guess who would have to shell out any money - the parents. Legally there are many instances whereas the parents are held liable for the actions of their MINOR children (ie, vandalism of property). The theory is not completely flawed.

That depends on the state. By your theory, it sounds like a parent can throw the kids on the street at age 15. I think your theory is flawed.

I'm so glad I'm not having kids.

Well let me clear that up for you. While I nailed your (flawed) theory right on the head...you misunderstood mine. I said people should be responsible for their own actions, especially when they are old enough to know better.

I think thats pretty clear now, right?

Weeeeell KilarneyRose . . . if the kids were prepubescent performing sex acts that would be sick . . if its other 15 year old kids . . . its just high school :p

But I agree the article is choppy . . and looks designed to be sensational . . they use a bunch if buzzwords.

It would be if you held your arguments to the same standard. A 15 year old is not an adult, and only in extremely rare circumstances, is that 15 year old equally liable in the judicial system. So rare is it, that it could be considered statistically insignificant. You're basing your argument on something that can only be measured in basis points, which basically means that you are just being stubborn.

When 15 year olds are subject to the same penalties as 18+ year olds, more than 1% of the time, get back to me.

I'm not being stubborn, I'm being realistic. Just because not every case makes major headlines doesn't mean that it doesn't happen A LOT. Just as the case I spoke about earlier. The 17 year old who beat another child w/ a bat. It happened in Illinois, I didn't know about it until I just happened upon the article. I bet you also didn't know about it. I bet there are hundreds more cases of minors being prosecuted as adults because they are old enough to know better.

wow...and just when I thought it couldn't get anyworse.