The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2010 Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography – The Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response Mary Graw Leary The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Graw Leary, Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography – The Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response, 17 VA. J. SOC. POL’Y & L. 486 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SEXTING OR SELF-PRODUCED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? THE DIALOG CONTINUES - STRUCTURED PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION WITHIN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESPONSE Mary Graw Leary* CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................... 4 87 I. Clarifying Definitions: "Sexting" vs. Self-Produced Child Pornography ................................................................................ 491 A. Self-Produced Child Pornography ............................................. 491 B . "Sexting" .............................................. ...................................... 492 C. Self-produced Child Pornography and "Sexting": The Intersection ................................................................................ 495 II. The Original Proposal: Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a M ultidisciplinary Approach ...................................................... 496 A . The Thesis Proposed ................................................................... 496 B. Prosecution is Not the Solution to this Problem ......................... 497 III. New Information: The Frequency and Character of the Problem..499 A . Frequency ................................................................................... 500 B . N ature of the Behavior ................................................................ 501 IV. How the Issue Is Misunderstood: The Sensationalism of the D eb ate .......................................................................................... 505 A . O vergeneralization ...................................................................... 505 B . Structuring the Problem .............................................................. 506 1. Factually Distinguishing the Problem ..................................... 506 2. Legally Distinguishing the Problem ........................................ 509 C. Conceptualizing the Solution ...................................................... 510 1. Confusing a Rejection of Decriminalization with an A dvocacy for Punishm ent ...................................................... 510 2. The Misunderstanding of Juvenile Court ................................ 514 a. Sex Offender Registration .................................................... 515 b. Mandatory Minimum Sentences .......................................... 518 V. The Future: Alternative Proposals ................................................... 520 A. Threshold Issue: What's the Harm? ........................ .. .. .. .. 520 1. That the Pictures Themselves are Harmful is Consistent with Child Pornography Jurisprudence .......................................... 523 a. Ferber ' Factual Basis Supports This Concept of Harm ...... 523 b. Ferbers Legal Analysis Supports This Concept of Harm...524 c. Ashcroft Does Not Alter This ............................................... 526 * Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. With great thanks to so many who contributed their thoughts and insight- Susan Broderick, Tom Clancy, Howard Davidson, Susan Duncan, Christine Feller, Angel Flores, Roger Hartley, Amanda Cohen Leiter, Orin Kerr, Rev. Raymond C. O'Brien, John Rabun, and most especially Lisa Schiltz, and Cliff Fishman. For their research a special thanks to Jennifer Siegel, Kristen Kelley, and Steve Young and for the challenge of countless drafts to Julie Kendrick and the entire staff of the journal. Spring 2010] Structured Discretion d. Williams Reasserts This as Well .......................................... 529 e. Additional Harms Caused by the Images According to F erber.................................................................................. 532 2. That the Pictures Themselves are Harmful is Consistent with Contemporary Case Law Conceptualizing the Harm of C hild Pornography .................................................................. 535 3. That the Pictures are Harmful in and of Themselves is Consistent with Practical Observations Regarding Self- Produced Child Pornography .................................................. 539 B . Spectrum of Solutions ................................................................. 542 1. Formal Decriminalization ........................................................ 543 2. De Facto Decriminalization ..................................................... 547 3. Neither Form of Decriminalization is Adequate ...................... 550 4. Diversion and Prosecutorial Discretion ................................... 551 a. Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Approach ................................................. 551 b. Concepts of Prosecutorial Discretion .................................. 551 5. N ew Statu tes ............................................................................ 555 a. Balancing Concerns About Adjudication with Concerns A bout Exploitation .............................................................. 555 b. Focus on M ens Rea .............................................................. 557 c. N ew C rimes ......................................................................... 558 6. Multidisciplinary Responses ................................................... 558 a. N ew Jersey ........................................................................... 560 b. N ew York ............................................................................. 562 c. AWARE Act and SAFE Internet Act .................................... 562 7. Expansion of Current Laws ..................................................... 563 a. Nebraska's Affirmative Defense .......................................... 563 b. Other Jurisdictions Recognizing the Issues ......................... 565 VI. C onclusion ..................................................................................... 566 The teenage practices of "sexting" andposting sexual images online are nationwideproblems that have perplexedparents, school administrators, and law enforcement officials.1 INTRODUCTION Any social problem that exists at the intersection of adolescence, sex, technology, and criminal law compels strong reactions from all sides. This in many ways is a positive development, because it speaks to a passionate concern for the well being of young people. However, it often results in sensationalism and oversimplification of complex and multifaceted issues making it more difficult to discuss the problem rationally and productively. ' A.B. 4069, 213th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (N.J. 2008). Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 17:3 Such is the case with self-produced child pornography ("SPCP") and "sexting." In 2007, I identified and wrote about a small but growing problem, largely unnoticed on a national scale, of youths producing pornographic images of themselves or peers and the distribution of those images by these producers as well as others.2 The article addressed the dilemma facing prosecutors of how to respond to the production and distribution of this material labeled "self-produced child pornography" now sometimes referred to (often inaccurately) as "sexting." 3 This article identified that the production and distribution of self-produced child pornography brought into conflict two lines of jurisprudence. The first line was child pornography law, specifically its recognition that child pornography images are harmful to children both within and outside the images. The second line was juvenile law's recognition that juveniles are often less aware of the social harms their illegal behavior can cause and are less culpable. At the time of that writing the only laws seemingly available to prosecutors were child pornography laws. The reality that the production and dissemination of self-produced child pornography, is, under the law, the production and dissemination of illegal child pornography, forced the prosecutor to resolve this conflict. Society, including prosecutors, can respond to self-produced child pornography in a variety of ways. One is to insist on a "zero tolerance" policy and to prosecute every case. Such an inflexible approach will in many cases, perhaps most cases, do far more harm than good. A second approach is to decriminalize self-produced child pornography all together. This would prevent a prosecutor from ever abusing his or her discretion to prosecute. The difficulty is that it would preclude a juvenile court adjudication even where the conduct is particularly egregious, and would deprive authorities of a useful ability