The Text Message Typo That Landed a Man In Jail 547
Barence writes "A British man was jailed for 18 months for accidentally sending an explicit text message to his entire address book. 24-year-old swimming coach Craig Evans intended to send a text message to his girlfriend asking her for sex. Instead, the message was accidentally sent to his entire BlackBerry address book, including two girls, aged 13 and 14, from his swimming class. He was subsequently arrested and charged with 'causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity,' and – incredibly – jailed for 18 months at Birmingham Crown Court in July. Yesterday, an appeal's court freed Evans, although he wasn't cleared — the sentence was merely reduced to a nine-month suspended jail term."
I can only assume (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Funny)
We don't have any pedophiles, all of ours are spelt correctly.
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Funny)
hmmm, the religious fundamentalists went to America, and the convicts to Oz, all we got left with was Charles Darwin and Alan Turing
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Funny)
Alan Turing. Who you chemically castrated for being gay. You really want to go down ths road?
Re: (Score:3)
Or is cattle rustling a euphemism for gay sex that I have never heard of before?
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Informative)
When were gays ever lynched in America?
Seriously? I lived in a small college town of about 30k and while I was growing up, there were *two* openly gay guys that ended up either dead or just disappeared.
Perhaps you're just trying to nit-pick that technically, most gays don't get lynched -- they just get murdered by one person, a la Matthew Shepard -- but the end result is about the same. And no, it's nowhere as prevalent as the lynchings of black people in the south ... but just because it isn't as bad or as visible, doesn't mean it should be ignored.
--Jeremy
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Insightful)
Lynching is a form of communication. If someone dies, even myseriously, or simply disappears, there is no specific message sent. Plausible denability is preserved, and ambiguity remains. A lynching sends a very explicit message from a community regarding some perceived threat.
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Funny)
Keep in mind that the best and brightest of England left to make their fortunes in the colonies long ago. The ones that stayed behind were, well, the "special" types.
Hey, someone had to sanitize the telephones and look at moodily-lit photos of toothpaste.
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather cool excuse if it had worked though.
If only there was some way of verifying his story... like looking through the texting logs from his carrier.
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that nearly every member of his family also received the message, it is very unlikely that he had intended to solicit sex from all the recipients, “skin on skin”. Remember, if the prosecution accuses him of “causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity,” they have to prove their case, not the other way around. That is what "innocent until proven guilty" means.
Clearly he did send the message, which is why he could not be exonerated from the crime that he was accused of... However proving intent was always going to be an uphill battle given how indiscriminately wide his message went.
I think that Judge Elias' conclusion that “it is difficult to conclude that he was targeting anyone” is the only reasonable conclusion (unless you have evidence that the prosecutors did not have).
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Interesting)
We had a rich kid here in town who killed a pedestrian and fled the scene (probably a DUI) and ended up with a month in the slammer.
"Causing death by dangerous driving" (Score:4, Informative)
I would bet if he had accidentally killed those two girls with his car, he would have gotten less jail time.
It is a bet you might very well lose:
Sentencing
A person convicted of causing death by dangerous driving is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction. Endorsement is obligatory on conviction. The offense carries three to eleven penalty points (when the defendant is exceptionally not disqualified).
The Court of Appeal in R v Cooksley and others gave guidelines for cases where death is caused by dangerous driving. In R v Richardson the Court of Appeal reassessed the starting point set out in R v Cooksley taking into consideration the increase in the maximum penalty. The relevant starting points identified in Cooksley should be reassessed as follows:
i) No aggravating circumstances --- twelve months to two years' imprisonment (previously 18 months);
ii) Intermediate culpability --- two to four and a half years' imprisonment (previously 3 years);
iii) Higher culpability --- four and a half to seven years' imprisonment (previously 5 years);
iv) Most serious culpability --- seven to fourteen years' imprisonment (previous starting point of 6 years).
Causing death by dangerous driving [wikipedia.org]
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving the question hanging in the air: why was he convicted at all? This should have been thrown out and laughed at the moment someone tried to press charges.
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Funny)
You obviously read Kafka as fiction, yes?
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Funny)
Given that nearly every member of his family also received the message, it is very unlikely that he had intended to solicit sex from all the recipients,
Unless he was a real motherfucker
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the country that really made the enlightenment a reality
Do you mean France or the US? Because in Britain both the monarch and the clergy are still in power.
Re: (Score:3)
For the country that really made the enlightenment a reality
Do you mean France or the US? Because in Britain both the monarch and the clergy are still in power.
Really? Is that why HHS is taking away the freedom of religion as soon as you decide to hire someone? Do yo really think the Queen is "still in power"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not the point, it looks like he really did send them to everyone.
The point is that it offers him plausible deniability as a fishing expedition - send it out and if one of the teen girls replies then he's got what he wanted, if they don't and he gets reported, he can pretend it was all an innocent mistake because hey look, he even sent it to family members, so it must have been unintentional right?
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Interesting)
Your plausible deniability story sounds possible.
For use as a bizarre story plot in a tv crime drama.
But this is reality, where simpler explanations are more likely explanations. Where people are generally decent and compliant with social norms, and those rare few who aren't try not to broadcast it to everyone they know.
Well known English legal principle (Score:5, Insightful)
British juries are about as intelligent as American juries, however British judges are not political appointments and so don't have to grandstand to keep their jobs.
Re:Well known English legal principle (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet he was found guilty meaning the jury obviously felt there was enough evidence to convict.
You can't suggest there is a more simple explanation when it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't.
The most simple explanation in this situation was that he was in fact trying to groom the kids and that the jury felt there was enough evidence to that fact to convict, hence why he was convicted for it.
So you're really suggesting that someone came up with the bizarre plan of texting every single person they know to attempt to "groom the kids" on a mere hope that it would work? Seriously? What's the best case (for him) scenario here? It works, the gets the girls but then has to explain the mistake over and over again to everyone he knows and likely hearing about it for years after?
That's simpler to believe than he accidentally sent it to everyone when meaning to send it to one person? Really?!
While admittedly not knowing if they do this in UK courts, a far simpler explanation is that the judge explained the law to the jury in such a manner that it invalidated the explanation of the accused (sending such a message to a sub-legal girl is illegal no matter what for instance) and they convicted on that alone.
Either that or this guy just came up with the most complicated method to attempt to contact young girls for sex ever. Since they were in his swimming class, wouldn't it be a million times easier to just talk to them in private sometime there? With no evidence laying around?
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_Rea [wikipedia.org]>Mens Rea is required for all crimes.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US this is patently untrue. This is a lot of panicked law research suggesting that well over two thirds of our criminal laws now required no intent (aka mens rea) to convict.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe statutory rape in most jurisdictions requires the intent to have sex.
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Funny)
FACT: Half of the women you encounter (unless you're a REALLY poorly groomed neckbeard) will have consenting, spontaneous sex with you. You just got to approach them with some confidence. They sure as shit won't approach you. You can think society and its frequent use of the word "slut" for that.
Clearly, you don't work in the same elementary school that I do.
That is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard (Score:3)
The point is that it offers him plausible deniability as a fishing expedition - send it out and if one of the teen girls replies then he's got what he wanted
And do to that you would send a request for sex to your mom, your DAD, all your co-workers, your banker, your accountant, your SISTER, etc???
That is the dumbest theory I have ever heard. It's like "fishing" with an atom bomb, where not even the water or your own boat are left at the end of the process.
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the jury were raging retards.
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Insightful)
What the people in positions of power do have very little correspondence with what they *should* do.
We have kids here in the US getting put on the sex offender registry for creation and distribution of child pornography because their boy/girlfriends sent them naked pictures of each other. And the judges and prosecuting attorneys feel that this is a perfectly rational, reasonable thing to do -- to destroy these kids' lives before they're even out of high school to so that they can be protected from themselves.
An appeal to the authority of the judge isn't a terribly convincing argument.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
Well again, that's exactly the point here isn't it? It wasn't the jury verdict alone that determined guilt and a custodial sentence, the appeals judge also felt he was guilty enough to deserve a custodial sentence, albeit a slightly shorter, and suspended one taking into account the fact he'd already done 3 months.
The guy has made his way through a lot of the judicial safeguards (the police feeling strongly enough about the case to pass it to the CPS, the CPS feeling they have enough evidence to prosecute,
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Cop 1 to Cop 2: "So, uh, do you think this should be prosecuted?"
Cop 1, thinking: "Damn, I hope Joe doesn't think I'm a pedo for suggesting this might not be worthy of prosecution."
Cop 2, thinking: "Damn, Pete will think I'm a pedo if I don't say yes."
Cop 1 and Cop 2 in nervous unison, "Uh, yeah."
CPS agent being passed the case from Pete and Joe, thinking: "Well, this must be an honest mistake, right? But I'll lose my job if it's not."
Prosecutor to jury, "You're a pedophile lover if you don't think that sending gross text messages to children is wrong."
Juror 1 to others, "Uh, yeah, I'm not a pedo, so I can't condone this behavior."
Juror 4, thinking: "If I say no they'll all think I'm a pedo. Gotta vote guilty. Maybe someone else will stand up for him."
Judge, thinking: "If I don't throw the book at a convicted pedo I'll look like an asshole..."
Appeals judge, thinking: "Well, Judge Green and a jury found him guilty. I'll look like a pedo asshole if I don't uphold. At least I can give him a break and suspend the sentence, right?"
Slashdot: "How the hell could this possibly happen? Obviously an honest mistake, right?"
Re:I can only assume (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly? Whenever the topic comes up and I defend innocence until proven guilty or that convicted sex offenders should be allowed to live a life where they are not constantly persecuted I /do/ worry that others will see me as defending the pedos and vilify me for it.
Re: (Score:3)
The law probably is specific and doesn't take intent or mens rea into consideration outside of X is illegal, is this X for the less obvious ways to approach someone for sex.
It may be that the jury had nothing to say in the matter other then he was behind the messages. WE have a few laws like that in the US. Mostly, they are trivial laws like driving a motor vehicle without valid registration.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s10_causing_or_inciting_a_child_to_engage_in_sexual_activity/ [cps.gov.uk]
It
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither of those things are strange to be fair. He was their coach and it's not unusual here for the coach to do that sort of thing to tell them when lessons will be or to let them know he wont make it or whatever.
As for having a phone, well, this is the UK, most kids now seem to have a mobile phone by about the age of 5.
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's the question of why he had 13 and 14 year old girls' in his blackberry.
Why not? I have more than a dozen phone numbers for 13-14 year old girls in my cellphone. They are my daughter's friends, and I occasionally carpool them home from school, or need to find them at a mall, or whatever.
Then there's the question of why a 13 or 14 year old even has a phone
So they can call people. My daughter has had her own cell phone since she was eight. In addition to the convenience, it is a matter of safety. If she is ever lost or in an uncomfortable situation, Dad is just a button push away. She is not allowed to leave the house without it. Why would any 13 or 14 year old not have a cell phone?
Re:I can only assume (Score:5, Insightful)
I just tried to do this on my Blackberrry (Score:5, Funny)
I can't even figure out how to send a message to all my Blackberry contacts...
How does one make a mistake like that?
Re:I just tried to do this on my Blackberrry (Score:5, Funny)
When you accidently want sex from everyone on your contact list... that is how it happens.
Re:I just tried to do this on my Blackberrry (Score:5, Insightful)
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely fool-proof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
— Douglas Adams
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Re:I just tried to do this on my Blackberrry (Score:5, Funny)
Message recipients > Group > My Contacts > Select all.
It would be too easy to select the "My Contacts" group or "My Swimming contacts" group, instead of the "My shagging partners" group.
Project seX? (Score:5, Informative)
Thousands gathered in a small village (pop. 20.000), rioted, plundered stores, burned cars, damage ~ 1 million total.
A quick search on "projectX Haren" should suffice for more info.
On the guy... that is well inconvenient mate!
Hrm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's a swim coach. He probably frequently sent out mails for events and schedule changes to a large group of people.
This group probably contained most of his contact list.
And if he did it frequently, a smart device like a Blackberry (which I don't own, so I can only speculate) might well prioritise higher on autocomplete that group.
At that point, all that would be required would be carelessness in the heat of the moment...
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Informative)
It's much more likely that the Daily Mail made up some details (such as it being a Blackberry, or the guy being a swimming instructor, or the guy having a girlfriend etc.) than that they made up a case like this out of whole cloth and attached it to a picture of a real person.
From blackberry website (Score:5, Informative)
You can send a broadcast message to all contacts in a folder or to individual contacts. Recipients cannot reply to broadcast messages.
On the Contact list screen, press the Menu key.
Click Broadcast Message.
Complete the Announcement field.
If you have administrator permissions and want to send the broadcast message to all of the users on the server, select the System message check box. Click OK.
Click Recipients.
Click a folder.
Perform one of the following actions:
To send the broadcast message to all of the contacts in the folder, select the Select All check box.
To send the broadcast message to individual contacts in the folder, select the check box beside the contacts.
Click OK.
Click OK.
That seems hard to do by accident, but at least slightly possible.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Again, the cure is worse than the disease (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously (at least if the Daily Mail is to be believed, and I do have some doubts about this), the guy does not belong in jail, nor does he belong on the sex offenders list. The worst that should have happened to him was that he had to apologize to everyone he sent this message to, nothing more, nothing less.
Negligent? Maybe, but to err is human. All too often these days a simple mistake (whether it be sending the message or buying a Blackberry in the first place) is twisted into something that it simply is not: a crime.
Where are they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where are they? (Score:4, Informative)
There must usually be a guilty mind (mens rea) but - and you'll need to check the offence for exactly what's required -
1. Not always. There are strict or near-strict liability offences, e.g. carrying a knife where the only mindful aspect is knowing that you're carrying it;
2. Even then, there are loads of other forms of guilty mind: recklessness, knowledge, belief, (criminal) negligence, etc. Recklessness is particularly interesting: as of 2003 this is by default subjective, i.e. you have to show that the defendant knew that there would be a risk of a particular outcome but that he went to take that risk anyway. I might try as follows:
i) Firstly, show that he knew that it was easy to accidentally send messages to everyone - perhaps easier if he'd set up an "everyone including the kids" contact group.
i) Secondly, show the guy was in the habit of sending explicit messages to his partner.
It's like chucking stones around and accidentally hitting a greenhouse. Sure, every young guy thinks he is hot shit and will never fuck anything up, but if he is aware of the risk which comes from fucking up and breaking the greenhouse yet still chucks stones around, he has a guilty mind.
A 9 month suspended sentence is OK. What is far worse for him is the effect of his criminal record on esp. employment prospects. The law on spent convictions is completely fucked (e.g. sex offender register, enhanced CRB disclosure) and essentially condemns all but the least of criminals for life - coincidentally making them desperate and likely to commit more crime.
Re: (Score:3)
The article didn't talk much about it at all, but I'm betting any lawyer worth being called that would have argued he had no mens rea (mental intent) to specifically message those girls. However he did have an intent to have sexual actions, which does sort of change things legally.
As an example... A very different case, but if someone had the intent to kill a lawyer (for instance) and used a grenade through the window to effect the murder... But the lawyer was out and so the secretary died instead. Now he h
Re: (Score:3)
Killing the lawyer is a crime, so intending to kill the lawyer is relevant when you end up killing the secretary by mistake. You were attempting to commit a crime, and you did.
Fucking your (non-minor) SO is not a crime, nor is inviting your SO to fuck. You were not attempting to commit a crime, but you did.
If there was "transfer of intent" then it should be a transfer of the intent to commit a non-criminal action.
Only seen something like this once (Score:3)
A woman at work was having an affair with a man in the office. She wanted to send him a sexy picture via email, she accidentally sent it to the 4th floor distribution list.
She was gone so fast that I didn't even see her after the email, and she came back to get her things after hours.
Why the BB logo? (Score:3)
The relevant law is the sexual offences act 2003. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents [legislation.gov.uk]
The relevant section is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/10 [legislation.gov.uk]
"Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused or incited involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."
"would you fuck me" - is clearly inciting penetration, so you can do up to 14 years for this.
This is _NOT_ a strict liability offence.
The jury must have had reason to believe that he intended to do this.
Doing it by accident _CANNOT_ lead to a conviction, unless the judge misdirects them.
For example - if he'd directed that because he intended to send it to one person on the list, that intent carried over to the unintended recipients.
Indeed, I can't seem to see any 'strict liability' offences in the act.
I may have missed some.
At a minimum you need to have intended the action and not known the other party was underage.
Who uses SMS for that? (Score:3)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
>No, they go to the parents who transport their children to the meetings. So I'll ask again; Why did he have the phone numbers of 13 and 14 year olds on his phone?
Because they were 13 and 14 year old's NOT 6 and 7 year olds. That means they were high-school aged. Now I know in America you treat highschool teenagers that age as if they were babies but in the rest of the world they are allowed and indeed EXPECTED to take a modicum of responsibility for their own actions.
Including almost CERTAINLY having to get to practise THEMSELVES using available public transport, bycicles and the like.
My parents would have found the idea of "taking a high school kid to a sports practise" stupid beyond measure. They bought me a bike instead.
Even aside from that - there IS such a thing as non-sexual friendships between adults and teenagers. Teens seeking advice, role models and the like - and adults who are willing to play that role, often ones in positions like coaches, guidance councillors and such who are able and willing to give good advice to difficult questions that those kids may not be as comfortable discussing with their parents.
That's not just innocent, it's a NORMAL part of growing up and depriving kids of that thinking you're protecting them is a very good way to make them less likely to grow up into responsible adults.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
As far as teaching kids responsibility, one of my favorites from my sister's swim team coach:
Kid: "My mom forgot to pack a bathing suit."
Coach: "Is your mom on the swim team?"
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
"No, they go to the parents who transport their children to the meetings."
Kids use public transports outside the US, we're not backwards morons.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? Sentencing someone to 18 months in prison for a mistakenly sent text?
I think I would temper the condescending tone a bit. The reason why kids get driven to events in the US is largely because they are far away and too close together to school or other obligations to make it on public transportation and/or a bike in time. There is also the problem of early sunsets in the winter time (when school is in session) where a lot of sports events are held after dark making riding a bike a bit dangerous. We also aren't crammed into boxes living assholes to elbows from each other like a lot of people are in Europe..
Besides, this is all pointless because the coach probably asked for a contact number and the kids gave him their cell numbers instead of the home phone or their parent's cell number. At least with the kid's number, they didn't have to worry about if Dad or Mom was taking them or if they were riding with someone else or whatever could happen when you can't contact someone directly.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it you're actually making life more dangerous for children.
I pose this question to males out there: You're driving down the road and see a young child, maybe 12 years old, on the side of the road. It's cold, too cold to be safely outside, and they're trying to wave you down. You don't recognize them, but they're obviously distressed. Would you stop to help?
I, for one, would not. If it's some attention-seeking disturbed child, or just the child of some overzealous protective parents, I could wind up in jail with my life ruined for my efforts. Safer thing to do for me is pretend I never saw anything, and hope someone finds them. I'd even be nervous to call 911, because then it's "Why didn't you stop to help?" which makes me suspicious. Good luck kid, blame your parents' attitudes.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been in a situation just as you describe.
A month or so ago my neighbor's daughter knocked on my door. It was raining and cold and she had been locked out of her house. I have a daughter who does not live with me full time, so I let the neighbor girl in and sent her to my daughter's room to change into dry clothes and hang out until her mom to got home.
An hour or so later her mom arrives home and was very grateful... until she learned that my daughter wasn't living with me that week. My thanks? She called the police. I wasn't arrested or charged with anything, but an officer did arrive to take statements.
Next time her kid gets locked out, she can catch pneumonia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next time her kid gets locked out, she can catch pneumonia.
Piss off the little girl and you could be even more fucked now that her mom has shown her what's possible.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time the kid gets locked out call the cops about a neglected child locked out of her home.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't hypothetical. I remember a news article a few years back (can't find it online, so my memory here might be slightly off) about a little girl who drowned in a river or lake near a road in the UK. The girl had wandered off from the parent's cottage or something. A man had been driving by and thought it unsafe that the child was alone in the field, so close to water.
He drove on without reporting it right away (might not have had a cell phone). After the story broke that the girl had drowned he came
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah clearly if you know how to contact someone underage you're a pedophile.
Now let the government go through all your contact lists.
Re: (Score:3)
Because he was a swimming coach. He probably had their cell and their parents too. To notify them things like when and where they should have their swim meet.
Unlike say 20 years ago. It is common for a family to have more then 1 phone. And the kid is more resposnible for their information.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
These aren't kids. They are teenagers. You know, the age group where they are expected to be mature enough to look after their own life a little bit.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
See a poster above - outside the USA it's very normal for children of all ages to transport themselves to places. I was catching a bus home from school by the time I was 9.
If this guy was their swimming coach, then he had a perfectly justifiable reason for having their numbers in his phone, even if it was just so he knew which one of his team was texting him to say that she couldn't come to a training session.
Yes, he screwed up. But it doesn't justify the offence he was convicted of, which will place him on the offenders register for a minimum of 10 years, and has therefore completely destroyed his chosen career.
The ruination of a man's life is a hard price to pay for a social faux-pas.
Re: (Score:3)
>
The ruination of a man's life is a hard price to pay for a technical faux-pas.
If there was no intention to cause harm and there was no actual harm done then there should be no penalty or a symbolic slap on the wrist.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd not even call this a social faux-pas. It would be that if he had texted a coworker his wish for her to please him sexually, NOT KNOWING that such a behaviour was inappropriate.
This guy merely clicked a wrong button. I mean, hell, has the judge never hit the wrong button in an elevator? Never dialed the wrong number?
Re: (Score:3)
Phone number of parents is great, as they are responsible for their child (as they are still children by law). They will take the children to meets, pick them up etc. There is no need to have the child's phone number at all.
What a sick little twisted mind you've got. So according to you, I shouldn't have the phone numbers of my grandchildren? I'll conclude that you think that you couldn't be trusted with a child's phone number.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kids of a friend? Friends of a kid? Nephew/Niece? He needed to give them a ride somewhere once, he's an emergency contact for them, or maybe they friended him on Facebook because he's a buddy of their dad's and around the house a lot, and included their numbers in their profile?
There's a decent number of reasons that a 30-something normal adult would have the numbers of a few children in their address book. If there were like... 20 children that would start to get weird, but two seems pretty normal especial
Re: (Score:3)
My kid is on a hockey team.
All the parents and coaches have the contact info of all the parents, AND all the kids who have phones.
Because sometimes other parents take kids to games/practices.
This is on an 11/12 yr old team.
This is normal.
As for your point why those two? Probably because all the others on the team were 16. These two kids were 'swimming up' ie the best at their age, so they compete against the older kids. Same on my kid's hockey team. There's one 10 yr old. We have his phone number too.
Re:FTA... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid liberal bitch newscaster
Whether the newscaster was wrong or not, that was uncalled for.
Also, Mitt Romney needs to learn how to properly tell a joke - might I suggest he sit down with Mike Huckabee or Arlen Specter?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you even send a text message to your entire address book? This sounds more like the guy used some very poor judgement, but I doubt it was accidental.
The guy sent the same message to his family members:
Agreeing and allowing the appeal, Lord Justice Elias said: "The facts of this case are rather unusual...messages reading 'Would you f**k me? Fast or slow? Skin on skin' were sent to every single contact in his phone, including members of his own family."
So it does seem like a genuine screw up.
Re:Why did he have them in his address book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because he was their swimming instructor, and gave them a ride somewhere or something? It's not like he had dozens of minors' contacts lying around and a string of lewd messages to them in his contact history (believe me, the police will have checked with the phone company by now).
Christ, panic mongers like yourself are the reason children are increasingly living in padded isolation boxes to protect them from big scary reality, and men are terrified to so much as speak to a child lest they be accused of molesting them. It's at the point now where, out of self-preservation, I would drive right by a child alone on the side of the road in the middle of winter. I would not stop to help. Why? Because if god forbid something happened to them later, or they decided to say something about me, the world would ruin my life for the greater good.
Ask yourself if that's really the best thing for children. For every pedophile you've cowed into hiding (they don't go away mind you, and when they think nobody is looking they're still going to do horrible things) you scare away hundreds or thousands of decent human beings who would help a child in need. Your child is far more likely to be hurt by tripping and falling, getting lost, or eating something dangerous; and if you're not around, you'd best hope there's a woman nearby to help because with this attitude the men will stay the fuck away.
Re:Why did he have them in his address book? (Score:5, Insightful)
People like that just don't want to look at the facts. The facts are that the vast majority of pedophiles know the victim by being a family member or a friend of the family aunt or uncle). And while men are slightly more often found to be doing this sort of thing 1/3rd of pedophiles are actually women most are never convicted though and boys are far less likely to come forward if I woman makes a sexual advance).
Yet men and more so 'strange' men who are not family friends or relatives are the targets of the publics outrage over these things. It just goes to prove how irrational most people are and how sensationalist most of the media is.
Re:Why did he have them in his address book? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm the father of a 13-year-old girl, and I have several of her friends' numbers in my phone. Why? Here's a few reasons:
While my daughter has her own phone, she often forgets it or forgets to charge it. Also, she's often on restriction at her Mom's house and not allowed to have a phone there, and when she is, she simply leaves it at my house. (I have her every other week.) Thus, her friends often call me looking for her. I don't have a good memory for phone numbers, so I've saved the numbers of those who call looking for her often, along with their names, so the caller ID on my phone will show me the name instead of the number. That way, I can often answer with a simple, "Hi. She's not here, she's at her mom's" or simply hand the phone over to her to answer.
Secondly, and relating to number one, sometimes she needs to call her friends, and doesn't have her phone. Having their numbers in my phone allows me to hand it over to her and let her call them, without having to go through the hoops of calling their parents. (Some of whom are divorced, and thus it can be a guessing game as to which parent one needs to call to reach the child.)
(And parenthetically here, that's part of what led me to start saving the kids' numbers in the first place. After having done the game of "Oh, you need to talk to Jenny? Okay, I'll call her mom... hi, Angie, Margie needs to talk to Jenny... oh, she's with Mark? Okay, I don't have Mark's number, can you give it to me? Thanks. Hi, Mark, this is Margie's dad. Margie Andrews. She's a friend of Jenny, and she wants to ask her about... oh, she's over at Alicia's? Do you have the number there? No? Oh, Alicia has a phone? Okay, let me write that down...." two or three times a month for several months, I found it was much easier when she wanted to contact one of the other kids to just have her call that kid directly.)
Third, when she's out with friends and has forgotten her own phone (or it's out of charge), it makes it easy for me to call and get her, since I know who she's with. Even if they've gone out walking, or have walked over to another friend's house in the neighborhood, I can still get her, since I have the numbers of people she's actually physically with.
Now, I don't go around asking for these kids' phone numbers -- I just tag them with their names after they've called me, or save them after I've been given their number and had to call them. (I'd hope by now that in a world of Caller ID, all parents are teaching their children that if you don't want someone to have your number, you shouldn't call them directly.)
I also have the phone numbers of a few older teens who are in my weekly D&D group that meets at a gaming store. I'm the GM, so people have given me their numbers so I can let them know if I'm not going to be able to make it for some reason, or if I'm going to be late, or for similar things. Some of their parents I know; some of them I don't, since these are high school kids who have their own cars and get around on their own. I'd actually prefer to use email for that, since I usually know well in advance, but one of them especially checks her email very rarely, but always gets texts -- and, of course, sometimes I don't know I'm going to be running late until only an hour or so before the game, and many people don't check their email that often. (Usually in that case I actually just text two of the people, and ask them to text everyone else... but one of those is the girl who's the social hub of the teen group.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Daily Mail fail (Score:4, Insightful)
>>> If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
No, but I don't expect you will get charged with premeditated murder. Intention matters.
Re:Daily Mail fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, he did send a sexual text to underaged children. That it was by accident makes it alright?
Mens rea is sort of a thing in common law jurisdictions... It isn't an absolute/binary matter; but it has long been the case that both act and intent are what make the crime. This is why, for instance, 'negligent homicide' is different than '1st degree murder'. If you were to kill me by accident it obviously wouldn't be 'alright', I'd still be pretty dead, and depending on the circumstances you might be on the civil and/or criminal hook for some sort of negligence, recklessness, or indifference; but, yeah, you certainly wouldn't be going down on Murder 1 charges...
Having, thankfully, not dealt with a Blackberry user interface in a while, I have no idea where on the continuum from 'freak accident, could have happened to anyone' to 'epic negligence' sending a given message to your entire address book is; but none of those places are the same as intentionally sending the message to the legally problematic recipients.
Re:Daily Mail fail (Score:5, Insightful)
>If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
Maybe. You won't be charged with murder. You MAY be charged with manslaughter. The legal test for manslaughter is: 'caused a death where a reasonable person would not'.
So if reasonable precautions on your part would have prevented the death - and you didn't take them - then you're guilty, otherwise you are indeed innocent.
To make up a random example. You're a forklift driver. Your forklift runs downhil while you stop for lunch, runs over a car and kills the driver. Are you guilty ? Well if you had left the handbrake off - then you are. If you had pulled it up but the brake FAILED while you were gone, then you're innocent.
See how it works ?
So we can apply a similar test to this accident if it helps you feel better.
We know (and an appeals court judge has declared) based on the available evidence that there was no intent here. But was the accident excusable ? Well it depends - was it an accident a reasonable person would have been able to avoid ?
For that one would have to look at the interface of the specific phone, the methods that led to this happening and the particular circumstances of the case. You cannot just universally make a declaration about it. There is even the possibility that this was caused by an obscure or sporadic bug in that version of the blackberry OS - that even RIM may not know about yet and NO action of his would have prevented it. Such bugs can and do happen - this site is full of programmer's we've all seen bugs like that. If that is the case (and we - and likely HE doesn't know that) then he would be completely innocent by the "reasonable person" measure.
I sincerely doubt the Jury ever really tried to question how reasonable his actions were since they never even asked the intent question despite the strong evidence showing there wasn't any.
Now the fact is that this question quite academic - the question of whether he had acted in a reasonable manner hasn't been answered and we don't have enough information to answer it. The appeals judge may have, and may have decided on those grounds that he did NOT take reasonable precautions to keep his sexual message away from the minors and this is why he remains guilty - but the judge DID agree the actions were without INTENT and this is why his sentence was so significantly mitigated.
But that is just a guess - I haven't read the actual court reports so don't take this as a claim of fact, just a likely explanation of the outcome.
Re:Daily Mail fail (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but: intent may be irrelevant in this case. The current fashion is to make so-called "strict liability" laws, especially in the area of "child protection". For example, in the UK, if there are child-porn pictures on your computer, then you are guily of an offence, regardless of how they got there. I don't know, but the same may apply in this case.
The beauty of this is that it allows the police to arrest people like this unfortunate person and put them in jail without all the tedious arguments about whether they intended do harm or whether it was an accident. A jury will be told "if he sent the message then he is guilty, even if it was a mistake".
Indeed, it is even possible for a policeman to force someone to do something against their will, and then arrest them for it. Google the case of "Winzar (1983)" if you don't believe me.
Re:Daily Mail fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, he was an idiot. But the offence he was convicted of will place him on the Sex Offenders Register for a minimum of 10 years ; he can basically kiss goodbye to his job, or any job working with minors. He probably won't even be allowed back into a swimming pool, as an "area frequented by children".
His life has been ruined by a social faux-pas.
Re: (Score:3)
Chances are that that kid knows more about sex than any of us will ever forget.
Re:Daily Mail fail (Score:5, Funny)
If I'm driving down a 2-lane highway and have a catastrophic failure in a tire that causes my car to spin out, cross the center line, hit your car killing you... is that really my fault? What if it was a piece of debris in the road that caused the tire to fail?
No you would get off with that. If at the same time a notebook on your passenger seat with an intimate letter to your wife flew out of the window and landed on my teenage daughter's lap then you'd end up doing time.
Re: (Score:3)
Try hebephile [wikipedia.org] for pubescent, ephebophile [wikipedia.org] for the slightly older.