Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Pardon Me?

As the investigation into the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia continues to heat up, Trump has reportedly asked for more information about the power of his presidential pardon. Specifically, he has asked about the power he has to pardon his aides, family members, and even himself.

In 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained that Nixon could not pardon himself. https://t.co/KKfSVe3Vzx

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017

He has also asked questions about the reach of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s team has been looking into whether it’s possible to fire Mueller or some members of his staff. Trump claims that Mueller should not be looking into any issues other than the allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. That worry isn’t without precedent. Kenneth Starr’s investigation into former President Bill Clinton’s land deals in Arkansas eventually led to his impeachment after it was discovered he had lied about an affair. But many point to Trump’s shakiness when it comes to Mueller as evidence that his team is increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of scrutiny placed on the president.

Bonus: for more info on what a presidential pardon actually is, check out Law Street’s explainer.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Eighteen to 20-year-olds everywhere have their attention turned to three states who are may be in the process of lowering the drinking age to 18-years-old. California, Minnesota, and New Hampshire all have legislation in the works that would allow people under the age of 21 to drink in certain circumstances. Though each plan is unique, with its own caveats and rules, it looks like this time next year 18-year-olds may be able to enjoy a drink every once in a while in these states.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s proposed plan, House Bill 1606-FN, was introduced to its legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Thursday and is sponsored by Republican Max Abramson. The bill’s aim is to try to dampen the binge drinking culture we see so much of in today’s society by allowing people between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink beer and wine in the presence of someone over the age of 21. The bill states that lowering the drinking age in this capacity will make it so that “younger people will no longer be initiated to alcohol consumption in the absence of adult supervision.” Essentially, the state wants to introduce kids to alcohol in a safer, more controlled environment than what a lot of teens are currently experiencing.

Binge drinking is a big problem in our country today, especially among underage drinkers. According to the CDC, “about 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.” The CDC also notes that excessive drinking costs the United States “$249 billion in 2010, or $2.05 a drink, from losses in productivity, health care, crime, and other expenses. Binge drinking was responsible for 77 percent of these costs, or $191 billion.” Many people who talk about lowering the drinking age cite European habits when it comes to alcohol; younger teens can drink beer and wine at a young age and are generally introduced to casual drinking in a family setting. This then leads to lower levels of underage binge drinking, which the United States clearly has a problem with.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s bill is slightly different and would allow people over the age of 18 to drink any kind of alcohol, but only in bars or restaurants. This new bill is an extension of Senator Phyllis Kahn’s proposal from this time last year, which would allow 18-year-olds to drink in bars as long as they are with their parents. This idea comes with the hope that teens will stop drinking to excess at dorm parties in favor of drinking responsible amounts in public. People under the age of 21 still wouldn’t be able to purchase alcohol from liquor stores–they’d only be allowed to drink under the supervision of the general public at restaurants where they can be easily cut off by bartenders or waiters.

Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, who currently opposes to the bill, said of the bill,

I think we are better off staying where we are. I haven’t talked to any of the legislators about it, I don’t have an etched-in-concrete position, but this debate has been going on appropriately for many years now, and the middle ground comes down to: It should be 21, where it is now.

The governor’s statements are technically correct, and we have some existing legislation like this to judge whether or not letting kids drink with their parents helps reduce binge drinking. For example, in Wisconsin, anyone under the age of 21 can drink alcoholic beverages in licensed establishments if they are with their parents or legal guardians. This law is technically at the discretion of the restaurants, so they can prohibit minors from buying or drinking alcohol even if the underage patrons are supervised. Unfortunately, for those hoping Wisconsin may be a shining example of how our country should lower the drinking age, statistics show that Wisconsin is actually one of the states with the biggest binge drinking problem in America. To be fair, this data was taken from adults ages 21 and over, but, it certainly doesn’t help further the theory that teaching people young will promote healthier drinking habits overall.

California

The final state that is considering lowering its drinking age is California, this time in the form of a ballot initiative. The initiative was drafted and last year by Terrance Lynn, who is now in the process of collecting signatures so the measure can be placed on a ballot this coming April. Lynn will need 365,880 signatures in order to have the general public vote on whether or not they want to lower the drinking age, which may be an entirely separate battle if the initiative makes it that far.

Because this law doesn’t have any financial backing and it would directly allow 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and consume alcohol legally, California could lose up to $200 million in highway funds. Why? After the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed, states that lower their drinking age to below 21-years-old can have their highway funding cut by 10 percent. This act was passed with the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an organization working to prevent the thousands of drunk driving deaths every year, in an attempt to decrease the number these deaths substantially. While the measure would significantly reduce funding from the federal government, an estimate from the state’s Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance said that the measure could increase sales tax revenue by several million dollars per year.

Final Verdict?

People under the age of 21 shouldn’t get too excited just yet, as all of these bills and initiatives still need to be voted on before they can become. Although many people may assume a lower drinking age popular among the general public, a public opinion polling suggests otherwise. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 74 percent of Americans claim they would oppose legislation to lower the drinking age to 18 while only 25 percent say they would support it. These rates are about the same as they always have been, so these efforts may have an uphill battle when it comes to getting enough public support.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Will Some 18-Year-Olds be Able to Drink Alcohol Legally this Year? appeared first on Law Street.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just conducted the annual National Youth Tobacco Survey and discovered that e-cigarettes are being heavily marketed to American teens.

The study, which was released Tuesday, concluded that seven out of 10 middle and high school students are being reached by e-cigarette companies through advertising. The concepts and themes being used by the companies mirror those used in cigarette advertising in the past. The CDC report stated:

E-cigarette ads use many of the same themes — independence, rebellion, and sex — used to sell cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products.

Right now, there aren’t a lot of regulations dictating how e-cigarettes can or can’t be marketed. For example, e-cigarette producers can advertise on TV, which traditional cigarette manufacturers haven’t been able to do since laws were passed to prevent exactly those practices four decades ago. According to CDC Director Tom Frieden,

The e-cigarette advertising we’re seeing is like the old-time Wild West…No rules, no regulations and heavy spending advertising the products.

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working on finalizing rules to govern sales to minors–it first proposed them in April of 2014, but they haven’t gone into place yet.

At the same time that more American teens and pre-teens are seeing e-cigarette ads, their use of e-cigarettes is also steadily climbing. More U.S. teenagers are using e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes–13.4 percent reported e-cigarette use in 2014, but only 9.2 percent reported using traditional cigarettes. While e-cigarettes are believed to be less dangerous than traditional cigarettes, there’s a pretty serious concern that they could become a gateway to traditional cigarette use for young people. A study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2015 concluded that freshmen in high school who used e-cigarettes were 2.5 times more likely to try traditional cigarettes down the road.

This news from the CDC comes at a time when many parts of the United States are trying even harder to keep young people away from cigarettes. For example, the state of Hawaii just made history by becoming the first state to raise the legal smoking age to 21. Yet some serious work needs to be done if e-cigarettes are also going to be kept from teenagers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CDC: E-Cigarette Companies Targeting Teens Through Advertising appeared first on Law Street.

With the widespread use of cellphones emerging in the late 1990s, the last few generations have been the first to have their every move documented for public consumption. Since then, cellphones have been ever present at many important events: proms, graduations, college orientation, and for first relationships. Still, within the last decade or so, cell phones changed from portable phones to portable computers with cameras attached, giving people the ability to take, edit, and share photos instantaneously. This ability has led to an increase in something known as “sexting,” defined as “sending nude, sexual or indecent photos (or ‘selfies’) using a computer, mobile phone or other mobile device.” In some cases, it can also include written messages or even videos.

Some states have adopted laws that have severe penalties aimed at teenagers who send, receive, or save such photos. These laws are not as severe as if they were legal adults possessing photos of an underage teen, but they are still serious consequences of which to be aware.

Dawn of a New Legal Era

Sexting laws are a relatively new concept, so that’s why they are somewhat murky to most Americans. Since 2009, many states have adopted teen sexting laws, and each year more states consider bills on the issue. States that already have laws include: Wyoming, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Indiana. Several other states are also considering introducing sexting laws through their legislatures. Most states focus on teen sexting, though there are a few that also legislate other aspects of the activity. As teen sexting spreads and becomes a worry among parents, it’s probable that these laws will be adopted on a wider scale. That doesn’t mean that it is entirely legal in those states without sexting laws, however. In the states without any sexting laws, teens who sext may still see consequences as a result of the pre-existing laws that target child pornography.

What are states doing about teen sexting?

There are some states that have adopted laws specifically for sexting. These laws have explicitly targeted the images sent among teenagers. For example, Connecticut’s sexting law targets teens who create, save, or spread photos of themselves or others.

Here’s an example of how Pennsylvania approaches sexting, as it is illegal for teens ages 12-17 to posses the naked photo of another person in the same age range. According to a Criminal Defense Lawyer resource page:

For example, both a teen who sends a photo of a nude classmate and one who receives the photo could be prosecuted under Pennsylvania law. Teen sexting is punished more severely if the defendant takes or shares a nude photo of another teen without the teen’s permission, and in order to harass that person or cause him or her emotional distress. For example, a boy who shares nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they break up could be charged with a more serious crime. Pennsylvania’s teen sexting law does not apply to images taken or distributed for commercial purposes, or images of sexual intercourse, penetration, or masturbation, or any other hardcore sexual images.

State laws differ significantly, however, depending on things like ages of majority and previous cases. Louisiana won’t allow anyone under 17 to send or keep pictures. Texas is one of the states that makes some allowances: if the minor sexts another minor, it’s not considered a crime, as long as the recipient’s age is within two years of the sender and the exchange is consensual.

For more information on your state, visit Mobile Safeguard’s Comprehensive list.

What do you do if someone sends this type of message to you?

Teen sexting laws prohibit both sending and receiving explicit images, which can be quite a gray area for some people, as well as some courts. How can you stop someone from sending you a photo? There’s a definite difference between requesting a picture and simply receiving one from another teen. The difference also comes from what you do when you get that picture.

Because of the grayness and the ability for sabotage, sexting laws typically prohibit “receiving and keeping” any explicit images. This means that if a teen or adult receives an image from a teen, the receiver must delete the message immediately in order to avoid legal trouble. To protect oneself, it would also be a good idea for the recipient to send a message stating that the image is not wanted or requested.

Federal Law and Sexting

Depending on the circumstances of the images in question, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

According to Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Depending on the circumstances, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 makes it illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to distribute any obscene visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Knowing possession of such material—without intent to distribute—is also a crime under the PROTECT Act. (18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1).)

Federal law also criminalizes causing a minor to take part in sexually explicit conduct in order to visually depict that conduct. Parents who allow this behaviorcan also be prosecuted. (18 U.S.C. § 2251.)

That doesn’t mean that we’ll likely see federal prosecution of juveniles for sexting. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) generally posits that, where possible, juvenile cases should remain in state courts.

What happens in states that don’t have sexting laws?

For those states that do not specifically legislate against sexting, the act is usually covered under child pornography laws. This includes creating, possessing, or distributing the photos of anyone underage. This means that the child who takes the picture can be in legal trouble. Many people question the punishment for these young children, especially when they may have been coerced into sending the photos. There has been much debate about what the penalties should be for teenagers who send those photos. Some think they should not face the same penalties as those who are over 18, especially because it can impact everything from college choices to potential careers and living situations. Those who argue against this type of treatment want some of the lesser penalties listed below for teens who are caught sexting.

What are the possible penalties for sexting?

The penalties for teen sexting involve a lot of red tape, juvenile and adult courts, and also include various criminal laws. Overall there is a lot of coordination required anytime there are juveniles in the justice system, which is why some states have specific laws against sexting. Usually, it takes a contentious case to prompt the creation of a specific law.

Juveniles

When a juvenile commits a criminal offense through sexting, that offense is typically handled by the juvenile court system. Juvenile courts have wider discretion in the kinds of penalties they impose. Some of the penalties could include a warning, fines, having to serve community service, completing counseling, probation, or even a sentence to a juvenile facility.

Adults

If the person is 18 or older, he or she will be charged as an adult and could face incarceration, fines, or being entered onto the sex offender registry.

Conclusion

What many consider to be fun and harmless flirting online or over the phone can actually become a severe crime with consequences for both parties involved. It’s best to know where your state stands on the issue and to be smart about it. Sending pictures or messages via your phone opens up the doors for a world of trouble and heartache.

 Resources

 Primary

Connecticut State Police: Connecticut Sexting and Teens

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act

Additional

Criminal Defense Lawyer: Teen Sexting in Pennsylvania

Daily Mail: Parents of ‘Sexting’ Teenagers Can Now Be Punished in Texas

Aggressive Criminal Defense: Sexting Laws and Legal Information

Washington Post: Stop Demonizing Teen Sexting. In Most Cases it is Completely Harmless

CNN: Chances Are Your Teen Has Sexted

 Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to credit select information to Criminal Defense Lawyer. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Sexting: What are the Legal Consequences? appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though the fake tanning trend is finally nearing its expiration date. Or at the very least, its legal limits. In recent months, multiple states have moved to restrict the ability of minors to access tanning beds. Teens under 18 in the states that have moved to legislate may need parents’ permission before indulging in the fake-UV rays, or be banned altogether.

Just a few years ago, tanning beds seemed ubiquitous for high school students looking to get a little more orange, despite that the dangers of tanning beds have been well known for years. Laws have always varied, but more states are moving toward banning minors outright, or requiring parental consent for those under 18. The American Cancer Society (ACS) tends to recommend the latter, highlighting the danger of tanning beds for young people. ACS South Dakota’s grassroots manager Carmyn Egge recently pointed out, “what we have found is that a person under the age of 35, who uses an indoor tanning device, their likelihood of getting a melanoma diagnosis [increases] by 59 percent.” Cindy Caneveri, of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network has cited similar statistics to the press, explaining:

Melanoma is now the second most common cancer for ages 15 to 29, and most common for ages 25 to 29. Melanoma is cumulative, so if you start out using a tanning bed [in your teens], you’re not seeing cancer until your late 20s.

States that have banned tanning completely for those under 18 include: California, Texas, Vermont, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Louisiana. Delaware just recently passed a bill as well, although it won’t go into effect until 2015.

While the states above have banned teen tanning outright, some states are settling for restricting the ways in which teens can tan. This summer, a new law went into effect in Pennsylvania making tanning tougher on minors. The Indoor Tanning Regulation Act took place last month, and banned anyone under 16 years old from using a tanning bed. It also required that 17 year olds have parental consent. A recently passed Missouri law is also cracking down on the ways in which teenagers can tan indoors. The state now requires that anyone under the age of 17 provide written permission from a parent before using tanning facilities.

The Indoor Tanning Association disagrees with the bans on younger people, pointing out that 16 year olds can drive, own guns, and in certain cases get married, so they should not be limited in their choices to engage in indoor tanning.

The laws, however, do make a lot of sense. Tanning can be a harmful alteration to your body, and it’s logical to leave the ability to consent up to adults. Cigarettes, for example, are illegal until an individual turns 18 and is no longer a minor. Skin cancer is actually more frequent at this point than lung cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 420,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed that can be traced back to indoor tanning. In comparison, a total of about 225,000 new lung cancer diagnoses were expected in the U.S. in 2014. While cigarettes and tanning beds carry very different types of carcinogens, the move toward restricting harmful activities for those underage is a traditional practice.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Saying No to Teen Tanning appeared first on Law Street.

Everybody loved Joe Rogan and the Fear Factor show when it was still around–there was just something about people doing crazy things on camera for money that was so enticing. When I was a kid and they would make people jump out of a helicopter or sit in a tank full of tarantulas, I always asked my mom, “what if something goes wrong?” She would always reassure me that there were trained professionals off-camera that would step in if anything were to go wrong, and that’s why they tell you not to do these stunts at home by yourself. That made sense to me, and I was comforted knowing that those people were surrounded by medics and professionals that would help them in case of a disaster. However, for some reason, people have taken these stunts to their homes, re-creating all kinds of “challenges,” and are harming themselves in the process. Here are my top 10 idiotic web challenges that have been attempted over the past couple of years.

[wooslider autoslide=”false” slide_page=”Dangerous-Kid-Games” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”DESC” order_by=”menu_order”]

This rant is specially dedicated to all the people who have engaged in the Fire Challenge and the Pass Out Game over the past couple of months; because without you this post would have probably never been written. First I’ll start with the people who thought it would be cool to be the human torch for a couple of seconds. Honestly, what were you thinking? I can assure you that no job is going to hire you because you slapped fire in the face, this is not something you can put on your resume, no person is going to date you because of your “fearless actions,” and honestly once people have moved on to the next fad in a couple of months; no one is going to remember you. 

The worst part is that there are actual burn victims out there that have lost ears, lips, noses, and are scarred for life. For life. These people have to wake up everyday and face the gruesome criticism that our society throws at them. And you? You take their worse nightmare and turn it into a game. Maybe there should be an “Acid Challenge”, where we pour acid all over ourselves. Or a “Poison Challenge” where we swallow poison and see who dies last? See how crazy these sound? Setting yourself on fire shouldn’t be any different; it is one of the worst ways to die and should not be taken lightly at all. So please do me, your loved ones, and yourself a favor: stop lighting yourself on fire and grow up.

For the kids that play the pass out game, I know most of you think that you are invincible. You’re young, you’re lively, and you’re healthy; so why are you trying to throw all of that away for a couple of laughs and some likes on a video? I know it is really hard to look at your actions from a different point of view, but I guarantee you when you look back at what you did as a teenager, the Pass Out game will be one of the things you regret. It takes three people to play this “game”–the person who is passing out, the person who pushes down on their chest, and the person filming. But all it takes is one of you to speak up and stop it from happening. We all do stupid things as we grow up, we all experiment, we all test our limits, we all make mistakes, but we should try and learn from these mistakes. We are given one life and one life only in this world, and however cliche that may sound, it’s true. Your parents did not give you life just so you can throw it away. So can we please stop abusing our bodies for the sake of a video? Because all it takes is one thing going wrong, and just like that you’ll be gone.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Challenge of the Week: Don’t Be an Idiot appeared first on Law Street.

Omegle is an anonymous chat site commonly used by teens. With a tagline like “Talk to Strangers,” it’s no wonder the site has quickly become known for its rampant sexual, creepy, and flat-out weird interactions. However, one anonymous user began a chat last week with a frightening message revealing the latitude and longitude of Julissa Romero’s body, a 12-year-old girl the user claimed had missing for about five months. The message was met with a swarm of feelings by the online community  Reddit.com, where a screenshot of the chat was first posted.

Thanks Reddit

I later found out that it was all a hoax, but I have to admit, upon first learning about the message, I didn’t know how to react. Should I be outraged? Should I be saddened by the supposed death of this young girl? Should I be relieved that her family and friends might finally be able to have some closure and begin the healing process? Or, like the majority of the users on the thread, should I merely scoff and shrug it off as simply another faceless internet user yearning for some spotlight? Well as I soon discovered, this is the internet, and in the words of quite literally everyone with half a brain and an IP address, you just can’t trust it.

The problem is that there are more and more incidences of people saying stupid stuff online that gets them in trouble and requires police resources to solve. Remember the 14-year-old Dutch teen who was arrested this April for tweeting terroristic threats at American Airlines? This bored, little girl had no idea her information would then be sent to the FBI via American Airlines for a thorough investigation.

I was dumbfounded by the entire thing. She created a mysterious posting as a member of Al Qaida, and thought we’d all have a nice laugh while she got retweeted approximately a bajillion times? Did she really not think anyone would care?!

Thanks Mashable

Keeping that type of general stupidity in mind, I read through the Reddit thread hoping there would emerge some sort of answer to whether this heinous Omegle message was in fact real or fake. But as I continued scrolling, it seemed to become more and more apparent that the skepticism the internet has brought to the online population is winning out in most people’s minds. Posts quickly drifted toward sarcasm with references to bad 90’s horror movies, in which the cast is always full of dumb high school or college students and even touched on the necessity of the “token black guy.” And for a while there before I knew it was all a hoax, I actually forgot about the little girl in the story, who had supposedly been missing for almost half a year.

Thankfully, Henry Gomez, commander of the Salinas Police Department, confirmed later that afternoon that the Omegle chat clue was all a giant hoax. In fact, it couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only was there no dead body at the coordinates listed in the chat message, just as the amateur google-map investigators of Reddit figured, but the “missing girl” wasn’t really missing. Although at one point earlier this year she was listed as missing, authorities investigating the case have assured the public that Romero is now “alive and accounted for.“

While everyone can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing young Remero is still alive, the sensationalism created by this Omegle prankster and the desperate Dutch teen should not be overlooked. Although both scenarios ended up being hoaxes, they didn’t just disturb online communities, such as Reddit and Twitter. While the Omegle incident only involved one police department, the American Airlines threat took the attention of the FBI. Does no one else see the problem with this? Besides the fact that kids as young as fourteen are turning to false terrorist threats to amuse themselves, their “pranks” are taking the resources of crime-fighting organizations away from actual crimes. If you ask me, it’s time we encourage our young people to find some new hobbies.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Omegle Murder Confession: Don’t Trust Everything You Read appeared first on Law Street.

One of the greatest fears of parents today is that their child or teen will be the victim of cyberbullying. Increasing numbers of young people today are engaging in malicious bullying acts online targeting their peers, which has emerged from the growing amount of social media platforms that enable them to hide. While there are factors that contribute to the likelihood of an individual being subject to this kind of bullying, the income of the family of targets seems to play a minor role if any. According to new data released by researchers at Michigan State University, cyberbullying affects young people in poor and rich households alike.

While traditional bullying rates still trump those of cyberbullying, the online version of cruelty among young people is increasing yearly. An academic study published in 2012 defined cyberbullying as “sending mean, vulgar or threatening messages or images, posting sensitive or private information online, pretending to be someone else online in order to make a person look bad or intentionally exclude a person from an online group.” From 2009 to 2011 alone, the number of those affected by cyber bullying increased from 1.5 to 2.2 million. Unfortunately, information released in 2011 is the most recent available data.

It was previously assumed that cyberbullying was predominantly the activity of young people in affluent areas. The reasoning behind this was the assumption that those living in impoverished conditions would have less access to the kinds of resources needed to participate in cyberbullying. This presumed difference in access to digital devices is referred to as the ‘digital divide,’ and according to Thomas J Holt, an MSU Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, does not exist based on their findings from researching cyberbullying.

Another contributing factor to these balanced levels of cyberbullying is the fact that significantly more young people have access to technological devices that can be used for this purpose. According to findings on cyberbullying.us, an October, 2013 survey found that of 400 middle school students interviewed, 97.5 percent had been online in the 30 days preceding, showing that the vast majority of youths have access to the Internet.

The MSU study seems to be one of the first of its kind, as it is only every few years that organizations release findings regarding rates of bullying. The team spearheading the research surveyed 2,000 students in rich and poor middle and high schools. The results revealed that living in poor, crime-infested neighborhoods was a significant predictor of physical, verbal and online bullying.

What can be Done to Eliminate Cyberbullying?

Teachers and parents of all socioeconomic levels need to increase their involvement and more closely monitor the online activity of their students and children. Holt emphasizes the importance of teachers and administrators to learn to combat bullying in both real and online settings.

Such a message is vital to ensure all forms of bullying are given equal emphasis

-Thomas J Holt

According to endcyberbullying.org, parents communicating with their children and setting guidelines for the use of technical devices can drastically lower the chance that they will engage in bullying activity in the long run. It goes both ways, however; youths are encouraged to speak with a parent or other trusted adult if he or she becomes the target of bullying.

[MSU Study]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PublicEpicness via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cyberbullying Knows No Socioeconomic Bounds appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, two 12-year-old girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, were arrested for stabbing their friend 19 times in hopes of appeasing a mythological character known as “Slenderman.”

The girls had allegedly been plotting the attack for months. They invited the victim to a sleepover the night before, and took her into the woods the next day, where the crime occurred. The girls allegedly stabbed the victim 19 times, missing an artery in her heart by just a millimeter. The victim then crawled to a road where she was found by a cyclist. Her condition was said to be stabilizing as of June 4.

In this case, under Wisconsin law, the girls are being tried as adults- meaning they will not be tried in juvenile court, which is the “default” for most minors who are arrested. Instead, they will face prison terms with the potential to extend far beyond their 18th birthdays.

In Wisconsin, juveniles over the age of 10 who are suspected of homicide have to be charged as adults. This law was enacted in 1996, as a way to curb violence among young people. The girls, if convicted, will face up to 60 years in prison- meaning at most, they will not be released until they are 72.

At least one of the girl’s attorneys is petitioning to have the case moved to juvenile court, but it could take months for a judge to decide whether or not that will happen. So while the fate of these girls is being called into question, here are factors that may influence how the trial plays out:

1. Mental Health

The girls claimed they stabbed their friend in order to appease a fictional character known as “Slenderman.” Originating in 2009, this character was created and depicted online in stories and pictures. The character is often depicted as being very tall, thin, and not having a defined face. The girls allegedly carried out this stabbing to get the approval of this character, and thought he had a mansion in the woods where the crime took place.

If their legal teams can prove these girls are deranged in some way, it could help their case. And if these preteens honestly believed in this character, and then acted so violently in its name, it could point to signs of mental illness. At this point, we do not have any information about whether the girls had histories of other violent actions. But if the court deems them unfit to stand trial by reason of mental insanity, they may be heading to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison.

2. Premeditation

If the girls had been planning the attack for several months, it could be a strike against them in the eyes of the jury- planning implies intent, and would show that the girls had multiple opportunities to re-think their plan. It shows this was not a freak act committed by two young girls who were not thinking clearly. Careful planning and consideration would definitely add weight to the homicide charges these girls are facing. During police interrogations, the girls said they went back and forth before one of them actually stabbed the victim. And one of the girls went so far as to say she had no remorse for committing the crime. All of these things would make a jury weary at giving these girls a second chance.

3. Age

This could be both harmful, and helpful. If the girls claim they committed this crime in order to appease this mythological figure- a jury could easily say they are old enough to know real from fake. After all, most states allow 12-year-olds to legally babysit younger children, so they are deemed to be at least somewhat responsible. It is an excuse that may work for a 6-year-old, but these girls have had plenty of time to learn right from wrong- and there is no gray area for stabbing a “friend” 19 times.

On the other hand, 12-year-olds cannot even drive, and these girls were in middle school. If they have a compassionate jury, it is possible they would rather see the girls given a second chance at reform rather than being locked up for life after one terrible act. After all, a lot of people are fed up with how punitive, rather than rehabilitative, the prison system is.

It seems like the best case scenario for the girls is if the case is moved to juvenile court. But with the media attention and violence associated with the case, that is unlikely to happen. Determining the girls’ motive and intent will be critical when a jury deliberates this case. The victim is alive to tell the story, the girls have apparently told their side to the police, and the weapon was collected. Unless they are found to be unfit to stand trial, the girls are probably going away for a long time.

[Star Tribune] [Boston Globe] [NBC]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ mdl70 via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cold-blooded Killers, or Stupid Preteens? A Jury Will (Probably) Decide appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication with friends–pet pictures, selfies, or just a life update in photo form.

Snapchat has received some criticism for possibly making “sexting,” the sharing of suggestive or explicit photos, easier. Because pictures automatically disappear after a few seconds, it may be easier for young people to send inappropriate photos without fear of later distribution. The problem is that it’s not that hard to save snapchats–there are apps to secretly save snapchats. Or for the more brazen, it is possible for a recipient to screenshot a snapchat, but the sender does receive a notification. You can easily take a picture of a snapchat on one phone with another phone or camera. For the most tech-savvy, there can be ways to access secret files on a smartphone. There have been dozens of cases of people posting their sexting partner’s compromising snapchats to the internet.

Now in all fairness, the trend has not been quite as widespread as feared. A recent poll found that only about 15% of Snapchat users admitted to using it for sexting purposes. The creators of Snapchat won’t reveal how many people have downloaded their app, but given its popularity, it’s safe to say that 15% of users is probably a fairly large group.

Now, if snapchat was just an app used by adults, this wouldn’t be too problematic. Moral and ethical issues aside, it is legal for adults to send nude photos back and forth, if they so wish. The problem that arises with Snapchat is that it may be being used by teenagers to send pictures back and forth, which can be considered distribution of child pornography.

There have been actual alleged cases of child pornography sent through Snapchat. In November, ten boys near Montreal aged 13-15 were investigated for peddling child pornography. They convinced their girlfriends to send them nude or partially nude photos, and then shared them among themselves. The girls did not know that the pictures were being distributed. The boys are due back in court on January 20th.

Teen-to-teen transmitted photos are one thing. But now an even creepier use of Snapchat has resulted in a new arrest. This week in Missouri, a mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment after she sent snapchats of both herself and her 14-year-old daughter topless. She claims that she didn’t take the picture herself, but one of her other daughters did. That claim is contentious, because according to Prosecutor Tim Lohmar, it seems that the woman and her daughter are posing for the photo.

There have also been cases of adults sending explicit snapchats of themselves to minors, such as Joseph Johnson, a middle school teacher in Florida.

Snapchat might make sexting more guilt-free, but I can’t imagine it makes it that much so. It really is pretty easy to save a picture sent through the app. I think the bigger issue at play that warrants discussion is the use of social media to send inappropriate content. As children get smartphones, tablets, or computers at younger and younger ages, lines become fuzzier. The truth of the matter is that teens will always push the envelope, and science tells us that they’re quite not as good at making sound decisions as adults.

While snapchat is undoubtably fun, it can be dangerous, and teens sending pictures among themselves can have serious consequences. The Missouri woman being charged absolutely deserved it, but as for the teens, I think the issue is a little fuzzier. I know I’ve cautioned this before, but I truly think that as our technological abilities change, our laws need to keep pace.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Summer Skyes 11 via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.

Picture a drug-dealing teenager in your head. Maybe he’s white. Maybe he’s black. Maybe he’s hispanic or asian. But if the image you’ve conjured looks anything like those portrayed in the media, three things remain the same; he’s a man, his clothes are baggy, and you can probably find him in a back alley somewhere, slapping hands with junkies for cash.

But in a study featured in the Sept. issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice, social work researchers have found that the old corner store cliché of adolescent drug-sellers no longer suffices. Authors Jeffrey Shook, Michael Vaughn, and Christopher Salas-Wright argue that there are three different classes of adolescent drug dealers: dabblers, delinquents, and externalizers.

Dabblers, Delinquents, and Externalizers

According to the study, dabblers rarely use illicit substances themselves, and participate in violent or risky behavior even less. But in comparison with the general population, dabblers still show signs of elevated, marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use. Of this class, 62% said that they have sold drugs only one or two times in the last year.

A new study shows three classes of teen dealers, all of which share elevated levels of marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco use. Courtesy of Torben Hansen via Flickr.

Delinquents, however, participate in violent behavior more often than dabblers. “Members of the delinquent class” reads the study, “were significantly more likely to reside in households earning less that $20,000 or between $20,000 and $49,000 per year.” But among this class, teenagers were not likely to use illicit drugs like crack/ cocaine, or other hallucinogens.

Finally, the group the authors deemed the “externalizers” engaged in risky and violent behavior the most. Externalizers often come from broken homes, and households where parents do not condemn the use of illegal substances. Externalizers often times belong to peer groups where drug use is the norm.

The study, called “Exploring the Variation in Drug Selling Among Adolescents in the United States,” uses data from the  National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH.) The researchers panned through a pool of 12 to 17 year-olds from across the country to find 3,080 adolescents who reported to have sold drugs in the last 12 months. They then ran analysis on participants for attributes ranging from grades in school to propensity toward risk.

One of the authors, Jeffrey Shook PhD, is an associate professor of social work at the University of Pittsburgh who holds a doctorate in sociology from the University of Michigan. He first began to look at youth drug dealing  while writing his dissertation on how court systems process juvenile delinquents. Shook says he began to see trends between selling drugs, and using them.

“The more that I got into it, the more that I looked at some of these links, particularly the link between use and dealing. A lot of the ethnographies that we get, a lot of them focus on urban drug dealing which doesn’t show as strong of a link [between use and dealing] as I think that we’re finding.”

Interventions, New Approaches

In the past, scholars have delved into the differences between drug-dealing youth and the general youth population; but never before has such a study been performed with the guise of comparing drug dealers to other drug dealers. This, the researchers say, will “help reveal key differences in the characteristics and behaviors of these young people and aid in the development of interventions that better reflect the nuances of drug dealers and drug markets.”

One possible intervention, Shook says, could be community based treatment. Rather than the current system, which he believes has a woefully misguided focus on “a more punitive response,” weeding out drug use at the grassroots level could have substantial results.

But he admits that adolescent drug dealing is an area that needs more research before any solid claims can be made on how to bring about wholesale change in the system.

“Each [study] tells you a little part of the story. You have to keep doing them and putting together the picture. I think there’s a lot more work to be done,” Shook said.

[Journal of Criminal Justice]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Justin Scott Campbell via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 3 Kinds of Teen Drug Dealers, Study Says appeared first on Law Street.