Sexting: How Did We Get Here?

by Katherine Scardino

Wikipedia defines sexting as the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photographs, primarily between mobile phones-- a combination of the words “sex” and “texting.” The term sexting was first published in Sunday Telegraph Magazine, a British broadcast newspaper, back in 2005. Most, if not all, states have laws against child pornography, so how can we allow sexually explicit photographs of our children to be sent across the Internet? And, more importantly, how and why is this happening?

Many states find themselves in a quandary about how to handle this issue. Teens sending nude pictures of themselves to each other is basically child pornography. If someone under the age of 18 takes a pornographic photo of themselves and then sends that photo to someone else, they are distributing child pornography. And, of course, the person who receives the photo is in possession of child pornography. These charges can potentially carry stiff criminal penalties. In some instances, the district attorney may determine that the acts involved in sexting constitute distribution or possession of child pornography and decide to prosecute. Others times they do not. Some states are interpreting the problem differently and coming up with various ways to deal with the problem, but it will most likely take a number of years for the laws to formulate and become even remotely consistent. 

In Texas, our state Attorney General has opined that adults with nude or semi-nude photographs on their mobile devices can be investigated and tried on felony child pornography charges. Teenagers with photographs of other teens aged 18 and under can be prosecuted, and face up to 10 years in prison. The recently proposed Texas Senate Bill 407 gives prosecutors an additional tool to use when prosecuting teens who engage in sexting by providing a more appropriate offense. 

Under Bill 407, charges for sexting for first-time offenders who are younger than 18 are considered a Class C misdemeanor instead of a felony child pornography charge. Those teen offenders, as well as their parents, may also have to participate in an education program. The proposed new law would also give teens the chance to apply to have the sexting charge expunged from their records. One of the good points of this proposed law is education. It requires school districts to provide information to students and parents including the legal and emotional impacts of sexting. If approved, this Texas statute would become effective in September 2011.

But, do you really think making parents go to some class to hear about their teenagers new “fun thing to do” and the evils of taking naughty pictures will make any impression on these kids? Is sexting going to be blamed on the parents? Surely there is something deeper going on here. Yes, parents need to watch over their children. Yes, parents need to teach their children to be responsible, law-abiding citizens. Do you think we just have kids who make dumb mistakes, or is this new craze reflective of the times? 

Sexting is simply a result of advances in technology enabling new forms of social interaction. Messages with sexual content have been exchanged over all forms of historical media. Newer technology allows for the recording and exchange of photographs and videos, which are intrinsically more explicit and have greater impact. But, one important risk to remember is that material can be very easily and widely propagated, over which the originator has absolutely no control. Once it is on the Internet, it is gone forever.

Sexting is popular with teenagers. It is a new thing to do. But it must be controlled. Whose job is it to intervene and make some changes? Is it the parents', schools' or law enforcement's job? Or a combination of all three? Obviously, in my opinion, all three must bear some responsibility. But, what bothers me is that parents get first shot at teaching their children morals, citizenship and respect. I cannot help but cringe at the thought of a young girl feeling so emotionally numb to believe that it is cute or cool to send a nude photograph over the Internet to a boyfriend, or just a friend, which is even worse.

We really should do something about this.

Tweet

She Drank Martinis, Drove 115 MPH and Allegedly Killed This Smiling Mother of Four

Hunt for Justice

by Cynthia Hunt

This isn’t one of my flashier posts about chasing a serial killer or another high profile crime that I have covered. It is about an alleged killer—a woman who investigators say got wasted at a martini bar, jumped behind the wheel of her car, and drove it 100 mph into the back of an innocent mother’s vehicle. (Cheryl Guberman, pictured left, died in the accident)

If you think you are mad now, wait until you hear what Pamela Pugh allegedly said after the crash.

Officers Say Pugh Made Up a Big Lie

Constables on the scene say Pugh told them an elaborate story of how another car cut her off, caused her to hit the toll road’s concrete barrier, and then fled the scene. Deputies could not see Guberman’s truck which had actually plunged into the dark woods 44 feet below and down the road from where Pugh stopped.

Two hours later the husband and son of 44-year-old Cheryl Guberman found her dead in her wrecked vehicle. That night, Cheryl was simply driving on the Hardy Toll Road, the road that many Houstonians take to the airport, to pick up one of her sons. Cheryl was a mom of four.

Technology Tells On Pamela

Officers, who didn’t know about the real victim, did know one thing. They say Pugh stunk like booze and could not balance. The experienced defendant refused to take a breath test or to submit to field sobriety tests so officers arrested her and took her in for a good ‘ole blood test. (Pamela Pugh, pictured below)

Technology is a great thing.

Pugh’s blood alcohol content showed she was 0.19—more than double the state’s legal limit.

Technology disproved Pugh’s story in another big way.

Car Computer Proves Pugh Drove 115 MPH

The computer on Pugh’s Chrysler Sebring shows she was driving 115 mph five seconds before the crash and 100 mph one-tenth of a second before impact. The computer also shows that Pugh slammed into Guberman without ever hitting her brakes.

Pugh, who was at first charged with DWI, now faces charges of intoxication manslaughter thanks to all that technology.

Technology could have …and should have…saved Cheryl Guberman’s life.

Can We Charge The Texas Senate with Intoxication Manslaughter Too?

Two weeks before Cheryl was killed, the Texas House passed a bill requiring people convicted of drunk driving to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car. The Texas Senate never even held one hearing. I’m sure the Senators were busy with more important matters like talking to lobbyists.

It probably won’t surprise you that Pugh was convicted of drunk driving in 2007.

It’s no secret that convicted drunk drivers continue to drink and continue to drive. I’ve done the story. Other reporters continue to do the story. Studies prove it. Graves illustrate it. The devastated families left behind can tell you about it.

Jury Sentences Texas Drunk to 75 Years in Prison for Ninth DWI

Just outside of Houston, TX in Brazoria County, a jury just sent Keith Peltier to prison for 75 years. It was his ninth DWI conviction. Peltier’s attorney Jon Jaworski says the sentence is too severe and that his client was not drunk but in diabetic shock.

Really Jon?

You expected a jury of fine Texans to believe that one? Even if you are right, your client should have been locked up years ago. It shouldn’t take nine DWI convictions to get these liquored-up killing machines off the road.

As for Pugh, she has now hired defense attorney Troy McKinney, a man the Houston Chronicle says is known for successfully defending DWI cases.

My heart breaks for all the Guberman children. One of Cheryl’s sons graduated from high school the same week his mother was killed.

Technology could save the lives of other moms like Cheryl if the Texas legislature would simply do its job and use it. Perhaps the Senators can make time in their busy calendars to schedule a hearing and listen to Cheryl's husband of 23 years or her four children…especially the son who helped his dad find his mom’s body.

Tweet

Lives Thrown Away

by Connie Park

On April 2, 2008, at Cedar Bayou Junior High located in Baytown, Texas, police responded to a call where a newborn baby was found dead in the toilet of the girls bathroom. The infant, a boy, had been suffocated with toilet paper stuffed in his mouth.

According to the autopsy report, the death was ruled a homicide--the baby was delivered at full term. Additonally, the baby sustained blunt trauma to the head and neck. The young teenage mother was only fourteen years old and is currently facing capital murder charges.

A similar case occurred recently at a Houston hospital where a newborn baby was found wrapped in paper towels and discarded in the bathroom trash can. Unfortunately, by the time the baby was found, he was brain dead and died a couple of days later.

Over recent years, cases like these have been way too common. According to statistics, prior to 1999, just in the state of Texas alone, 33 newborns were been abandoned. In 1999, the Texas legislature enacted the first Safe Haven Law, also known as the Baby Moses Law, in the United States. This law allows mothers to leave their unharmed newborn babies at police stations, hospitals, and firehouse facilities withour fear of prosection.

In spite of the Safe Haven Law, murdered babies are continually being found discarded in places like trash cans, Dumpsters, and bathrooms.

Several years ago, my partner and I were assigned to follow up on a hospital call where a young female teenager was being examined for a miscarriage she had early in the morning.

The teenager told the attending doctor and nurse that she was only six weeks pregnant but the examination revealed that she delivered a full-term baby. She repeatedly told them she was only in the first trimester of her pregnancy. The important question that remained was where she discarded the newborn baby.

During the initial interview, we urged the young mother to tell us where she'd left the baby so that the infant could receive a proper burial. We told her that was the least she could do for her baby.

After several long minutes, the young mother tearfully told us that the baby was born early in the morning when she was inside the bathroom of her home. Everyone was sleeping in the house so when the baby was born and he started crying she became frantic and panicked. In order to stop the baby from crying, she placed her fingers around the tiny throat of the baby until it stopped crying. He did stop crying and, sadly enough, the tiny newborn stopped breathing as well. She cleaned up the bathroom and went back to her bedroom.

But where was the baby? The young mother confided in me and told me that I would find the baby in the cabinet of the her bathroom. She put her dead baby in a plastic trash bag and placed the bag behind the toilet paper.

Dreading the worst, we drove to the house and met with family members. The family was surprised about the investigation and why we were there. The sister directed us to the bathroom and exactly the way the young mother described it, we located the baby. I opened the cabinet door and behind the toilet paper I found a tied up plastic bag. I untied the trash bag and looked inside and found a tiny lifeless newborn baby. This was something I thought I would never see, much less even imagine. But something that sadly will never leave my memory.

The young mother told me no one knew about her pregnancy, even the father of the baby, and that she didn't want her family to find out. She was scared and didn't know what to do. The tragic thing about the whole situation was that if she only reached out to her family they would have been there for her. They said they would have supported and loved that baby regardless of the situation. I know I could never understand the young mother's explanantion of her actions and how she took the life of her own baby.

What causes these mothers to kill their innocent babies? Is it the lack of education, lack of values, lack of family support, mental illness, or some combination of all the above? Where are the babies' fathers? What role, if any, do the fathers play in all of this? There are no justifiable explanations or excuses for why these babies are discarded in trash cans or tossed in the bathroom toilets. I do know there are many ways where these innocent babies' lives could have been saved.

One thing these young mothers seem to have failed to consider in their moment of panic: When they tossed their babies' lives away, they threw away their own as well.

The young mother whose baby I found was charged with capital murder. Because the court did not certify her as an adult, she was sent to the Texas Youth Commission to serve out her sentence.

Tweet