Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.

[genkaus]

A simple admission by the kid is all it would have taken to establish intent in most cases. As it was, he was charged on desecration. Others have mentioned perhaps he could have been charged for tresspassing as well. I am not asserting that this kid could be charged with any of these in court (and my additions to the list of potential charges was merely meant as other examples of potential avenues that might exist), I am merely trying to demonstrate that there are real potential charges here for which the kid may be guilty of -- for which we have no way of knowing about -- that justifies his sentence.

Guilt isn't decided on potential charges nor is sentencing justified by it. When a DA brings charges, he should have a good faith basis that he can prove the charges and unless there is proof, the kid is deemed innocent. Throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks is not proof of guilt.

I agree that this the majority opinion here, but mere opinion does not demonstrate a "miscarriage of justice." If we are entertaining mere opinion, I would assert that this kid's parents likely played a major role, if not the dominant one, in this sentencing.

If all of the assumptions people are making are true about the kid's true intentions (i.e. this kid had no intent other than making a silly photo for his wall) AND this kid's parents were entirely on his side, I have very little doubt the case would have been lost by the city at some point (either initially or in appeal). The actual charge of "desecration of a venerated object" is one of those silly small-town statutes that is ripe for challenge, and if the parents agreed that this was a miscarriage of justice, I would think this case would have attracted additional support from the FFRF or ACLU. But, since this is not what happened, in my opinion I think its reasonable to assume that either:

(1) the kid's parents were likely over-zealous christians, just like the DA, and at the very least, together, they agreed on this sentence to "teach the kid a lesson" or

(2) the DA did actually have some sort of evidence, other than the photo, that demonstrated some other more serious intent that would actually stand up if it went to trial.

Does that clarify my Devils advocate position a bit for you?

You forgot option no. 3 - an expensive protracted trial is not in the kid's best interest. The parents probably got the advice that taking a plea and putting the mess behind them is preferable to a long trial where there is no certainty of verdict. The kid was guilty of desecration - that much is true - but since the law itself is unjust in this case, they'd likely lose the case, get the kid to spend time in juvie, appeal it all the way up to the supreme court which would then be in a position to overturn the law. A very lengthy and uncertain process whereas taking a plea and doing community service has him back to his life right now.

That is also probably what the DA was counting on too.

I think I am the only massochist here so I'll give you my two cents. I don't think the kid would deserve any punishment for a photoshop mock up. I am fairly sure that the mere appearance of this picture on facebook itself is not a violation of the law in anyway. The photo merely became the document for which the prosecutor can use to prove the 'desecration" actually took place. As a photoshopped image, it would merely be freedom of expression, a piece of artwork.

What was desecrated here was the image of Jesus. I doubt that the townspeople had any special reverence for the statue itself - apart from what it represented. So, whether you pose in front of a statue or simply photoshop yourself in, the implication is the same - Jesus is giving you a blowjob. Which means there is the same level of desecration and the same level of offense caused in the community - which, let's face it, is the only reason why this kid was prosecuted.

So why, according to you, should there be no punishment in that case?