[ad_1]
Sending hard photos to a minor is sexual violence. This was established by the third criminal section of the Supreme Court, rejecting the appeal of the lawyers of an investigated person for having sent explicit messages and photos to a minor, inviting her to do the same under the threat of publicly revealing the chats. In the appeal, the defense of the 32-year-old had specified that “in the absence of meetings with the offended or induction to sexual practices,” the “sexual act” and therefore the accusation of related sexual violence would be missing.
WhatsApp, smart answer on Android: this is what they are and how they work
Initially, the Milan review court had confirmed the preventive detention in prison ordered by the investigating judge, but the defense of the child had appealed to the Supreme Court. Her thesis focused on the non-challenge of the crime of sexual violence: the defender argued that since there was no encounter between the two, the actual sexual act was missing.
According to the defense, “the suspect’s conduct did not affect the sexual sphere of the minor due to the absence of any request for sexual intercourse aimed at satisfying his impulses.”
Horror talk, 20 children exchanging photos of pedophilia and beheadings: the oldest was 17 years old
However, the Court of Review had already underlined – observes the Supreme Court – that “sexual violence was well integrated, even without physical contact, when the sexual acts implied the sexual corporeity of the injured person and were aimed at compromising the primary good freedom, individual in the perspective of satisfying the sexual instinct. ”In addition, Ermellini explains, the Magazine“ has identified the serious indications of guilt of the controversial crime in the induction to the exchange of erotic photos, in the conversation about previous sexual experiences and erotic tastes, in the growing threat of disclosing the chats in public. “In fact, the Milan Review Court had confirmed the custody in prison ordered by the investigating judge for the suspect, so the defense had turned to the Cassation alleging that, in the absence of the sexual act, the crime of sexual violence was not open to challenge … For the lawyers, it was also excluded or ‘child grooming’, that is, the solicitation of a minor through the web through a kind of circumvention to overcome psychological resistance. The reasons for the defense rejected by the Supreme Court, which considered the decision of the Magazine “solid and well-motivated.” The Ermellini also considered only the custody of the suspect in prison – now under house arrest – for being a repeat offender having adopted the same attitudes with other minors (“showing that he did not know how to control his impulses”) and because “working abroad would not have returned for surrendering to the police.
Last updated: 17:55
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
