Consequences of Breaking Trust
This article by Hasinoff (2017) discusses the case of 18-year-old Adam Allen sharing the explicit photos that his ex-girlfriend privately shared with him. Allen spitefully sent explicit photos to the teen girl’s friends, family, and teachers. Allen was accused of being a sexual predator because of his distribution of these photos. Many people who observed this case took two different sides: supporting the young man by blaming the victim or accusing Allen of being a sex offender.
Based on the five sources of ethical standards (Markkula Center, 2018), the Rights Approach would be an excellent method to assess this case’s outcome. The Rights Approach is based on the belief that humans have dignity based on their human nature per se or their ability to freely choose what they do with their lives (Markkula Center, 2018). It also states that human beings have the right to make their own choices about what kind of life they want to lead, be told the truth, not be injured, and have a degree of privacy (Markkula Center, 2018). This relates to the sexting case in this case study because the teen girl that sent the photos had her rights violated by Allen when he chose to share her private photos. The teen girl is entitled to determine what type of life she decides to lead and make her own decisions, even if that includes sending nude pictures of herself to her then-boyfriend of the same age. She is also entitled to a degree of privacy, which she trusted Allen with until he ultimately broke that trust between them.
As Hasinoff (2017) explains, “the Allen case was a missed opportunity for journalists to raise larger questions about the sex offender registry and the appropriate responses to sexual privacy violations.” I agree with Hasinoff that journalists and the media could have changed their approach to this case and could have acted more sensitively towards the matter. They had a chance to discuss higher importance questions that could educate the public on sexting and privacy matters with minors.
Allen should be charged as a sex offender since he was 18-years-old at the time of the occurrence. Whether he claims it to be a mistake or not, his actions were malicious and held ulterior motives. By sharing his ex-girlfriend’s nude photos, he knew that it would embarrass her and bring shame to her family and make an uncomfortable situation for her school life since he sent the pictures to her teachers as well. Allen had ill intent and should receive the punishment of being listed on the sex offender list for him to learn his lesson and never violate someone’s privacy or trust again.
One notable point in the article that Hasinoff discusses that interested me was Allen’s public apologies and how it could have offered the teen girl validation (Hasinoff, 2017). This reminds me of the concept of restorative justice, where it aims to have the person who committed the crime or offence to find a way to make amends with the victim. Amends will vary from victim to victim and is not a one size fits all approach; however, it offers a form of healing that is a voluntary process if the two parties involved are willing to work together. Restorative justice could have helped the teen girl and provided her with a feeling of solace and justice towards the offence committed towards her and her character.
Work Cited:
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. (2018). Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.scu.edu/media/ethics-center/ethical-decision-making/A-Framework-for-Ethical-Decision-Making.pdf
Hasinoff, A. A. (2017). Sexting and privacy violations: A case study of sympathy and blame. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(2), 202–217. Retrieved from https://www.cybercrimejournal.com/Hasinoffvol11issue2IJCC2017.pdf (Links to an external site.). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1037391
