I couldn’t help but write a blog about this story because the fact that the FBI issued a formal warning against this toy seems comically perverse. A Barbie that could be used by pedophiles to commit sex crimes, now I’ve seen it all.
“Video Girl Barbie" apparently has a camera in her chest that can record up to 30 minutes of video which can then later be streamed to a computer. The FBI specifically wrote in a November 30th memo that “Video Girl Barbie” could present, a “possible child pornography production method." Clearly, there is a potential risk for inappropriate sexual misuse of the toy and I can understand how parents may be concerned about the misappropriate use of the video camera by either their children, other children, or possibly pedophiles; however, I seriously question the wisdom of having the FBI issue a formal statement to the public. Highlighting this potential misuse is almost like a “how to” guide for potential sex offenders. If an alleged sex offender hadn’t contemplated misusing this toy previously, the FBI essentially just lay out instructions for how to commit child pornography and other sex offenses with “Video Girl Barbie”.

If you, or a loved one, has been accused of a sex offense, state or federal, then call the Law Offices of Karen L. Goldstein for a free, confidential consultation: (888) 445-6313.

In what appears to be an increasing wave of sex crimes committed in Los Angeles and Orange County by adults employed by county schools, in Westminster an Orange County school aide has been accused of using a cell phone to “sext”—to multimedia text nude pictures of himself to underage boys. The prosecutors believe that these “sexts” were sent with the intent to persuade minor boys to engage in sexual acts with the school aide. Mr. Mendoza also allegedly requested that the underage minor boys return the sexts with naked images of themselves.

Consequently, Mr. Miguel Mendoza, a part time school aide from Villa Park Elementary school has been charged with felony sex crimes including child molestation, otherwise known as lewd or lascivious act with a child under 14, and possession of child pornography, and distribution of child pornography.

There are numerous alleged victims in the case, all underage minor boys, including an 11-year old, a 15-year old and a 17-year old who all allegedly met Mr. Mendoza through the use of a cell phone application. Mr. Mendoza was arrested after allegedly agreeing to meet the 11-year old boy at a Fountain Valley convenience store.

If convicted on any of the alleged sex crimes charges, especially in notoriously conservative Orange County, Mr. Mendoza will face registration as a sex offender for life, and substantial state prison time.

As a sex offense criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, I witness firsthand the stigma which perceived sex offenders encounter at every turn of the criminal justice process. While most of society feels comfortable with having people convicted of sex offenses serve prison time, register as a sex offender for life, and be subject to numerous other restriction on their civil liberties and Due Process rights, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling which takes the curtailment of civil liberties to a new level: the indefinite federal civil commitment for sex offenders who have finished their prison sentence but are deemed to be “sexually dangerous” in the future.

The main plaintiff in the case, Graydon Comstoke, was deemed to be “dangerous” six days before his 37 month federal prison sentence stemming from a child pornography conviction. Other plaintiffs who also filed served from three to eight years in prison for various sex offenses from possession of child pornography to sexual abuse of a minor, otherwise known as child molestation. All the plaintiffs in the suit were scheduled for release over three years ago but Government Attorneys prevented their release under a civil commitment program put into place as part of the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

In an opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court held that the indefinite civil commitment portion of the Walsh Act was a “necessary and proper” use of federal authority which consisted of the authority to pass federal criminal laws, to punish such laws’ violations, and to preserve others’ safety.

Now, aside from the fact that this appears to be a federal intrusion into a matter typically regulated by the states (most sex offense criminal cases will be prosecuted on a state level), this opinion raises many Due Process concerns.

We know that understanding sex offenses, and sex offenders’ behavior is by no means an exact science. Doctors cannot agree whether it is possible to rehabilitate, and to help sex offenders, modify their conduct. Furthermore, many forensic psychologists believe that there is a significant difference between “hands on” sex offenses such as child molestation or rape and “passive” sex offenses such as viewing child pornography. It has been hypothesized by some doctors that persons convicted of offenses such as possessing child pornography have little-to-no risk of actually harming a child in the future. That being said, we are now left with the possibility that some alleged sex offenders may be indefinitely committed in prison because a pseudo-scientific analysis, that is likely subject to many interpretation, has determined that a particular inmate is likely to reoffend and is considered sexually dangerous.