To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

I wasted an hour of my life watching Dateline's To Catch a Predator. For the few, if none, who don't know the program: an advocacy group poses as underaged children on the internet and invites adult men to come have sex with them. They are arrested upon arrival in a sting operation. I'm interested to see what the forum thinks of this activity, and for those who think it is permissable in this instance, but not always, where would you draw the line?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

Has anyone been tried and convicted because of this program?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

How underaged?

Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
How underaged?

Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely beyond the scope of the OP.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

This is actually an interesting philosophical question, good post.

I will spent some time thinking about it and post my conclusions.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

Thoughtcrime.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

I'm pleased at the apparent wide difference of opinions, I'd like to hear some reasonings though.

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone been tried and convicted because of this program?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and none have used the entrapment defense with success.

[ QUOTE ]
How underaged? Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

The advocacy group poses as 12, 13, or 14. Young enough where the men always are aware that having sex with them is against the law.

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughtcrime.

[/ QUOTE ]

They usually charge them with transmitting obscene material to a minor too. As for actually having sex, these guys get nailed under intent laws. I guess showing up at the house with condoms passess for intent - taking considerable steps towards its completion, beyond thought. Like if a shoplifter put something in their purse, but didn't actually remove the item from the store yet. Even then, I tend to agree with you. You don't know that all these guys would have gone through with it, so instead we criminalize the probability that they will. But taking the intent laws as given, no one has an opinion of why it is or is not acceptable for authorities to misrepresent themselves or entice citizens into committing a crime?

For those who say yes, but not always, when do you tell authorities to stop? Is it ok for them to close off a street so no cars can be seen, and then bust people for jaywalking? For what types of crime do we draw the line?

For those who say no, but sometimes, where do you start drawing the line? Is it kosher to go into a violent anarchist chat room, tell everyone the president will be wide and open at block X on Sunday. And then stake out rooftops and arrest anyone who comes with a gun?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

I'd say that taking the step from talking online to showing up at a young girl's house with condoms is definitely crossing into criminal territory.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

It is a private group doing the 'entrapment', not the police. Here's what wikipedia says about the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverted-Justice.com

When I read the 'PJ' website a couple of years ago I was impressed with their methods and safeguards, they work pretty hard not to entice or initiate and they run their IM through a proxy logger to prevent a rogue volunteer from making stuff up. They post the chat logs so you can decide for yourself.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

Yeah they work in tandem with the group. That's part of how they avoid entrapment. I was simplifying so as not to get into a discussion of the legal nuances that allow a private group to do the actual misrepresentation. The authorities coordinate with the group, and stake out houses with the group. PJ would never do this if authorities didn't cooperate. In my opinion, their involvement and support of the operation associates them with the actual misrepresntation. If you want a more accurate phrasing: Should it be legal for authorities to cooperate in an operation where people are enticed/faciliated/whatever into committing a false crime? Ie: the girl isn't actually underaged, or a girl, but the perp belives he is, which would be a crime if the perp's beliefs were true.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

In legalistic terms, it seems there's a weak link in this method, that is in connecting whoever shows up at the appointment with an intent they assume someone on the internet actually had.

A crude approach, but maybe they catch a few.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
In legalistic terms, it seems there's a weak link in this method, that is in connecting whoever shows up at the appointment with an intent they assume someone on the internet actually had. Bringing condoms dcoesn't help his case either.

A crude approach, but maybe they catch a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

They usually get nailed. The perp and the decoy usually engage in very explicit sexual conversations, where the perp clearly knows the fake child's age. They are typically invited over with the pretext they will screw around when he gets there.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

The prosecution would still have to establish that the suspect really believed the person he was corresponding with was actually underage. Maybe he was showing up to investigate before continuing.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

I guess, but the track record of convictions is impressive. The decoy states their age, and then the perp talks about all the things he wants to do to her. On the chat log, he is clearly demonstrating his willingness to have sex with an underaged person. He's not going to ask for ID when he gets to the house with condoms.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

For the most part, a sting operation is inherently wrong because the only people it can sting are people who demonstrate willingness toward a voluntary transaction (drugs, prostitution), in which case it shouldn't be considered a crime at all.

This is an interesting case though, since it specifically targets people making voluntary transactions with people that are unqualified to make them (children). How personally, I think children should be allowed to make sexual decisions at the age of physical maturation or shortly thereafter (around 13-14), and if everyone and their brother wasn't so damned afraid of sex we'd probably have fewer perverts and young sexual experiences would be less traumatizing, but if we should consider screwing a twelve year old to be criminal, this act seems pretty good at identifying potential violence.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

12 year olds, dude.

Hmm. I felt sorry for these guys when I thought it was 16 or so. Yeah, I got sympathy (and some empathy, lol) with sick, but now were getting into the twisted realm.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
They usually charge them with transmitting obscene material to a minor too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which didn't occur, since there is no minor involved.

[ QUOTE ]
As for actually having sex, these guys get nailed under intent laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.

[ QUOTE ]
Like if a shoplifter put something in their purse, but didn't actually remove the item from the store yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure in these cases it is actualy illegal (under false imprisonment laws) for an agent of the store to detain you if you haven't left the store.

There is a (non-coercively developed) set of guidelines for companies to follow to make sure they are not engaging in false arrest:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach the merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select the merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, convert or carry away the merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter
5. You must observe the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must apprehend the shoplifter outside the store

cite

[ QUOTE ]
But taking the intent laws as given, no one has an opinion of why it is or is not acceptable for authorities to misrepresent themselves or entice citizens into committing a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure that it's objectionable for an officer to "misrepresent" himself. Ignoring the unjustifiable nature of drug prohibition, a guy who buys smack from a cop is still buying smack.

As for the enticement, I don't see any reason to differentiate between actual law enforcement officers and private individuals working with officers. Is it OK for a private individual to set up a drug sting, use entrapping techniques that would be impermissible for officers, and make a citizen's arrest? It would surprise me if a case built in such a manner held up in court even if law enforcement had no prior knowledge of the activities.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess, but the track record of convictions is impressive. The decoy states their age, and then the perp talks about all the things he wants to do to her. On the chat log, he is clearly demonstrating his willingness to have sex with an underaged person. He's not going to ask for ID when he gets to the house with condoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are getting convictions, then that's the bottom line.

My point is just that maybe pretexting goes both ways. It could be the guy is merely some lonely slob who will accept any invite, knowing that people misrepresent themselves and fantasize online, without necessarily believing the self-description the other person gives. However, he has made up his mind beforehand to not cross over into anything illegal if the underage claims are true.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is just that maybe pretexting goes both ways. It could be the guy is merely some lonely slob who will accept any invite, knowing that people misrepresent themselves and fantasize online, without necessarily believing the self-description the other person gives. However, he has made up his mind beforehand to not cross over into anything illegal if the underage claims are true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. You know X% of these guys will not actually follow through with it. A certain X% will also strip naked asap, and some have. Intent requires a subjective determination in every case, and apparently the actions of these men meet that test in the law. They get charged for a whole host of things anyway. From wiki: " Convictions have included disorderly conduct, indecently soliciting a child, attempting to entice a juvenile to travel with intent to engage in sexual act, transporting child pornography, and possession and dissemination of child pornography."

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn-

You accidentally intercept a message that clearly expresses the writer's plan to break in to someone's house tomorrow, kill the residents, and steal their goods. Assuming this message to be genuine, has this person already committed a sufficient display of aggression to be apprehended, or must we wait until tomorrow when he and his compadres show up with guns?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn-

You accidentally intercept a message that clearly expresses the writer's plan to break in to someone's house tomorrow, kill the residents, and steal their goods. Assuming this message to be genuine, has this person already committed a sufficient display of aggression to be apprehended, or must we wait until tomorrow when he and his compadres show up with guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22...ops_ask_f.html

It does seem to me that it would be irresponsible *not* to alert the supposed target. And if the message were sent *to* the target, it most certainly *would* be an aggressive threat.

But what if you intercept the message, examine the address of the message-sender's target, and discover that it's a non-existent address in a fictional town, but you know (magically) that the message sender *believes* that it is a real address in a real town and he believes there will be much loot there to plunder? Who has he caused damages to?

Now, if you find the message, discover it *is* targeting a real person, and you *do* inform that person, it seems likely that the target may feel aggressively threatened. Whether that's enough to cause damages or not, I'm not sure.

Of course, this is quite different than the cases the OP is examining, since in those cases the "target" is positively receptive to the "attack" - *and* the target has the ability to consent to such action *even though* the "attacker" may not be aware of that ability.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They usually charge them with transmitting obscene material to a minor too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which didn't occur, since there is no minor involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, this is a common objection. So, instead our legal system often punishes you for starting to act on criminal intentions even if your intentions fail to amount to an actual crime because you were fooled or because you are a terrible criminal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for actually having sex, these guys get nailed under intent laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borderline, sometimes yes and sometimes no. Some of the charges are transmitting obscene material, which is an act. Intent is a sliding scale, where it becomes more and more likely based upon the continuous actions of someone that a crime will be commited. If he is naked, the girl is naked, and he just put on a condom, he still has only "intent" to commit statutory rape. At that point you can't marginalize the actions taken thus far as a simple thoughtcrime.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like if a shoplifter put something in their purse, but didn't actually remove the item from the store yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure in these cases it is actualy illegal (under false imprisonment laws) for an agent of the store to detain you if you haven't left the store.

There is a (non-coercively developed) set of guidelines for companies to follow to make sure they are not engaging in false arrest:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach the merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select the merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, convert or carry away the merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter
5. You must observe the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must apprehend the shoplifter outside the store

cite

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember the specifics of false imprisonment, but this sounds right. The point of the analogy was to show that someone had not physically completed the crime, but had taken actions towards its completion, like going to a house with condoms. They aren't charged with rape, they are charged with "intent" to do X and X. Can a shoplifter be charged with "intent" to steal X and X? If not, this hardly seems equitable.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the enticement, I don't see any reason to differentiate between actual law enforcement officers and private individuals working with officers. Is it OK for a private individual to set up a drug sting, use entrapping techniques that would be impermissible for officers, and make a citizen's arrest? It would surprise me if a case built in such a manner held up in court even if law enforcement had no prior knowledge of the activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely, that's why I referred to this as effectively enticement by law enforcers in the OP.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

I don't know your age or your parental status. If you are young and without kids, I can understand why you might believe that 16 is OK. But, 16. yr. olds lack the abilty to make sound decisions.

Developmentally, they are not capable of entering into an adult relationship as an equal. There is solid research that actually shows, via MRI, that teenagers' frontal lobes, responsible for impulse control, planning etc., are not fully functional.

As a step-parent, I raised two kids (boy and a girl) through their teen years. I can tell you that neither kid at 16, nor any of their friends, were wholly (physically, mentally, emotionally) mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult.

Would you really be OK with some guy my age (38), buggering your 16yr. old daughter or son?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

"For the few, if none, who don't know the program: an advocacy group poses as underaged children on the internet and invites adult men to come have sex with them."

I have watched this show and from what I saw you are not correct when you write that the advocacy group "invites" men to come and have sex.

The actuality is that the advocacy group merely poses as underage children hanging in teen chat rooms and are, in fact, targeted and propositioned by adults looking for sex. This is an important distinction.

These adults are not lonely, socially-inept 18-20 yr.old guys who think they are hooking up with a slutty 16 yr. old. They are, with rare exception, adult males over 25 and most appear to be over 35. Many of them hold positions of trust (rabbi, teachers, Doctors, prosecutors, polticians) and very definitely know exactly what they are doing and that what they are doing is legally wrong.

All of them propositioned the <16 "teen", exchanged sexually explicit chat, been fully informed that the "teen" was <16 , some have sent naked photos of themselves, and all are agreeing, in advance, to come to the teen's house for sex.

There is no ambiguity, misunderstanding or entrapment. Due to the overwhelming supply of men who want to sex with 14 yr. old girls and boys, there doesn't have to be.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

16 is the age of consent here in the UK.

14 is the age of consent in Holland.

Japan is 12 ive heard.

Holland definately has a lower teen pregnancy rate than the UK, and im pretty sure Japans rate will be lower still. Whilst this isnt a definitive proof that as a simple cut off point they are mature enough to enter into an adult sexual relationship, it does contradict your 'all 16 year olds are immature' argument.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

Since I can't speak to the countries you referenced, I can only speak to the science that supports my assertions and my own experience in the US. I will say that your post, in response to mine, is making a huge leap, and is pointless.

If I use your response as a guide, I guess, since she's not likely to get pregnant, you're going to be ok with your 37 year-old neighbor banging your 13 year-old?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have watched this show and from what I saw you are not correct when you write that the advocacy group "invites" men to come and have sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, loose use of language. Your typical chat log involves the girl giving her age, where the guy hesitates. But the decoy often acts unconcerned, and sometimes the perp continues because the decoy seems willing. The decoy then volunteers they are home alone. The men are very much the aggressors here, and act very slimy. But, the decoy does provide willingness and ecnouragement, helping to make the perp decide to act on his desires. Using the word "invite" probably isn't the best characterization, I was just trying to make the OP brief.

The point of the poll is whether authorities (or in cooperation with a group) should always or sometimes be allowed to create a false crime situation, by artificially providing an environment where someone might commit a crime if their beliefs were true about the situation. Do you think this should always be acceptable, or reserved for a certain class of crime? I thought the question was interesting, because most people who aren't anti-state love the PJ thing. America values protecting children from adults very highly. Just take a look at sex offender laws to see the zeal. I was attempting to see if we condone this type of sting because of our association with the social hideousness of the crime, or because we actually approve of allowing authorities to entice would be criminals into actual criminals.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

I dont see the difference between this and any other undercover work (drugs, prostitution, muggings, weapons, bribery etc).

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

AS a whole, I think all of the guys (very few exceptions-1 or 2) from the 2-3 shows I have seen are predators. Despite their claims otherwise, they troll teen chat-rooms and target potential victims for sex.

I fully agree that the decoys are open, encouraging participants. But only after the exchange veers into inappropriate conversation.

Knowing basic, reward-based psychology, I would also bet that, although not shown, the decoys very likely entrap some of these guys. But, for the most part, and as shown, the men are the ones initiating the sexual conversations and the contact.

The problem with the way you posed the question in your poll, because of the questions unintential influence, is that the results are skewed.

I agree that your greater question is valid and interesting.

The authorities are very often creating "false crime situations" to arrest people who may otherwise not have committed any criminal act. I can think of many examples. Prostitution, drugs, stolen merchandise, etc. If you have ever watched COP's more than twice you have seen all of these.

Essentially, these stings are designed to punish the marketplace. The classic example is targeting johns. Another one, is targeting gay men at rest stops, public parks etc. This last is at least sometimes entertaining, because it often turns out a republican or a preacher.

The worst example I can think of is a MI case involving a then 17 year old who was targeted by an undercover police officer. The kid was a drug user who was solicited to find the undercover cop a source for cocaine. The amount was approximately 1-2 kilos. Not an amount for casual use. But, not a Columbian cartel shipment either.

Long and short is that the kid did put the cop with the source, hoping to be "tipped" in free coke, he was instead arrested and given a mandatory life sentence.

The "wrongness" of the above MI cocaine sting results, is not lost on anyone familar with the case. At the same time, the laws are there and well known. Few, if any, break these laws in ignorance. Many are not knowldgeable of the consequences. But, they do know that are in violation.

So to answer your question, on the whole, I think most approve of the "sting" process. Targeting sexual predators is merely a very popular example.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the victim?


[ QUOTE ]
I dont see the difference between this and any other undercover work (drugs, prostitution, muggings, weapons, bribery etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

Undercover muggings?

The difference, as I have already pointed out, is that when someone buys crack from an undercover vice cop, he's *actually buying crack*. Typing dirty words and sending dirty pictures to an adult is legal last time I checked, especially if the adult taking delivery of the dirty media is willing. Accepting an invitation to a private residence for the purposes of having sex from an adult is also legal last time I checked.

So what if the "criminal" thinks he's talking to a kid? Thinking you're doing something is not the same as actually doing it. If it is, then the powerball people will be hearing from me, because I *think* I bought a ticket last week with yesterday's winning numbers.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

[/ QUOTE ]
How are these crimes "real" in a sense that they actually harm children?

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the victim?

[/ QUOTE ]

The tribesmen of AC Island make good points on this issue.

Not only is there no victim, but even intent is only presumed.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

Muggings...decoys are often used in high crime areas to capture muggings.

No victim, talking to an adult is ok, etc:

In many undercover situations there is no possibility of actually committing the crime. A decoy prostitute wont really give you sex, a briefcase full of drugs may actually contain lactose, a crate full of guns may contain toys, a briefcase full of bribe money may contain newspapers.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean false in the sense that the crime (intending to have sex with a minor) cannot factually be completed, because there is no minor. You can call it whatever you want.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean false in the sense that the crime (intending to have sex with a minor) cannot factually be completed, because there is no minor. You can call it whatever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

see my prior post

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

Your post also demonstrates that it cannot factually be completed. I don't think it is a whole lot different than most undercover work. I just chose to call it a false crime, because it cannot factually be a crime. I also agree with truly passive stings for violent crime.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

In cases of mugging etc, the intention to commit a crime is obvious.

People make stuff up about themselves online all the time to get a meeting. That's commonly understood to be a factor. How could anyone possibly know what the defendant actually believed about the true age of an anonymous poster on the internet? Maybe he picked up on certain cues and knew all along that the person on the other end was an adult playing a role.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

The problem is they are arresting these people for what they MIGHT do, they haven't committed any crimes (at least not serious ones) yet.

Just because I tell someone on the internet I'm going to do XYZ doesn't mean I'm going to do it. People say alot of crazy stuff on the net.

Plus, just because I came over to her house doesn't mean I was going to rape her or something.

That very well MIGHT have been my intention, but that is certainly not grounds for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.


Obviously I'm not defending anyone trying to hook up with 12 year olds for sex (which is clearly the intention of alot of them) however I think a good lawyer should be able to get the guy off the hook.

Also if the dude is like 18-20 or something and meeting up with a 15-16 year old, that's hardly pedophilia or dangerous, that happens all the dang time and is totally normal.

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

"Under 18 U.S.C. § 2422 the predator does not have to talk to an actual minor, or even a purported one, as it is the mere attempt that is sufficient to secure a conviction. In United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), the defendant was discussing the possibility, in chat rooms, of renting the fictional father’s daughter for sex. He was met at the hotel carrying $300 and a box of condoms and arrested. He was convicted of attempt under the statute as there was no minor to be coerced. Upon appeal he argued that he hadn’t communicated directly with the minor and thus could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422.

The Court decided that it was irrelevant whether he was actually speaking to a minor or a purported minor, and that it was his intent to have sex with a minor AND his actions towards the fulfillment of that intent that allowed the government to secure the conviction.

“In United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 537 U.S. 1176, 154 L. Ed. 2d 921 (2003), we upheld an attempt conviction under 2422(b) where a defendant believed he was communicating with a minor, but was actually communicating with an undercover government agent. Id. at 1227-28. Murrell contends that Root is distinguishable from his case because it involved direct communication between the defendant and the purported minor. However, we fail to recognize how this factual discrepancy is relevant to the disposition of the charges against Murrell. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 at 1286
The Court on to went to point out:

“To sustain a conviction for the crime of attempt, the government need only prove (1) that the defendant had the specific intent to engage in the criminal conduct for which he is charged and (2) that he took a substantial step toward commission of the offense. See United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354, 1369 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Root, 296 F.3d at 1227-28. For example, we have stated that a conviction for attempted importation of marijuana requires proof of "a specific intent to import marijuana" and a substantial step towards the importation. See United States v. Collins, 779 F.2d 1520, 1527 (11th Cir. 1986)” Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 at 1286
The Court viewed Murrell’s actions as dispositive of his intent, though it pointed out that the government did not carry the burden of having to prove intent under the plain language definition of intent coupled with 18 U.S.C. § 2422. "

Re: To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime
 

The offenders are charged only with crimes that their actions warant. The men are asked and/or volunteer to bring condoms, alcohol, etc, showing intent. Soliuciting an undercover cop for drugs that are counterfeit is analgous to the sexual solicitations that the men are offering.

Interestingly, over several shows I noticed that they have now added an underage girl in the house who very briefly greets the man. I think this is likely in response to legal arguments raised in the suspect's defence, that mirror your statements.