[ 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.