[McNutty]

[ QUOTE ]
Guids (and others I guess),

I think some of you are confusing what some people are actually arguing. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is actually defending the act of molesting a child. No one is saying that the people who show up at the house haven't done something bad, to some degree. But is what they've done really bad enough to get the felony and the tv exposure? Should consensual sex with a 14 year old really be seen as the same thing as forced rape or sex with a 9 year old?

Like others have said, a lot of these guys are probably just desperate for sex, and when a hot 14 year old invites them over, they eventually go for it. Exemplary behavior? No. Felony? That doesn't seem right to some of us.

To some extent, shouldn't the harm actually caused play a role in the punishment? Or are you just content with anybody showing any likelihood of hurting a minor getting the full treatment? What exactly is it that crosses the line for you? Is it walking through the door? Is it getting out of the car? Is it driving on the street? Is it getting in the car? Is it talking to the girl about sex on the internet? Is it telling your friend that you think a certain underage girl is hot? Is it thinking a certain underage girl is hot? What exactly is it? Where exactly do you say "BAM, that's a felony, no sympathy for him!"?

I believe most people have some latent potential to hook up with a minor. Men have hormones. But we also have a sense of judgment that usually keeps those desires in check. If someone's desires get the best of them in this artificial scenario, do you think that means that it was particularly likely to happen with a real 14 year old (who presumably isn't likely to be very hot, very willing, and very home alone)? Or do you think maybe all we've proved is that they have *some* capacity to hurt someone, and maybe that they are slightly more likely to do so than the average person? Since no child was actually hurt, I'm more willing to want to give them the benefit of the doubt (and maybe force them to attend counseling, and keep them under some sort of supervision for some amount of time) than I am to want to put them on national TV and convict them of a felony.

Does this mean I'm sympathetic to child molesters? According to you, yes. Or maybe it just means that I care about having a legal system that seeks to distribute punishments fairly, and differentiate critical circumstances accurately.

But the fact is, lenient sentencing of people who are perceived as child molesters does not win elections for judges and city officials. Being reasonable with your methods in sting operations does not fill quotas for undercover agents. It's how the system works. And as long as there are people like you out there screaming for someone's head rather than be willing to make some sort of level headed analysis of a situation, then it's how the system will remain. And it's a shame.

It's possible to care about an issue because of the precedent it has on your system. Accusing us of being sympathetic to scum bags is a real myopic (and unfair) way to look at what we're saying.


Ideally, I would like to establish different tiers of sexual abuse. It's ridiculous to think some sort of blanket offense is actually a good policy. Should a 45 year old who had forced sex with an 8 year old really be no different than a 21 year old who had consensual sex with a 15 year old? Not only does one person get a punishment/stigma that he probably doesn't deserve, but the scummier person benefits from a lightened punishment and a dampened stigma. On one end you have the most gruesome type of person out there, and on the other end you have a potentially decent person who was a little horny and made a mistake (and probably harmed no one). It's OK to differentiate between these things without being "sympathetic to child molesters." I'm sure you think you stand for some nobel things. But, IMO, it is stances like yours which make effective compromise (and ultimately the heightened punishment of the more serious offenses) close to impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. What these guys have done is bad enough for me to feel just fine about charging them with a felony. They aren't just fantasizing about having sex with minors. They purposely seek 'em out in chat rooms talk to them and then go to their house to have sex with them . Now for the people who just chat and don't make plans to take it farther than that well i guess for me it would depend on the actuall text of the chat to see if they showed intent and if they did just text well i guess charging them with a crime is okay with me. The fact that they are charged with felonies does not mean that the punishments are the same as for people charged with molestation. There are more serious and less serious felonies. And if we end up tipping a little toward the more serious end...well i can live with it.

You keep making this dichotomy about a "consensual sex" with a"hot 14 yr old" and rape of a 9 yr old. Answer me with where do you draw the line..are "hot 13yr olds" still okay for the "consensual sex". What about "hot 12yr olds"? If you really believe that 14 yr olds are mature enough for "consensual sex" with adults I just don't know what to say. Any age line is going to be arbitrary. In our society it seem like 16-18 is where we draw it. I think I can live with that. The only non-arbitrary line i can think of is sexual maturity and i'm sorry with girls getting their periods earlier and earlier due to improved nutrition and health care i don't like a line where a 12yr old or younger is fair game.

Also, ur statement about these guys as probably decent people who were a little horny and made a mistake and probably harmed no one makes me ILL. This the same type of rationalization that these sickos always offer as their defense.

One of my good friends used to be a decoy for these types of cases and she always told me how gratifying these cases were as when these guys were arrested...subsequent search warrants always revealed extensive child porn and/or evidence of unreported molestations.