[Poofler]

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?