Dateline NBC "to catch a predator", possible entrapment?

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think a lot of people are hinting at but haven't explicitly asked (and correct me if I'm wrong) is what are the chances of this actually happening to a child? How many 13-year-old children are hanging out in chat rooms and being preyed upon by older men, let alone telling them their addresses and asking them to come on over? Let's say that "attempted child molestation" (or whatever the charge is actually called) virtually NEVER takes place with a real child (and, to be honest, I think this is probably the case). What does it mean if this would only happen, say, 2 times per year, but there are these Perverted Justice people out there creating 2,000 opportunities per year?

Basically just a bunch of mumbling from me here, but I think it would be interesting to explore these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that this would be an interesting avenue to explore.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say it's important to have an element of possibility, because without that it becomes even easier to customize the definition of attempt to whatever you want it to be. What constitutes an attempt to have sex with a child? Merely having the thought? Thinking requires some amount of effort. The thought "I'm going to sex that kid over there" is effort, however small and internalized, towards sexing up a kid. Do they need to log into a chatroom? Initiate contact with the kid? Say vile things to children? Ask for the address? Actually show up at the house?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, this is waaaaay of base. Thinking about something is not attempting it. That's why it's not illegal to think about molesting children. The attempt comes when you approach someone you believe to be 13 online, making arrangements to meet them to have sex, and then driving to meet them for sex. I almost feel like you're spiraling into a more and more ridiculous argument with each post.

Nobody is advocating arresting people who have lewd thoughts about children. They're advocating arresting people who actively prey on children in chat rooms. People who make plans to meet up with young children, who initiate relationships with them in order to try to have sex with them. The only reason a non-minor decoy comes into play is because its likely illegal to ask a 13-year-old to engage in conversation with old perverts for a sting operation.

EDIT: You ask at the end of your post what constitutes an attempt. I would say trolling for 13-year-olds online, beginning conversations with them, steering the conversations into sexual territory, asking if you can come over to their house to meet up and have sex, making sure their parents aren't home first, driving (sometimes hundreds of miles) to meet them, seeing the "13-year-old" in the house, and then entering the house in pursuit of sex with said "13-year-old." And that's what every single one of these guys have done.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that people will be arrested merely for thinking about molesting children. I'm saying that at least I've provided a concrete definition for "attempt to have sex with a minor" on which I'd be comfortable basing convictions.

Do you realize that if you side with Perverted Justice, it's more illegal for a man to engage in sexual conversation with a volunteer adult than it is for him to do so with an actual child? If these guys talked to a 9 year old girl, she'd probably run away crying to her daddy, nothing happens. And then some other sick freak takes it all the way with an adult and gets busted. Perhaps the second dude is more of a risk to society (but who's to know), but the first dude certainly has had the only negative effect.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think a lot of people are hinting at but haven't explicitly asked (and correct me if I'm wrong) is what are the chances of this actually happening to a child? How many 13-year-old children are hanging out in chat rooms and being preyed upon by older men, let alone telling them their addresses and asking them to come on over? Let's say that "attempted child molestation" (or whatever the charge is actually called) virtually NEVER takes place with a real child (and, to be honest, I think this is probably the case). What does it mean if this would only happen, say, 2 times per year, but there are these Perverted Justice people out there creating 2,000 opportunities per year?

Basically just a bunch of mumbling from me here, but I think it would be interesting to explore these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that this would be an interesting avenue to explore.

[/ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, I have no problem with Preverted Justice setting these things up and then disclosing on TV who these people are. I just don't believe the people should be arrested for a victimless crime.

[popeye18]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think a lot of people are hinting at but haven't explicitly asked (and correct me if I'm wrong) is what are the chances of this actually happening to a child? How many 13-year-old children are hanging out in chat rooms and being preyed upon by older men, let alone telling them their addresses and asking them to come on over? Let's say that "attempted child molestation" (or whatever the charge is actually called) virtually NEVER takes place with a real child (and, to be honest, I think this is probably the case). What does it mean if this would only happen, say, 2 times per year, but there are these Perverted Justice people out there creating 2,000 opportunities per year?

Basically just a bunch of mumbling from me here, but I think it would be interesting to explore these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was wanting to get at asking for stats earlier.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say it's important to have an element of possibility, because without that it becomes even easier to customize the definition of attempt to whatever you want it to be. What constitutes an attempt to have sex with a child? Merely having the thought? Thinking requires some amount of effort. The thought "I'm going to sex that kid over there" is effort, however small and internalized, towards sexing up a kid. Do they need to log into a chatroom? Initiate contact with the kid? Say vile things to children? Ask for the address? Actually show up at the house?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, this is waaaaay of base. Thinking about something is not attempting it. That's why it's not illegal to think about molesting children. The attempt comes when you approach someone you believe to be 13 online, making arrangements to meet them to have sex, and then driving to meet them for sex. I almost feel like you're spiraling into a more and more ridiculous argument with each post.

Nobody is advocating arresting people who have lewd thoughts about children. They're advocating arresting people who actively prey on children in chat rooms. People who make plans to meet up with young children, who initiate relationships with them in order to try to have sex with them. The only reason a non-minor decoy comes into play is because its likely illegal to ask a 13-year-old to engage in conversation with old perverts for a sting operation.

EDIT: You ask at the end of your post what constitutes an attempt. I would say trolling for 13-year-olds online, beginning conversations with them, steering the conversations into sexual territory, asking if you can come over to their house to meet up and have sex, making sure their parents aren't home first, driving (sometimes hundreds of miles) to meet them, seeing the "13-year-old" in the house, and then entering the house in pursuit of sex with said "13-year-old." And that's what every single one of these guys have done.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that people will be arrested merely for thinking about molesting children. I'm saying that at least I've provided a concrete definition for "attempt to have sex with a minor" on which I'd be comfortable basing convictions.

Do you realize that if you side with Perverted Justice, it's more illegal for a man to engage in sexual conversation with a volunteer adult than it is for him to do so with an actual child? If these guys talked to a 9 year old girl, she'd probably run away crying to her daddy, nothing happens. And then some other sick freak takes it all the way with an adult and gets busted. Perhaps the second dude is more of a risk to society (but who's to know), but the first dude certainly has had the only negative effect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're absolutely right.

I'm beginning to think that most of you don't really understand the purpose of these stings.

[luckyjimm]

Do parents let their kids have Internet-connected computers in their bedrooms? Are they allowed totally unsupervised access and, if so, isn't that unbelievably stupid? Who is it abdicating responsibility here?

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
Do parents let their kids have Internet-connected computers in their bedrooms? Are they allowed totally unsupervised access and, if so, isn't that unbelievably stupid? Who is it abdicating responsibility here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that a lot of responsibility lies with dumb parents. But are you saying the parents carry more of the burden than the predators preying on their children?

[luckyjimm]

I wasn't allowed a television in my room as a kid - and that was just the four terrestial channels we had in the UK. I think partly it was a class thing - this was the 1980s/early 1990s and it was the rough/uneducated families that let their kids have their own TVs. Also my family valued spending time together, not everyone being shut off in their own rooms. I simply can't imagine why you would let someone under 16 have unsupervised Internet access at home. Girls risk meeting predatory older men - though the chances I'm sure are very small, and most are streetwise enough to avoid talking to strangers in chatrooms anyway - while teenage boys will just look for porn! The difference being, they will easily chance upon stuff a lot more extreme than the top-shelf mags we had in our day.

The parents have a duty of care to look after their children and keep an eye on what they are doing, in both the real and virtual world. If they don't bother doing this, of course they are less culpable than the predator who takes advantage. But they are still guilty of a form of neglect.

[luckyjimm]

Otnemem, maybe you will be interested in this thread of mine from a few months back: "I see a guy looking at illegal sites in a web cafe; what should I do?"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
Otnemem, maybe you will be interested in this thread of mine from a few months back: "I see a guy looking at illegal sites in a web cafe; what should I do?"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1



[/ QUOTE ]
It's interesting, though I'm not sure how much it has to do with this thread. Anyway, how do you know it was illegal porn? Were they prepubescent or something? Because there are tons of porn sites featuring young-looking teenage girls.