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

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wtf, how is that entrapment? The decoys make sure the mark knows they're incredibly under age.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does this have to do with entrapment? To show entrapment, the defendent has to show that they wouldn't have done what they did if it weren't for the officer's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

..and why doesnt that apply here?

and did they ever really commit a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) I think the idea is that the suspects are willing to go through with it as evidenced by them contacting the decoy (I assume the mark makes first contact? I've never seen the show personally) and the Dateline sting just happens to be the one that they select.

2) While I abhor their behavior and they could very well be "guilty" of some crime on the books, I don't think they should be charged. Thought crimes suck.

[bisonbison]

[ QUOTE ]
if u wanna sex a 12 yr old u wanna sex a 12 yr old even if the person that u think is 12 starts the chat


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, but wanting to sex a 12-yo is not a crime.

If you think you're gonna have sex with a minor, is driving by her house a crime? If you never get out of the car?

Lawyers, plz pm me by 6/26.

[Tron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kinda off topic but could somoene explain a situation that would be considered entrapment.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Lorean#Entrapment

[swingdoc]

This is the most recent major case heard by the Supreme Court on entrapment. It's actually sort of pertinent to this discussion as it centers on child pornography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States

Several points that I'm hoping one of the lawyers on here can help clarify for me:

*Apparently there are subjective and objective evidence for entrapment. In the above case, the obvjective evidence included: lack of child porn in the guy's house, repeated disinterest on his part in seeking porn, otherwise clean record.

*State laws dictate what exactly the defendant has done wrong. These normally are written as "luring" or "enticing" statutes. Well written statutes proscribe precisely what actions by the defendants constitute an illegal activity. For instance, the statutes I've looked into state that the defendant must have initiated the transition to sexually explicit conversation. So, the online girl can say "Hi. I'm Jenny 13/f/Chicago" but cannnot say "Hi. I'm jenny 13/f/Chicago and I'm looking for a sugar daddy to SIIMP" I've never had any desire at all to read the chat transcripts, but it would be interesting to see who initiates the conversation/sexual conversation.

* I am a little confused on how important the act of going to the girl's house actually is. You see on the show that they arrest people who park outside the house and then drive away. Do they also track down the people who talk about meeting the girls but never travel to their neighborhood?

[BEP]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never had any desire at all to read the chat transcripts, but it would be interesting to see who initiates the conversation/sexual conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The online decoys never initiate the conversation. They also never initiate any sexual conversation. It is always the suspect. Also the decoys play very innocent and naive when it comes to sexual conversation. It's almost always the man having a sexual conversation with himself while the 12 yo decoy will type "yes," "no," or "hehehe..." things like this.

[Phresh]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think you're gonna have sex with a minor, is driving by her house a crime? If you never get out of the car?

[/ QUOTE ]

The marks were meeting the decoys at their house at a certain time to specifically have sex. That's intent.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]

*State laws dictate what exactly the defendant has done wrong. These normally are written as "luring" or "enticing" statutes. Well written statutes proscribe precisely what actions by the defendants constitute an illegal activity. For instance, the statutes I've looked into state that the defendant must have initiated the transition to sexually explicit conversation. So, the online girl can say "Hi. I'm Jenny 13/f/Chicago" but cannnot say "Hi. I'm jenny 13/f/Chicago and I'm looking for a sugar daddy to SIIMP" I've never had any desire at all to read the chat transcripts, but it would be interesting to see who initiates the conversation/sexual conversation.

* I am a little confused on how important the act of going to the girl's house actually is. You see on the show that they arrest people who park outside the house and then drive away. Do they also track down the people who talk about meeting the girls but never travel to their neighborhood?

[/ QUOTE ]

The new luring and enticing statutes that you refer to are not really necessary for there to be a crime. The guys who show up at the house are essentially committing conspiracy to commit statutory rape. In order to be guilty of conspiracy, all you need is an agreement (ie lets have butt secks) + an overt act (ie driving to the house with condoms) in furtherance of the conspiracy. The threshold for an overt act is pretty low, so driving to the house is definitely enough, but simply talking about it on the computer is probably not enough. The "luring" statutes were enacted so that people could be charged for merely trying to entice underaged kids online, but I'm not sure if anybody has been prosecuted under those.

[pergesu]

I never understand this stuff. Obviously I think a dude who intends to have sex with a 12 year old is despicable. But if it's not really a 12 year old, what's the crime?

My main issue is that it doesn't go the other way. Say a girl tells you she's 18, you sex her, turns out she's only 16. You still get in trouble. Your intent was to have sex with an 18 year old girl.

I hate the idea of people being convicted solely on intent when no crime actually took place.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]

My main issue is that it doesn't go the other way. Say a girl tells you she's 18, you sex her, turns out she's only 16. You still get in trouble. Your intent was to have sex with an 18 year old girl.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does go the other way. A reasonable mistake of fact is a complete defense to statutory rape. The only exception is that if the girl is really young, like less than 10 years old, you aren't allowed to use that defense cause it is assumed that no reasonable person could mistake a 9 year old for an 18 year old.

[swingdoc]

[ QUOTE ]

My main issue is that it doesn't go the other way. Say a girl tells you she's 18, you sex her, turns out she's only 16. You still get in trouble. Your intent was to have sex with an 18 year old girl.



[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really true? If I act in good faith and have any sort of reasonable evidence to believe that someone is 18+ (i.e. meet them in a bar, etc) then I could still be successfully prosecuted?

It's a hell of a lot easier for me to think of prosecuting crimes of intent with situations like armed robbery. No [censored] way you're going to insist that the armed robbery take place before you can arrest the thief if you have ample evidence of their plan and some action (stopping them on the way to the bank, etc). The risk to bystanders obviously outweighs making sure the guy would go through with it.