To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is how can they legally show the alleged perpetrators face and name on tv?

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalists have a lot of wiggle room, as long as they aren't barging into your home, your privacy rights are slim. You could always sue for defamation, but there's enough evidence on these guys that it's pretty unlikely to prevail.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a decoy of legal age.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's critical. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant believed anything different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a hard one to make. The decoy states their age. The perp keeps talking to them: asks about parents whereabouts, acknowledges they could get in trouble if they got together, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The defendant participated in fantasy, as is commonplace for internet meeting places.

[Poofler]

Right, but when you show up to the house, it's gone past fantasy. That doesn't mean he'll go through with it, but it's now substantially more likely than when he was jerking off on the internet.

[Skidoo]

He showed up to meet a complete unknown, since all he had to go on was fantasy.

[Poofler]

Not sure what you mean. Guy meets girl. Girl says she is 14. Guy talks about how he might get in trouble, but wants to have sex with her if parents aren't home. Guy shows up with condoms. The law won't take "oh, I knew it was an adult the whole time! I was just playin around!", without evidence beyond your word.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The law won't take "oh, I knew it was an adult the whole time! I was just playin around!", without evidence beyond your word.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the burden of proof on the defendant?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law won't take "oh, I knew it was an adult the whole time! I was just playin around!", without evidence beyond your word.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the burden of proof on the defendant?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. It just happens to be a very ease case to make for the prosecution. These guys don't demonstrate doubt of the decoy's age. Rebutting that with your word, in stark contrast to your statements, is unlikely to convince a court that the prosecution has not met their burden.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean. Guy meets girl. Girl says she is 14. Guy talks about how he might get in trouble, but wants to have sex with her if parents aren't home. Guy shows up with condoms. The law won't take "oh, I knew it was an adult the whole time! I was just playin around!", without evidence beyond your word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meetings arranged on false pretexts never happen? The whole thing was a fictitious transaction on the internet. It's understood to happen all the time.

[Poofler]

For legal purposes, his *intent* is all that matters. If a court thinks his *intent* was to meet an underaged girl for sex, that's it. I suppose it is conceivable that in his head he's thinking "nah, this girl is older, put I'll play along cause it's kinky", but it's hard in a court of law to prove you said one thing and meant another. Besides, when these guys are greeted by Dateline, they start defending their actions or admitting they were dumb, not that "I was just coming to see how old she really was, and if she was the age she stated, I was gonna leave." Many say they weren't really going to go through with it, that they were "conflicted" about it. But not that they doubted the decoy was a minor.

[Skidoo]

If he didn't doubt the decoy was a minor, then he's busted. If he did, and that's entirely possible given the culture of false advertising on the internet, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution.