To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[Skidoo]

In legalistic terms, it seems there's a weak link in this method, that is in connecting whoever shows up at the appointment with an intent they assume someone on the internet actually had.

A crude approach, but maybe they catch a few.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
In legalistic terms, it seems there's a weak link in this method, that is in connecting whoever shows up at the appointment with an intent they assume someone on the internet actually had. Bringing condoms dcoesn't help his case either.

A crude approach, but maybe they catch a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

They usually get nailed. The perp and the decoy usually engage in very explicit sexual conversations, where the perp clearly knows the fake child's age. They are typically invited over with the pretext they will screw around when he gets there.

[Skidoo]

The prosecution would still have to establish that the suspect really believed the person he was corresponding with was actually underage. Maybe he was showing up to investigate before continuing.

[Poofler]

I guess, but the track record of convictions is impressive. The decoy states their age, and then the perp talks about all the things he wants to do to her. On the chat log, he is clearly demonstrating his willingness to have sex with an underaged person. He's not going to ask for ID when he gets to the house with condoms.

[hmkpoker]

For the most part, a sting operation is inherently wrong because the only people it can sting are people who demonstrate willingness toward a voluntary transaction (drugs, prostitution), in which case it shouldn't be considered a crime at all.

This is an interesting case though, since it specifically targets people making voluntary transactions with people that are unqualified to make them (children). How personally, I think children should be allowed to make sexual decisions at the age of physical maturation or shortly thereafter (around 13-14), and if everyone and their brother wasn't so damned afraid of sex we'd probably have fewer perverts and young sexual experiences would be less traumatizing, but if we should consider screwing a twelve year old to be criminal, this act seems pretty good at identifying potential violence.

[anatta]

12 year olds, dude.

Hmm. I felt sorry for these guys when I thought it was 16 or so. Yeah, I got sympathy (and some empathy, lol) with sick, but now were getting into the twisted realm.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
They usually charge them with transmitting obscene material to a minor too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which didn't occur, since there is no minor involved.

[ QUOTE ]
As for actually having sex, these guys get nailed under intent laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.

[ QUOTE ]
Like if a shoplifter put something in their purse, but didn't actually remove the item from the store yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure in these cases it is actualy illegal (under false imprisonment laws) for an agent of the store to detain you if you haven't left the store.

There is a (non-coercively developed) set of guidelines for companies to follow to make sure they are not engaging in false arrest:

1. You must see the shoplifter approach the merchandise
2. You must see the shoplifter select the merchandise
3. You must see the shoplifter conceal, convert or carry away the merchandise
4. You must maintain continuous observation of the shoplifter
5. You must observe the shoplifter fail to pay for the merchandise
6. You must apprehend the shoplifter outside the store

cite

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure that it's objectionable for an officer to "misrepresent" himself. Ignoring the unjustifiable nature of drug prohibition, a guy who buys smack from a cop is still buying smack.

As for the enticement, I don't see any reason to differentiate between actual law enforcement officers and private individuals working with officers. Is it OK for a private individual to set up a drug sting, use entrapping techniques that would be impermissible for officers, and make a citizen's arrest? It would surprise me if a case built in such a manner held up in court even if law enforcement had no prior knowledge of the activities.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess, but the track record of convictions is impressive. The decoy states their age, and then the perp talks about all the things he wants to do to her. On the chat log, he is clearly demonstrating his willingness to have sex with an underaged person. He's not going to ask for ID when he gets to the house with condoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are getting convictions, then that's the bottom line.

My point is just that maybe pretexting goes both ways. It could be the guy is merely some lonely slob who will accept any invite, knowing that people misrepresent themselves and fantasize online, without necessarily believing the self-description the other person gives. However, he has made up his mind beforehand to not cross over into anything illegal if the underage claims are true.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is just that maybe pretexting goes both ways. It could be the guy is merely some lonely slob who will accept any invite, knowing that people misrepresent themselves and fantasize online, without necessarily believing the self-description the other person gives. However, he has made up his mind beforehand to not cross over into anything illegal if the underage claims are true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. You know X% of these guys will not actually follow through with it. A certain X% will also strip naked asap, and some have. Intent requires a subjective determination in every case, and apparently the actions of these men meet that test in the law. They get charged for a whole host of things anyway. From wiki: " Convictions have included disorderly conduct, indecently soliciting a child, attempting to entice a juvenile to travel with intent to engage in sexual act, transporting child pornography, and possession and dissemination of child pornography."

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Intent = thought. Thoughtcrime. Just like hate crime laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn-

You accidentally intercept a message that clearly expresses the writer's plan to break in to someone's house tomorrow, kill the residents, and steal their goods. Assuming this message to be genuine, has this person already committed a sufficient display of aggression to be apprehended, or must we wait until tomorrow when he and his compadres show up with guns?