Pedophile that hasn't acted yet. Legal action?

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They're in the act of intending to send stuff via online or meeting an identified as underaged person. They know the definitive parameters of the situation. Their intent is clear. They're not mistakenly sending a video of themselves to a 13 yr old.

People also get arrested for trying to hire a someone to kill a person w/o anyone actually getting killed. I think that's a better parallel to compare.

b

[/ QUOTE ]


That's a very interesting parallel. Gives me a lot to think about today because I'm most definitely in favor of locking up the person who has solicited to hire someone to kill, but I'm very unsure of what to do with the person soliciting for sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference. Even if the person who attempts to kill another doesn't succeed (say it was a sting and the hitman was actually a cop), there is still an intended victim. There is an actual person who the would-be murderer wanted to kill.

In the case of "To Catch a Predator" there are no victims. There are no underaged children that the alleged pedos are soliciting. It's make-believe.

Now, if the cops or To Catch a Predator want to have a real 13 year old talk online to these creeps to lure them to the house, then I'm okay with it because there is a real child the pedo is after.

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]


In the case of "To Catch a Predator" there are no victims. There are no underaged children that the alleged pedos are soliciting. It's make-believe.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I always thought. I thought it was all make-believe for the purpose of entrapment. Like fishing for potential weirdos. There is no real victim. It's similar to the weirdo in that news story in the OP. There are POTENTIAL vicitms, just no real victim yet. To me, it's entrapment.

I liken it to a detective going online to sell drugs to potential drug addicts. Sure the addict will take the bait. He's an addict! But he wouldn't have done so had the cop not gone out of his way to lure him and entrap him. I guess I kind of think the detective sort of causes the crime to take place. Am I thinking of this wrong? I must be since most people, with the exception of Dom, seem to think it's perfectly justified.

[MrWookie]

Dom, Katy,

Often times cops and the FBI do use actual underage kids. They hire them so they have a bona fide kid to speak on the phone with the target. It's possible for an adult to imitate a kid's voice and conversational style, but sometimes they do use kids, even if the kids aren't there when the guy is arrested.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In the case of "To Catch a Predator" there are no victims. There are no underaged children that the alleged pedos are soliciting. It's make-believe.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I always thought. I thought it was all make-believe for the purpose of entrapment. Like fishing for potential weirdos. There is no real victim. It's similar to the weirdo in that news story in the OP. There are POTENTIAL vicitms, just no real victim yet. To me, it's entrapment.

I liken it to a detective going online to sell drugs to potential drug addicts. Sure the addict will take the bait. He's an addict! But he wouldn't have done so had the cop not gone out of his way to lure him and entrap him. I guess I kind of think the detective sort of causes the crime to take place. Am I thinking of this wrong? I must be since most people, with the exception of Dom, seem to think it's perfectly justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only because I was really pissed off when Chris Hanson popped out of nowhere and asked me what I was doing with a Tickle me Elmo doll and anal lube. Bastard.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They're in the act of intending to send stuff via online or meeting an identified as underaged person. They know the definitive parameters of the situation. Their intent is clear. They're not mistakenly sending a video of themselves to a 13 yr old.

People also get arrested for trying to hire a someone to kill a person w/o anyone actually getting killed. I think that's a better parallel to compare.

b

[/ QUOTE ]


That's a very interesting parallel. Gives me a lot to think about today because I'm most definitely in favor of locking up the person who has solicited to hire someone to kill, but I'm very unsure of what to do with the person soliciting for sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference. Even if the person who attempts to kill another doesn't succeed (say it was a sting and the hitman was actually a cop), there is still an intended victim. There is an actual person who the would-be murderer wanted to kill.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's just semantics. Obviously the person showing up to meet a 13 year old is fully intending to do something to someone they fully expect to be there.

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of "To Catch a Predator" there are no victims. There are no underaged children that the alleged pedos are soliciting. It's make-believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's make-believe, why are they showing up to the house?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if the cops or To Catch a Predator want to have a real 13 year old talk online to these creeps to lure them to the house, then I'm okay with it because there is a real child the pedo is after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this really make a difference? Again, you have to put it in perspective of the perp. He isn't playing a game. To him, it's real.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In the case of "To Catch a Predator" there are no victims. There are no underaged children that the alleged pedos are soliciting. It's make-believe.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I always thought. I thought it was all make-believe for the purpose of entrapment. Like fishing for potential weirdos. There is no real victim. It's similar to the weirdo in that news story in the OP. There are POTENTIAL vicitms, just no real victim yet. To me, it's entrapment.

I liken it to a detective going online to sell drugs to potential drug addicts. Sure the addict will take the bait. He's an addict! But he wouldn't have done so had the cop not gone out of his way to lure him and entrap him. I guess I kind of think the detective sort of causes the crime to take place. Am I thinking of this wrong? I must be since most people, with the exception of Dom, seem to think it's perfectly justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only because I was really pissed off when Chris Hanson popped out of nowhere and asked me what I was doing with a Tickle me Elmo doll and anal lube. Bastard.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

While he interviewed you, Elmo was laughing and vibrating next to you?

b

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They're in the act of intending to send stuff via online or meeting an identified as underaged person. They know the definitive parameters of the situation. Their intent is clear. They're not mistakenly sending a video of themselves to a 13 yr old.

People also get arrested for trying to hire a someone to kill a person w/o anyone actually getting killed. I think that's a better parallel to compare.

b

[/ QUOTE ]


That's a very interesting parallel. Gives me a lot to think about today because I'm most definitely in favor of locking up the person who has solicited to hire someone to kill, but I'm very unsure of what to do with the person soliciting for sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference. Even if the person who attempts to kill another doesn't succeed (say it was a sting and the hitman was actually a cop), there is still an intended victim. There is an actual person who the would-be murderer wanted to kill.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's just semantics. Obviously the person showing up to meet a 13 year old is fully intending to do something to someone they fully expect to be there.

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of "To Catch a Predator" there are no victims. There are no underaged children that the alleged pedos are soliciting. It's make-believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's make-believe, why are they showing up to the house?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if the cops or To Catch a Predator want to have a real 13 year old talk online to these creeps to lure them to the house, then I'm okay with it because there is a real child the pedo is after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this really make a difference? Again, you have to put it in perspective of the perp. He isn't playing a game. To him, it's real.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

If intent is all you need to charge someone with a crime, then we're all in trouble. It matters to me that there is or isn't a real person the pedo is after.


What if you hired me to kill your wife and I accepted. But then it turns out you don't even have a wife and the person you've hired me to kill is completely made up. Have I committed a crime by accepting money to kill a fictional person? If I haven't, should it be a crime?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
What if you hired me to kill your wife and I accepted. But then it turns out you don't even have a wife and the person you've hired me to kill is completely made up. Have I committed a crime by accepting money to kill a fictional person? If I haven't, should it be a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

That may well be a crime. Should it be? If you showed up at a certain said time where this fictional person was supposed to be to carry it out, yes. Because the expectation is that you'd think this was a real person. I doubt the punishment is going to be that harsh.

[ QUOTE ]
If intent is all you need to charge someone with a crime, then we're all in trouble. It matters to me that there is or isn't a real person the pedo is after.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just intent. They are acting on it with the expectation of a kid on the other side.

If you're in the process of robbing a bank, but get caught before you get any cash, or before you even get in the front door, does it matter that you didn't actually get any cash or that you didn't finish robbing the bank?

There's also a parallel with drugs. Possession with the intent to sell. Even though they haven't actually sold any to anyone, that's still a crime. The 'intent' part adds to the sentence.

b

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if you hired me to kill your wife and I accepted. But then it turns out you don't even have a wife and the person you've hired me to kill is completely made up. Have I committed a crime by accepting money to kill a fictional person? If I haven't, should it be a crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

That may well be a crime. Should it be? If you showed up at a certain said time where this fictional person was supposed to be to carry it out, yes. Because the expectation is that you'd think this was a real person. I doubt the punishment is going to be that harsh.

[ QUOTE ]
If intent is all you need to charge someone with a crime, then we're all in trouble. It matters to me that there is or isn't a real person the pedo is after.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just intent. They are acting on it with the expectation of a kid on the other side.

If you're in the process of robbing a bank, but get caught before you get any cash, or before you even get in the front door, does it matter that you didn't actually get any cash or that you didn't finish robbing the bank?

There's also a parallel with drugs. Possession with the intent to sell. Even though they haven't actually sold any to anyone, that's still a crime. The 'intent' part adds to the sentence.
b

[/ QUOTE ]

There IS a bank you are trying to rob. There isn't a child at the other end of the internet and at that house. That's the difference.

And let's not get started on the draconian drug laws.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
There IS a bank you are trying to rob. There isn't a child at the other end of the internet and at that house. That's the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The offender doesn't know this when he decides to engage in a criminal activity of soliciting a minor for sex. It's not like he doesn't know what he's doing is wrong given the parameters regardless of whether the person is real or not.

Now, I can give a little if the cops were literally inviting him over, thereby, initiating the contact. But from what I've seen, that isn't the case. Or if the cops just went to his house based on just internet chat logs.

Basically, it's like a red light at an intersection. If you choose to run through it, you might get caught and have to pay a fine(here they have cameras on some intersections). Even though, if no traffic is there, it's victimless and no one is in danger. The sign to stop is there, clearly, but you proceed anyways. You've chosen to run the light.

And yes, the drug laws are idiotic.

b