To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

[/ QUOTE ]
How are these crimes "real" in a sense that they actually harm children?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the victim?

[/ QUOTE ]

The tribesmen of AC Island make good points on this issue.

Not only is there no victim, but even intent is only presumed.

[Copernicus]

Muggings...decoys are often used in high crime areas to capture muggings.

No victim, talking to an adult is ok, etc:

In many undercover situations there is no possibility of actually committing the crime. A decoy prostitute wont really give you sex, a briefcase full of drugs may actually contain lactose, a crate full of guns may contain toys, a briefcase full of bribe money may contain newspapers.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean false in the sense that the crime (intending to have sex with a minor) cannot factually be completed, because there is no minor. You can call it whatever you want.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you call it a "false crime" situation, which is not how I would describe it. The crimes are real, and all that has been done is to provide an environment for crime to be committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean false in the sense that the crime (intending to have sex with a minor) cannot factually be completed, because there is no minor. You can call it whatever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

see my prior post

[Poofler]

Your post also demonstrates that it cannot factually be completed. I don't think it is a whole lot different than most undercover work. I just chose to call it a false crime, because it cannot factually be a crime. I also agree with truly passive stings for violent crime.

[Skidoo]

In cases of mugging etc, the intention to commit a crime is obvious.

People make stuff up about themselves online all the time to get a meeting. That's commonly understood to be a factor. How could anyone possibly know what the defendant actually believed about the true age of an anonymous poster on the internet? Maybe he picked up on certain cues and knew all along that the person on the other end was an adult playing a role.

[UATrewqaz]

The problem is they are arresting these people for what they MIGHT do, they haven't committed any crimes (at least not serious ones) yet.

Just because I tell someone on the internet I'm going to do XYZ doesn't mean I'm going to do it. People say alot of crazy stuff on the net.

Plus, just because I came over to her house doesn't mean I was going to rape her or something.

That very well MIGHT have been my intention, but that is certainly not grounds for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.


Obviously I'm not defending anyone trying to hook up with 12 year olds for sex (which is clearly the intention of alot of them) however I think a good lawyer should be able to get the guy off the hook.

Also if the dude is like 18-20 or something and meeting up with a 15-16 year old, that's hardly pedophilia or dangerous, that happens all the dang time and is totally normal.

[Copernicus]

"Under 18 U.S.C. § 2422 the predator does not have to talk to an actual minor, or even a purported one, as it is the mere attempt that is sufficient to secure a conviction. In United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), the defendant was discussing the possibility, in chat rooms, of renting the fictional father’s daughter for sex. He was met at the hotel carrying $300 and a box of condoms and arrested. He was convicted of attempt under the statute as there was no minor to be coerced. Upon appeal he argued that he hadn’t communicated directly with the minor and thus could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422.

The Court decided that it was irrelevant whether he was actually speaking to a minor or a purported minor, and that it was his intent to have sex with a minor AND his actions towards the fulfillment of that intent that allowed the government to secure the conviction.

“In United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 537 U.S. 1176, 154 L. Ed. 2d 921 (2003), we upheld an attempt conviction under 2422(b) where a defendant believed he was communicating with a minor, but was actually communicating with an undercover government agent. Id. at 1227-28. Murrell contends that Root is distinguishable from his case because it involved direct communication between the defendant and the purported minor. However, we fail to recognize how this factual discrepancy is relevant to the disposition of the charges against Murrell. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 at 1286
The Court on to went to point out:

“To sustain a conviction for the crime of attempt, the government need only prove (1) that the defendant had the specific intent to engage in the criminal conduct for which he is charged and (2) that he took a substantial step toward commission of the offense. See United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354, 1369 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Root, 296 F.3d at 1227-28. For example, we have stated that a conviction for attempted importation of marijuana requires proof of "a specific intent to import marijuana" and a substantial step towards the importation. See United States v. Collins, 779 F.2d 1520, 1527 (11th Cir. 1986)” Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 at 1286
The Court viewed Murrell’s actions as dispositive of his intent, though it pointed out that the government did not carry the burden of having to prove intent under the plain language definition of intent coupled with 18 U.S.C. § 2422. "

[BPA234]

The offenders are charged only with crimes that their actions warant. The men are asked and/or volunteer to bring condoms, alcohol, etc, showing intent. Soliuciting an undercover cop for drugs that are counterfeit is analgous to the sexual solicitations that the men are offering.

Interestingly, over several shows I noticed that they have now added an underage girl in the house who very briefly greets the man. I think this is likely in response to legal arguments raised in the suspect's defence, that mirror your statements.