To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22...ops_ask_f.html

It does seem to me that it would be irresponsible *not* to alert the supposed target. And if the message were sent *to* the target, it most certainly *would* be an aggressive threat.

But what if you intercept the message, examine the address of the message-sender's target, and discover that it's a non-existent address in a fictional town, but you know (magically) that the message sender *believes* that it is a real address in a real town and he believes there will be much loot there to plunder? Who has he caused damages to?

Now, if you find the message, discover it *is* targeting a real person, and you *do* inform that person, it seems likely that the target may feel aggressively threatened. Whether that's enough to cause damages or not, I'm not sure.

Of course, this is quite different than the cases the OP is examining, since in those cases the "target" is positively receptive to the "attack" - *and* the target has the ability to consent to such action *even though* the "attacker" may not be aware of that ability.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Right, this is a common objection. So, instead our legal system often punishes you for starting to act on criminal intentions even if your intentions fail to amount to an actual crime because you were fooled or because you are a terrible criminal.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Borderline, sometimes yes and sometimes no. Some of the charges are transmitting obscene material, which is an act. Intent is a sliding scale, where it becomes more and more likely based upon the continuous actions of someone that a crime will be commited. If he is naked, the girl is naked, and he just put on a condom, he still has only "intent" to commit statutory rape. At that point you can't marginalize the actions taken thus far as a simple thoughtcrime.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I don't remember the specifics of false imprisonment, but this sounds right. The point of the analogy was to show that someone had not physically completed the crime, but had taken actions towards its completion, like going to a house with condoms. They aren't charged with rape, they are charged with "intent" to do X and X. Can a shoplifter be charged with "intent" to steal X and X? If not, this hardly seems equitable.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely, that's why I referred to this as effectively enticement by law enforcers in the OP.

[BPA234]

I don't know your age or your parental status. If you are young and without kids, I can understand why you might believe that 16 is OK. But, 16. yr. olds lack the abilty to make sound decisions.

Developmentally, they are not capable of entering into an adult relationship as an equal. There is solid research that actually shows, via MRI, that teenagers' frontal lobes, responsible for impulse control, planning etc., are not fully functional.

As a step-parent, I raised two kids (boy and a girl) through their teen years. I can tell you that neither kid at 16, nor any of their friends, were wholly (physically, mentally, emotionally) mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult.

Would you really be OK with some guy my age (38), buggering your 16yr. old daughter or son?

[BPA234]

"For the few, if none, who don't know the program: an advocacy group poses as underaged children on the internet and invites adult men to come have sex with them."

I have watched this show and from what I saw you are not correct when you write that the advocacy group "invites" men to come and have sex.

The actuality is that the advocacy group merely poses as underage children hanging in teen chat rooms and are, in fact, targeted and propositioned by adults looking for sex. This is an important distinction.

These adults are not lonely, socially-inept 18-20 yr.old guys who think they are hooking up with a slutty 16 yr. old. They are, with rare exception, adult males over 25 and most appear to be over 35. Many of them hold positions of trust (rabbi, teachers, Doctors, prosecutors, polticians) and very definitely know exactly what they are doing and that what they are doing is legally wrong.

All of them propositioned the <16 "teen", exchanged sexually explicit chat, been fully informed that the "teen" was <16 , some have sent naked photos of themselves, and all are agreeing, in advance, to come to the teen's house for sex.

There is no ambiguity, misunderstanding or entrapment. Due to the overwhelming supply of men who want to sex with 14 yr. old girls and boys, there doesn't have to be.

[[Phill]]

16 is the age of consent here in the UK.

14 is the age of consent in Holland.

Japan is 12 ive heard.

Holland definately has a lower teen pregnancy rate than the UK, and im pretty sure Japans rate will be lower still. Whilst this isnt a definitive proof that as a simple cut off point they are mature enough to enter into an adult sexual relationship, it does contradict your 'all 16 year olds are immature' argument.

[BPA234]

Since I can't speak to the countries you referenced, I can only speak to the science that supports my assertions and my own experience in the US. I will say that your post, in response to mine, is making a huge leap, and is pointless.

If I use your response as a guide, I guess, since she's not likely to get pregnant, you're going to be ok with your 37 year-old neighbor banging your 13 year-old?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I have watched this show and from what I saw you are not correct when you write that the advocacy group "invites" men to come and have sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, loose use of language. Your typical chat log involves the girl giving her age, where the guy hesitates. But the decoy often acts unconcerned, and sometimes the perp continues because the decoy seems willing. The decoy then volunteers they are home alone. The men are very much the aggressors here, and act very slimy. But, the decoy does provide willingness and ecnouragement, helping to make the perp decide to act on his desires. Using the word "invite" probably isn't the best characterization, I was just trying to make the OP brief.

The point of the poll is whether authorities (or in cooperation with a group) should always or sometimes be allowed to create a false crime situation, by artificially providing an environment where someone might commit a crime if their beliefs were true about the situation. Do you think this should always be acceptable, or reserved for a certain class of crime? I thought the question was interesting, because most people who aren't anti-state love the PJ thing. America values protecting children from adults very highly. Just take a look at sex offender laws to see the zeal. I was attempting to see if we condone this type of sting because of our association with the social hideousness of the crime, or because we actually approve of allowing authorities to entice would be criminals into actual criminals.

[Copernicus]

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.

I dont see the difference between this and any other undercover work (drugs, prostitution, muggings, weapons, bribery etc).

[BPA234]

AS a whole, I think all of the guys (very few exceptions-1 or 2) from the 2-3 shows I have seen are predators. Despite their claims otherwise, they troll teen chat-rooms and target potential victims for sex.

I fully agree that the decoys are open, encouraging participants. But only after the exchange veers into inappropriate conversation.

Knowing basic, reward-based psychology, I would also bet that, although not shown, the decoys very likely entrap some of these guys. But, for the most part, and as shown, the men are the ones initiating the sexual conversations and the contact.

The problem with the way you posed the question in your poll, because of the questions unintential influence, is that the results are skewed.

I agree that your greater question is valid and interesting.

The authorities are very often creating "false crime situations" to arrest people who may otherwise not have committed any criminal act. I can think of many examples. Prostitution, drugs, stolen merchandise, etc. If you have ever watched COP's more than twice you have seen all of these.

Essentially, these stings are designed to punish the marketplace. The classic example is targeting johns. Another one, is targeting gay men at rest stops, public parks etc. This last is at least sometimes entertaining, because it often turns out a republican or a preacher.

The worst example I can think of is a MI case involving a then 17 year old who was targeted by an undercover police officer. The kid was a drug user who was solicited to find the undercover cop a source for cocaine. The amount was approximately 1-2 kilos. Not an amount for casual use. But, not a Columbian cartel shipment either.

Long and short is that the kid did put the cop with the source, hoping to be "tipped" in free coke, he was instead arrested and given a mandatory life sentence.

The "wrongness" of the above MI cocaine sting results, is not lost on anyone familar with the case. At the same time, the laws are there and well known. Few, if any, break these laws in ignorance. Many are not knowldgeable of the consequences. But, they do know that are in violation.

So to answer your question, on the whole, I think most approve of the "sting" process. Targeting sexual predators is merely a very popular example.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]
I dont see the difference between this and any other undercover work (drugs, prostitution, muggings, weapons, bribery etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

Undercover muggings?

The difference, as I have already pointed out, is that when someone buys crack from an undercover vice cop, he's *actually buying crack*. Typing dirty words and sending dirty pictures to an adult is legal last time I checked, especially if the adult taking delivery of the dirty media is willing. Accepting an invitation to a private residence for the purposes of having sex from an adult is also legal last time I checked.

So what if the "criminal" thinks he's talking to a kid? Thinking you're doing something is not the same as actually doing it. If it is, then the powerball people will be hearing from me, because I *think* I bought a ticket last week with yesterday's winning numbers.