To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[Poofler]

I wasted an hour of my life watching Dateline's To Catch a Predator. 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. They are arrested upon arrival in a sting operation. I'm interested to see what the forum thinks of this activity, and for those who think it is permissable in this instance, but not always, where would you draw the line?

[[Phill]]

Has anyone been tried and convicted because of this program?

[Poofler]

I'm pleased at the apparent wide difference of opinions, I'd like to hear some reasonings though.

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone been tried and convicted because of this program?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and none have used the entrapment defense with success.

[ QUOTE ]
How underaged? Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

The advocacy group poses as 12, 13, or 14. Young enough where the men always are aware that having sex with them is against the law.

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughtcrime.

[/ QUOTE ]

They usually charge them with transmitting obscene material to a minor too. As for actually having sex, these guys get nailed under intent laws. I guess showing up at the house with condoms passess for intent - taking considerable steps towards its completion, beyond thought. Like if a shoplifter put something in their purse, but didn't actually remove the item from the store yet. Even then, I tend to agree with you. You don't know that all these guys would have gone through with it, so instead we criminalize the probability that they will. 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?

For those who say yes, but not always, when do you tell authorities to stop? Is it ok for them to close off a street so no cars can be seen, and then bust people for jaywalking? For what types of crime do we draw the line?

For those who say no, but sometimes, where do you start drawing the line? Is it kosher to go into a violent anarchist chat room, tell everyone the president will be wide and open at block X on Sunday. And then stake out rooftops and arrest anyone who comes with a gun?

[xorbie]

I'd say that taking the step from talking online to showing up at a young girl's house with condoms is definitely crossing into criminal territory.

[zyqwert]

It is a private group doing the 'entrapment', not the police. Here's what wikipedia says about the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverted-Justice.com

When I read the 'PJ' website a couple of years ago I was impressed with their methods and safeguards, they work pretty hard not to entice or initiate and they run their IM through a proxy logger to prevent a rogue volunteer from making stuff up. They post the chat logs so you can decide for yourself.

[Poofler]

Yeah they work in tandem with the group. That's part of how they avoid entrapment. I was simplifying so as not to get into a discussion of the legal nuances that allow a private group to do the actual misrepresentation. The authorities coordinate with the group, and stake out houses with the group. PJ would never do this if authorities didn't cooperate. In my opinion, their involvement and support of the operation associates them with the actual misrepresntation. If you want a more accurate phrasing: Should it be legal for authorities to cooperate in an operation where people are enticed/faciliated/whatever into committing a false crime? Ie: the girl isn't actually underaged, or a girl, but the perp belives he is, which would be a crime if the perp's beliefs were true.

[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.

[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?

[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.