To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[Poofler]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to start. Given statements and actions of the perp, it is an easy burden to establish. More than enough unless it is rebutted. The way they could rebut (regarding age) is in fact to say they doubted the minor was a minor. If all you have is your word how do you convince a court that you thought this was an adult girl pretending to be young? What is the motivation of an 18 year old girl to misrepresent herself as a 13 year old girl when talking to guys on the internet and letting them come over for sex? I fail to see how any of these guys could actually reasonably believe they were talking to an adult female. Or if it is some 63 year old male jokester, why drive 2 hours to get laughed at?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Given statements and actions of the perp, it is an easy burden to establish. More than enough unless it is rebutted.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough.

[ QUOTE ]
The way they could rebut (regarding age) is in fact to say they doubted the minor was a minor. If all you have is your word how do you convince a court that you thought this was an adult girl pretending to be young?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the other person was, in fact, not a minor and the common practice of giving false biographical details over the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the motivation of an 18 year old girl to misrepresent herself as a 13 year old girl when talking to guys on the internet and letting them come over for sex?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual fantasy and/or prostitution.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way they could rebut (regarding age) is in fact to say they doubted the minor was a minor. If all you have is your word how do you convince a court that you thought this was an adult girl pretending to be young?

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that the other person was, in fact, not a minor and the common practice of giving false biographical details over the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact they weren't a minor does not prove he thought they weren't a minor. False bio details is probably common enough, but you still have to explain why someone would make up the elaborate fantasy and pose as an illegal minor. Not just saying "athletic build", or shaving off a few years from a 40 year old. Then, you have to explain why you "played along" in the chat. This argument has more credibility until you actually drive 2 hours to see the person. You lose your, "I was just havin some fun with some nutjob" excuse. You've now gone considerably out of your way, your trip insinuates that you think you'll get some benefit for your time. IE: possible sex with a person you would want to have sex with. If you thought it was a 63 year old guy, or some fat 60 year old woman, you wouldn't have gone. Which leaves us with only two possible hopes by the perp: 1) the girl is a minor or 2) the girl is actually an adult girl that you might want to have sex with. So....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the motivation of an 18 year old girl to misrepresent herself as a 13 year old girl when talking to guys on the internet and letting them come over for sex?

[/ QUOTE ] Sexual fantasy and/or prostitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the guy believes it might be a prostitute, and if not he'll leave? Strange way to search out a prostitute, especially one that never said she was a prostitute and wasted a lot of time making up a false identity that doesn't clue you in. Also a strange way to get business, putting guys off by saying you are not of age.

Sexual fantasy: so the guy believes it might be an adult girl, who wants to pretend that she is young? This is a little more credible. But going this far out of your way, in the hopes that the girl was really lying to you, despite your playing along in the chat... is a little too fantastical. Was he going to ask for ID when he got there? If so, why not save himself the journey and say "Seriously, you are of age, right?" in the chat log?

I mean you can argue these things, but your "word" in nearly any explanation is typically going to be incredibly unlikely compared to the more reasonable explanation (sex with minor).

[BPA234]

I know that on the first few shows they had the girl that was a decoy working for the advocacy group. But, recently they added an actress that was less than 18.

Regarding your question, legally, there is no privacy protection available for the suspects in this situation.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question is how can they legally show the alleged perpetrators face and name on tv?

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalists have a lot of wiggle room, as long as they aren't barging into your home, your privacy rights are slim. You could always sue for defamation, but there's enough evidence on these guys that it's pretty unlikely to prevail.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was serious..they have to get signed releases, or hide their identity. Just like on "Cops".

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact they weren't a minor does not prove he thought they weren't a minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not, but it certainly makes it credible that he would think so.

[ QUOTE ]
False bio details is probably common enough, but you still have to explain why someone would make up the elaborate fantasy and pose as an illegal minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantasy play between adults.

[ QUOTE ]
Then, you have to explain why you "played along" in the chat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantasy play between adults.

[ QUOTE ]
This argument has more credibility until you actually drive 2 hours to see the person. You lose your, "I was just havin some fun with some nutjob" excuse. You've now gone considerably out of your way, your trip insinuates that you think you'll get some benefit for your time. IE: possible sex with a person you would want to have sex with. If you thought it was a 63 year old guy, or some fat 60 year old woman, you wouldn't have gone. Which leaves us with only two possible hopes by the perp: 1) the girl is a minor or 2) the girl is actually an adult girl that you might want to have sex with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in evidence, unless you have an expert mind-reader take the stand. Maybe the defendant expected someone around the age of the actual person on the other end of the chat in a somewhat credible role.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean you can argue these things, but your "word" in nearly any explanation is typically going to be incredibly unlikely compared to the more reasonable explanation (sex with minor).

[/ QUOTE ]

There never was a minor. Self-reporting in a dating situation on the internet is notoriously unreliable, even when a physical meeting will eventually take place. Therefore, the defendant had no reason to believe anything stated about age, and, since his word is not yet impeached, he states what only he can refute or verify: that he knew all along the other person was an adult. Thus, both sides were pretexting. All this puts reasonable doubt on the side of the defense.

[MoreWineII]

I don't like the idea of media getting involved in actual policework so the concept of these Dateline shows bother me right off the bat. My wife was watching one not long ago so I sat down to check it out and nothing I saw made me feel any differently. The preaching is extra-vomitous.

Legally I can't answer but ethically I think this show is lacking. And I've got no love for pedophiles.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact they weren't a minor does not prove he thought they weren't a minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. However, there are two issues here:

1) did the defendant actually believe that the decoy was a minor (the burden of proof is on the prosecution).

2) does it *actually matter* what the defendant thought?

If we're just debating the actual reality of law in the US, then question #2 is irrelevant. But for those of us more interested in the normative than the descriptive, #2 is about 400x more important than #1.

Basically the question is "do you support the prosecution of thoughtcrime?"

To poofler specifically, I'm not really sure where you stand on this issue since it seems like you're discussing this purely from the descriptive point of view; from that perspective, I think you're pretty close to 100% correct.

[Poofler]

I made a post somewhere up there where I gave an opinion. If the prosecution can't meet the burden in 1) you'd have cases left and right being determined on unprovable thoughts, rather than hard evidence being made by those who know that evidence could be damning. I definitely have my issues with 2). At some point in the timeline, I don't call it a thoughtcrime, even if it is still a "thought". Not entirely sure where it is, but for example, I think a naked perp and naked girl and a condom in hand shows sufficient probability he will go through with it. I basically want a completed false crime, or as close as possible, if authorities are going to arrest people in situations where they may have committed no crime that day if authorities did not exist. House entry doesn't sit with me as being late enough in the perp thought process, there is still time to not go through with it.

Now I presume you mean it is still a "thoughtcrime" if he were to say, actually have sex with the 18 year old decoy. I think we should be able to arrest people for a completed false crime, as they *think* they have completed crimine - knowingly broke the law. Imagine a situation where a sniper goes on a rooftop, has terrible vision, and shoots a public statue near some people when you have evidence in his home saying he wants to go into public and shoot people. He *thought* he was shooting a person, but I'm more than ok locking him up for attempted murder just because he was fooled/dumb. Besides reckless firarm charges, The criminal justice system (as Iron tried to poll) has an interest in public protection, not just punishment. In my view, you can arrest someone who has demonstrated willingness to *act* in defiance of existing law, but I want them to actually act, or reach the point of no return beyond a reasonable doubt.

To me the more interesting question is whether authorities should be allowed to participate in *creating* the false crime. This is another sliding scale, and I object in most instances where the state interest isn't overwhelmningly compelling and/or the perp wasn't inevitably going to break the law sometime. I'm not sure where I stand on PJ, I'm on the line, as I have the feeling that if *not* for the authority, a crime might not have ever been commited by a significant amount of these guys. I could be wrong. I'm not taking the side of the perp here, I think plenty are also predators - they will at some point act, and they are all generally slimy. But from a policy perspective, I generally don't want the government exploiting tendencies to make those who may not have acted, act with criminal intentions. And if they do, I want as close to a criminal act completion as possible before they are arrested.

[Sponger.]

I think the legal age of consent should be lowered to 15. Seriously, they're [censored] at 13: Don't look at me like I'm some sort of monster. What, some 16 year-old kid with zits all over his face - who pops after 20 seconds – he gets to [censored] them? I'm a grown man with skills!