Entrapment.

[faster_jackrabbit]

Is it any less of a crime if I decide to leave my bicycle sitting outside on a street corner sans lock and somebody tries to make off with it? If I leave my car in the parking lot with the windows down and the key in the ignition, and somebody hops in and drives off?

Did you leave them there deliberately so that they could be stolen? With cops lying in wait?

I have not been saying that a crime was not committed. I have been saying that the person who did it may not have done so without the sting. May not have ever committed a similar crime in his life, or might not ever do it in the future.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

I have not been saying that a crime was not committed. I have been saying that the person who did it may not have done so without the sting. May not have ever committed a similar crime in his life, or might not ever do it in the future.

I see what you are saying, but we are talking about a person's sexual attraction here. These things are generally hard wired, so if this guy is attracted to 14yo girls, it is likely that he always has been, and always will be. Most people act on their sexual attractions. They put themselves in situations where they will find the partners that interest them.

What I am saying is that he might not have committed a crime that particular day, but it is very, very likely that he has committed similar crimes in the past, and has the propensity to do so in the future.

So, for this type of crime in particular, given the severity, the probability of recurrence, and the difficulty of catching one "in the act", I would say that it is ethically permissible to venture a little into the grey area, and set up a situation and see who takes the bait.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

My post you are quoting was talking about stings in general, not the child molestation case in particular.

In my example, the crime occurred directly because of a particular female decoy prostitute, who he could see.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Sure. I am going with the assumption that the law enforcement guys did not cross a certain line. They lied about age, and maybe gender. And if they started the conversation with a come on, such as "Hi, I am a cute 14yo girl with big ... and I like to .... while wearing..., do you want to..." that is definitely a problem.

But if they are hanging out in an internet chat room that is a potential problem site, and they do not escalate the conversation but simply respond, I do not see a problem with that.

You trust the integrity of the police far more than I do. They are under great pressure over this stuff, and I question that they would have the patience to engage in idle chitchat for a long period of time if the guy didn't make a move immediately.

But I concede that they would probably have to provide complete transcripts for court and those would show in great detail who said what. The logs would have to show that the guy initiated everything to avoid tossing the case for entrapment.

Hopefully the logs won't be doctored. And before you complain about my lack in trust in gubment officials, remember that the guy being prosecuted is also a gubment official.

 

[billwald]

Christianity invented the concept of "thought crime."

 

[intricatic]

I'm glad homeland security is protecting our families.

Sorry, has absolutely no relevance to anything, but I had to say it.

 

[C2Q]

I do not mean to revive a dead thread, but this thread is why I joined this forum. Please let me know if I need to start a new one.

Opinions on this show and the "entrapment" issue has caused a great deal of strife in my family. My question is if you had someone in your immediate family [who you alrerady have a lack of trust for] that vehemently disagreed with the show and felt no crime ever occurred, would you be hesitant about having your young family around that person?

 

[MoonlessNight]

I do not mean to revive a dead thread, but this thread is why I joined this forum. Please let me know if I need to start a new one.

Opinions on this show and the "entrapment" issue has caused a great deal of strife in my family. My question is if you had someone in your immediate family [who you alrerady have a lack of trust for] that vehemently disagreed with the show and felt no crime ever occurred, would you be hesitant about having your young family around that person?

It really depends on the person. I believe Ruby Ridge was initiated by entrapment. Does this mean that I shouldn't be allowed around guns?

The fact is that anyone who makes an objection is probably making it on principles such as the government should never encourage people to commit crimes. If you worry about them because they make that stand, then you are assuming it is a front for other motives.

 

[chaz345]

The guy's primary crime was being a moron. With all the talk about stings of this nature on the news, why wouldn't he assume an underage girl who wanted to talk about sex was a fake?

Exactly. To quote someone's sig:

"Welcome to the internet, where the men are men, the beautiful women are men, and the 14 y.o. girls are undercover cops. "

 

[beechy]

If you've driven to what you think is a crack house looking to buy some crack and offer $20 to a cop who is sitting on the porch pretending to be a dealer, that's not entrapment, that's an attempt to purchase narcotics (a punishable crime).

If you're sitting in your living room watching American Idol and a cop pretending to be a crack dealer knocks on your door out of nowhere and offers you some crack, then you might have yourself an entrapament defense.

Similarly, if you go into a chat room, seek out a person you believe to be a child (but who's actually a cop), initiate a sexual conversation with that cop who you believe to be a child, arrange a meeting with that cop you believe to be a child in which you promise to bring condoms and beer so that you can have sex with that cop that you believe to be a child, and show up at the house of that cop who you believe to be a child with said condoms and beer, that's not entrapment, that's solicitation of a minor.

If, on the other hand, you're sitting in your living room watching American Idol and an underage looking decoy who is actually a cop knocks on your front door asks to be let in to use the bathroom and, after you let her in, she emerges from the bathroom naked, asks you to have sex with her and you say "ok" right before the SWAT team breaks down your door, you've probably got a pretty good argument for an entrapment defense.

 

[chaz345]

If you've driven to what you think is a crack house looking to buy some crack and offer $20 to a cop who is sitting on the porch pretending to be a dealer, that's not entrapment, that's an attempt to purchase narcotics (a punishable crime).

If you're sitting in your living room watching American Idol and a cop pretending to be a crack dealer knocks on your door out of nowhere and offers you some crack, then you might have yourself an entrapament defense.

Similarly, if you go into a chat room, seek out a person you believe to be a child (but who's actually a cop), initiate a sexual conversation with that cop who you believe to be a child, arrange a meeting with that cop you believe to be a child in which you promise to bring condoms and beer so that you can have sex with that cop that you believe to be a child, and show up at the house of that cop who you believe to be a child with said condoms and beer, that's not entrapment, that's solicitation of a minor.

If, on the other hand, you're sitting in your living room watching American Idol and an underage looking decoy who is actually a cop knocks on your front door asks to be let in to use the bathroom and, after you let her in, she emerges from the bathroom naked, asks you to have sex with her and you say "ok" right before the SWAT team breaks down your door, you've probably got a pretty good argument for an entrapment defense.

I agree entirely but unfortunately in the real world, things are seldom as clear cut as that. There are a lot of potential situations that are somewhere between the two opposites in the situations that you outline and that's where it gets messy. Unfortunately democracy and freedom are messy things so there is really no other way.

 

[beechy]

I agree entirely but unfortunately in the real world, things are seldom as clear cut as that. There are a lot of potential situations that are somewhere between the two opposites in the situations that you outline and that's where it gets messy. Unfortunately democracy and freedom are messy things so there is really no other way.

Yeah, definitely can be some grey areas, so cops need to be careful when orchestrating these types of sting operations to avoid conduct that could invoke the entrapment defense. I was just putting out some obvious examples in response to the OP.

 

[tcampen]

Actually, I think in that case, it IS entrapment. I don't think that the police can outright offer you the "service." IIRC, in prostitution stings, a cop cannot directly offer the John sex for money. They can hint at it, but they can't directly ask. I believe this is because the argument can be made that you never would have done it had it not been offered to you.

You are quite mistaken. It happens everyday, and cops can ask or offer outright. There is nothing wrong with it. This is NOT a hint, but explicit agreements for particular sex acts for a set amount of money, and then an act in furtherance of that agreement. The crime is the solicitation of prostitution, not the act of prostitution itself (which is a separate crime).

It is not entrapment unless the offer made would overwhelm the average, ordinary, law-abiding citizen into doing an act they would not otherwise do. For example, if a cop offered someone $5 Million dollars for sex, THAT would be entrapment, since who wouldn't agree to such an incredible offer? (assuming it was believable.)

Offering $50 or even $500 for sex is something only prostitutes would go for. Entrapment is a very rare defense in such cases.