Entrapment.

[Ryal Kane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/press_secretary_arrested

Now I'm not looking for a thread underage seduction (which I'm strongly opposed to) nor about politics (his party politics is basically irrelevant).

The things which strikes me is that the person involved wasn't 14 but an undercover cop. While we're not privy to what interaction occurred, I'm willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt. But it brings up a question in my mind.

How can he be charged with use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor, when in practise he did neither?

True, he thought he was doing it and that in itself is worthy of police attention. But he didn't actually do it.

I know it mind sound immoral, but if someone has sex with an eighteen year old, under the impression that they are fifteen, have they committed a crime?

But I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd been seducing a real girl either. I completely understand the use of false identities to ensnare pedophiles and the like.

It just brings up an interesting question which I though might make an interesting discussion.

 

[Moros]

America is largely governed by morality, even in 2006.

The thing is, if someone is 'seducing' what he thinks is a minor, and then goes to meet the minor for sexual purposes and it turns out to be a cop - the issue is still that he was going to meet a minor for sex.

Thoughtcrime maybe, but intention and motive are key factors.

 

[Voegelin]

Not really a thought crime. Nothing illegal about thinking about picking up a 14 year old kid. Something else to solicit.

 

[meh]

Entrapment is inducing an otherwise unwilling participant into committing a crime. It's not entrapment if you are a willing participant. And the police can give you opportunities to commit the crime, and it's still not entrapment.

If what I believe to be a 14 year old boy keeps IMing me and trying to get me to talk about sex, watch him perform sex acts, share pornography or meet him for sex, all I have to do is say no. If he would persist, block his messages and ignore him. If I don't say no and ask him to send photos or send him photos or try to meet him for sex, I've committed a crime. It doesn't matter if it's really a 45 year old undercover cop. My intent was to seduce a 14 year old and communicate in a sexual way with a minor.

If I actively seek a 14 year old boy online for all these activities, I'm in bigger trouble. I can't claim entrapment. I was trying to commit a crime, and the police just gave me the opportunity to commit it. I get the impression this guy started the communication because the police say he found what he thought was a 14 year old girl's profile online and started sexually explicit conversations.

I work for criminal defense attorneys. Trust me when I say that 90% of the pedophiles arrested for soliciting a minor on-line or sharing kiddie porn try to go with the entrapment defense. It rarely works. The only time I've ever seen it work was a guy who was hounded by the police 3 times a day for 30 days to get an undercover agent some pot. He finally did just to shut the guy up. He was found not guilty and the jury believed he was entrapped. He was an otherwise unwilling participant finally induced into committing a crime.

Having sex with a 15 year old who has said they are 18 is a little different. Your intent would not be to seduce a 15 year old. I've never seen someone actually prosecuted for that. But then again, I'm not the fount of all knowledge

my 2 cents

 

[momalle1]

The intention should be as punishable as a crime, would you prefer he actually did talk to, in an explicit way, a fourteen year old girl, that's what he meant to do? If he attempted to murder someone, but was unsuccessful, should we let him go?

Oddly, I'm not surprised by this, but the only person in this thread excusing the deputy somehow advocates domestic spying saying if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be worried about.

Child abuse and especially child sexual abuse are the worse crimes a person can commit, this guy needs severe prosecution. If we let him go, your daughter may be next, I'm not willing to take that chance.

 

[wanderingone]

I am kind of uncomfortable with some of these "setups" and personally I'd like to see some statistics that show this effectively reduces the number of crimes against children...

However..at this point I'm not creative enough to think of another way to catch people who are looking for sexual activity with children, this type of "setup" is not uncommon in law enforcement. Plus I maintain that personal responsibility holds true, someone dangling temptation in your (adult) face doesn't give you the right to violate them or the law. If I'm not interested in sex with a minor having one telling me they want to have sex doesn't excuse my accepting the offer.

 

[k]

I am kind of uncomfortable with some of these "setups" and personally I'd like to see some statistics that show this effectively reduces the number of crimes against children...

However..at this point I'm not creative enough to think of another way to catch people who are looking for sexual activity with children, this type of "setup" is not uncommon in law enforcement. Plus I maintain that personal responsibility holds true, someone dangling temptation in your (adult) face doesn't give you the right to violate them or the law. If I'm not interested in sex with a minor having one telling me they want to have sex doesn't excuse my accepting the offer.

Well, don't know about "statistics" but here is one link for Dateline's work regarding the issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/

In one episode I saw, they caught about 50 guys.....from a Rabbi to a DHS official. As long as they are doing this with everything being verifiable, it's a great way to catch pedophiles.

 

[wanderingone]

Well, don't know about "statistics" but here is one link for Dateline's work regarding the issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/

In one episode I saw, they caught about 50 guys.....from a Rabbi to a DHS official. As long as they are doing this with everything being verifiable, it's a great way to catch pedophiles.

I know about dateline's experiment..-
My question would be are the number of children victimized reduced as a result of people caught via these setups..

Don't get me wrong, I really don't have a problem with these folks being charged for soliciting sex with minors and dateline's exercise has great emotional impact in terms of waking people up to the dangers out there and making people aware they can actually be caught fairly easily. I'm just not sure how much preventive value these setups actually have.

 

[trunks2k]

If what I believe to be a 14 year old boy keeps IMing me and trying to get me to talk about sex, watch him perform sex acts, share pornography or meet him for sex, all I have to do is say no. If he would persist, block his messages and ignore him. If I don't say no and ask him to send photos or send him photos or try to meet him for sex, I've committed a crime. It doesn't matter if it's really a 45 year old undercover cop. My intent was to seduce a 14 year old and communicate in a sexual way with a minor.

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.

 

[k]

I know about dateline's experiment..-
My question would be are the number of children victimized reduced as a result of people caught via these setups..

Don't get me wrong, I really don't have a problem with these folks being charged for soliciting sex with minors and dateline's exercise has great emotional impact in terms of waking people up to the dangers out there and making people aware they can actually be caught fairly easily. I'm just not sure how much preventive value these setups actually have.

Logically, it seems like it would. I mean, if 100 pedophiles are no longer on the street, or not acting out....

 

[meh]

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.

I know they can offer contact on-line. But I've only worked on one case where that happened. Usually the pedophile initiates contact. I'm told it all comes down to intent, and whether the prosecution can prove the defendant more than likely would have committed the crime on his own. (I'm told..I'm just a paralegal, but I have to be in court a lot and help with the defense. I've just never ever seen this defense work with pedophiles. Maybe my bosses are just bad lawyers).

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Not really a thought crime. Nothing illegal about thinking about picking up a 14 year old kid. Something else to solicit.

In what might be a first, I completely agree with Voegelin.

Think what you want.

The solicitation of underage children is the crime. Entrapment? I doubt it. If a police officer emails you at your home, says "I am a 14 year old girl, lets get it on..." that might be entrapment. If a police officer is hanging out in an internet chatroom, describing himself as a 14 y.o. girl, that does not seem to rise to the level of entrapment.

 

[Nightson]

I don't think passive entrapment is wrong. Active entrapment, quite possibly. I mean, a 15 year old girl throws herself on you, most guys would have trouble resisting.

And don't think of it as punishment, it's protecting society.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I think all sting operations are entrapment. The crime was committed only because you made it possible. The assumption is that the person would have committed the crime anyway somewhere else, but how do you know that? He could have just been inclined that way, had been thinking about it for years, but never would have actually done it without the opportunity you provided.

Maybe the cop fake prostitute is the most beautiful woman he has ever seen and pushes him over the edge, whereas lesser women were insufficient to make him commit the crime.

Essentially stings cause a crime to occur. Maybe they would have occurred anyway, but maybe they wouldn't have. I thought the idea was to prevent crime, not cause it.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I don't think passive entrapment is wrong. Active entrapment, quite possibly. I mean, a 15 year old girl throws herself on you, most guys would have trouble resisting.

In what might be a first, I completely agree with Voegelin.

Think what you want.

The solicitation of underage children is the crime. Entrapment? I doubt it. If a police officer emails you at your home, says "I am a 14 year old girl, lets get it on..." that might be entrapment. If a police officer is hanging out in an internet chatroom, describing himself as a 14 y.o. girl, that does not seem to rise to the level of entrapment.

Kinda depends on what the "girl" says, doesn't it? Do we have a transcript of the conversation? How do we know "she" wasn't throwing herself at him? Or at least being far more interested than a typical teenage girl would be. How many teenage girls like older people or want to talk with them about anything?

 

[JGG]

It doesn't sound like outright entrapment. Where did he contact this "girl"? Did he intitiate, or did she? Frankly, police have to be very careful about this kind of operation so I'd guess it was all on the up and up.

But legally what's important is intent. This man intended to meet a 14-year old girl, whether she actually was that age or not.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

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?

 

[fillerbunny]

Maybe the cop fake prostitute is the most beautiful woman he has ever seen and pushes him over the edge, whereas lesser women were insufficient to make him commit the crime.

He's still acting with the intent to commit a crime. (Incidentally, I don't believe prostitution ought to be a criminal offense, but that's another issue for another thread.) I don't really see how "but.. she was hot!" is a valid excuse. People are capable of exercising self-control. The guy knows it's illegal. He's going into this with the full knowledge that he could get caught, and, if he does, there will be legal repercussions. If he chooses to do it anyway, that's the risk he's taking.

Just because somebody places an opportunity for criminal behavior in front of you doesn't mean you're obligated to take it. What about a non-police setup? Suppose my boss decides to leave the safe full, open, and unlocked in the break room. Unbeknownst to me, it's intentional, and he's sitting next door in his office watching me over the closed circuit TV system. I spend my entire break sitting there staring at that money. For hypothetical purposes, we'll suppose that I'm not the most honorable person, and temptation gets the better of me. I attempt to palm a few bills, and I get busted.

Arguing "but, honestly, I wouldn't have attempted to steal the money if he hadn't waved it in front of my face!" would, in all likelihood, get me laughed out of the courtroom. Maybe it's legitimately true. Maybe it's not. It doesn't matter. This could've been the only circumstance under which I possibly would've considered engaging in such an act. It doesn't matter. There was no force involved. I could've turned the other way and would've had no problem, but instead, I knowingly and willingly chose to behave in a criminal manner. Is it really any less of a crime because I was given the opportunity?

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? If a twelve-year-old kid solicits an adult for sex and s/he accepts instead of the other way around?

"Temptation" isn't a viable excuse in my eyes. We face temptation every day. We have the ability- and in some cases, the legal obligation- to turn around and walk away.

Essentially stings cause a crime to occur. Maybe they would have occurred anyway, but maybe they wouldn't have. I thought the idea was to prevent crime, not cause it.

I disagree. Stings may put in place the opportunity for a crime to occur, but they're not causing it. It's fully up to the individual whether or not s/he wants to run with it and participate in an illegal act. When done properly and within the confines of the law, I have no problem with stings.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

He's still acting with the intent to commit a crime. (Incidentally, I don't believe prostitution ought to be a criminal offense, but that's another issue for another thread.) I don't really see how "but.. she was hot!" is a valid excuse. People are capable of exercising self-control. The guy knows it's illegal. He's going into this with the full knowledge that he could get caught, and, if he does, there will be legal repercussions. If he chooses to do it anyway, that's the risk he's taking.

I never said that he didn't commit a crime. Or that he had an excuse and he wasn't guilty. I said that he wouldn't have permitted that particular instance of a crime if that particular decoy cop had not been on duty. He may not have ever solicited a prostitute any other time of his life. We don't know one way or the other.

What we do know is that he now has a criminal record directly because that sting operation and that he would not have commited that particular crime without it. He may have committed a similar crime at another time. He may not have.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Kinda depends on what the "girl" says, doesn't it? Do we have a transcript of the conversation? How do we know "she" wasn't throwing herself at him? Or at least being far more interested than a typical teenage girl would be. How many teenage girls like older people or want to talk with them about anything?

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.

No different than leaving a car on the street with the keys in. You don't have to steal it, you know it is wrong.