Setting up people for Arrest - news story

[superconnected]

SEATTLE (AP) - The senior enlisted man at Naval Base Kitsap was arrested Friday for investigation of attempted child rape after a monthlong undercover Internet operation by police in Bremerton, west of Seattle.

Detectives alleged that Command Master Chief Edward E. Scott, 43, had been communicating over the Internet with someone he thought was a woman with 12-year-old twins, a boy and girl, but in reality was an undercover agent.

Over the course of a month, Scott used his computer at work to engage in chats that were sexually explicit and graphic in nature, Bremerton police Sgt. Kevin Crane told The Associated Press.

Eventually, Scott asked to meet the woman and her children and a meeting was arranged for 5 a.m. Friday at a Bremerton hotel, Crane said.

More...
http://www.komotv.com/news/6536477.html

-------------------------------------------

Okay. I'm against sex offenders.

My problem with this is there are no real victims and the man has just been arrested for being a pedophile for intent to comit a crime - which in this case is imaginary because his victims are imaginary.

This is too "big-brother" for me. When the police create the "crime" scene, and then arrest someone for going for it, having an actual crime is no longer needed. When actually commiting a crime there are many points where a person may turn back. Many people admit to having at one time or other, wanted to kill someone - even plotting. But most never go through with it. Arresting someone for intent is not the same as arresting someone for doing. People can decide not to do a crime.

I think the reason the police are getting away with this is because society hates pedophiles and wether he comits the crime or not, he is damned in our eyes. We see him as a ped.

I see this same situations happen with American "terrorists". America hates terrorists so it's okay for the would be terrorist to actually be dealing with an imaginary group run by the police who recruited him, and then be sent to prison for being part of a terrorist org that doesn't actually exist.

This has become common place with the people we hate most in society. What happens when we start applying it to groups only a few hate, a few that are in control. In my city of seattle, the Mayor is in charge of the police and therefore the police become a pawn in politics. The mayor actually does have say about what the focus of the police department is.

I just don't think these big-brother create the crime arrests should go across the news and be ignored. The pedophile is scary. But the police and laws setting him up to be in prisoned for a crime where there are no victims - they are imaginary -, and the real crime is intent - is scarier.

[seriousstan]

1. Waiting for the "regular" pedophile defenders.

:popcorn:

[endarkenment]

3. oh fine response there.

So anyone who has a problem with an imaginary crime against imaginary victims is a 'pedophile defender'?

[superconnected]

4. What are you talking about?

I'm not a pedophile defender or saying peds are okay.

My problem is the created crime situations and arrests for a crime not commited.

If it sticks to peds, no prob. But it isn't sticking to peds. It went to the would-be terrorists. Those would-be terrorists are being setup for purely political reasons - to scare america into believe there are terrorists here.

Dems have been called terrorists by GOP lawmakers.

I'm saying the gov locking people up for crimes the gov created, only serves the gov. Not us. It's political. The peds are only being used to make it accepted. After it's accepted, it's going to be whoever the current political power wants arrested, that get in prisoned for gov-invented crimes.

[bahrbearian]

8. Waiting for a Pop corn Muncher, with their heads up their ass Emotion Icon

[ComerPerro]

2. I completely agree with you.

[eagler]

5. If the intent is to protect children and the accused initiates the encounter

I'm all for it.

[helderheid]

64. Ditto what you said.

[shance]

6. Now with the Patriot Act, individuals can enter your house and plant evidence

And we the Americans have essentially little or no recourse.

How does one prove evidence has been planted? How does one prove someone has been in the house without a search warrant?

In addition, it appears that the Patriot Act also allows "government officials" and Homeland Security officers to invade peoples bank/safety deposit boxes in the event of terrorist attack/Martial Law.

I add that because it is yet one more of the tremendous abuses included in the Patriot Act, that is virtually unheard of.

[Joanne98]

19. The Patriot Act was nothing but a set-up!

I still can't believe the Dems fell for it. We need to repeal it.

[shance]

65. Some of the Democrats are in on it as well Joanne. That's the reality we need to face.

Our two party system is essentially a sham and a fraud. The sooner we wake up to disengaging and totally detaching ourselves from Washington, seems to me the more likely we will have a chance of survival.

At this rate, as long as we play along in Washingtons deluded fantasy, we will all have our lives potentially and probably destroyed.

We are being run by patriarchal corporations and right winged/patriarchal think tanks, that keep us divided through their wholly controlled media which in order to maintain their power, pits Americans against one another through the political labels and racist/sexist stereotypes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Yes, they should have handled it like a murder-for-hire case.

Wait for them to make the deal with the undercover agent, then arrest them.

Of course that wouldn't work in this case, seeing as you can't actually wait for him to rape the child before arresting him.

[redqueen]

11. That's how I see it as well.

It's an ugly way to trap these monsters, but if they show up for a 'date' with a child, kinda hard for me to really give a $#&@.

[MissB]

14. I'm with you.

[ends_dont_justify]

9. Safety net

Personally I wish they'd do more in this line of reasoning. I doubt children who have been raped agree with the pleas on behalf of closet pedophiles' rights over their own. What should happen is children should be given stronger rights so we don't need undercover police to flush out closet peds. We should allow children more leighway to make legitimate claims someone is trying to do something of that nature to them and put deeper investigations in that way. Not convicting every case, simply taking it more to heart than 'kids are just kids' and believing the words of some sociopathic sweet-talker over kids who seem fanatical.

Little investigation on behalf of the victims, IE children, would go a lot further than this...but until that happens I'm for any action taken against people with intent to sexually harm children.

[Greyhound]

50. Has the irony of your position on this and your handle sunk in yet?

I'm just asking...:eyes:

[Joanne98]

10. I'm remember when they started doing this with drugs..

We used to argue about entrapment. I hate child molestors but I'm beginning to have a problem with this too. I don't know if a man who has never behaved like this and is tempted, is the same thing as a child molestor. It seems like weakness to me. I know I really didn't agree with this when they did it with drugs. It's borderline unethical.

Aside from this. I am absolutely sick and tired of the police state. We need a new way to deal with addictions..

[redqueen]

12. Drugs? Can't really compare predation of children with drugs, IMO. n/t

[Joanne98]

15. I'm not comparing it with drugs. It's the same tactic I'm talking about.

It's called entrapment and it used to be illegal. BUT thanx to the drug war we lost all our rights. The police state will just keep expanding. Child molesters and terrorists. There's always something to sacrifice the constitution too.

[redqueen]

18. The tactic is the same...

the reasoning behind using the tactic is different.

What about using these kinds of stings to catch johns? Undercover officers posing as prostitutes? Does that bother you as much?

[Joanne98]

23. That's another iffy area..I guess it would depend on the circumstance.

Or the location. A undercover cop sitting in a bar where no prostitutes hang out and solicting guys, I would say is entrapment. I don't like the idea of police going out an tempting people with stuff and then arresting them for accepting what is offered. It to hard to tell if they would have committed the crime if not for the offer.

[redqueen]

32. I see your point...

but knowing how likely it is for children who have already been victimized by predators to become promiscuous, it's hard for me to feel any sympathy for someone who gives in to such 'temptation'. It's pretty much impossible, really.

[Madspirit]

86. THEY DON'T MAKE THE OFFER FIRST!

That would be entrapment and is still illegal. They wait to be approached.

...and just an aside, prostitution is a victimless crime as are drugs. Pedophilia and terrorism are not victimless crimes.
Lee

[Madspirit]

85. NOT entrapment if the perp intitiates it. n/t

[CanuckAmok]

122. This can't be discussed as a legal issue if we're going to apply a scale of illegaity.

If we want to look at this as a legal issue, we have to use the concept of "unlawful activity", without defining that activity.

Either you're doing something illegal, or your not. We can't argue that drug dealing or plutonium smuggling is "more" or "less" unlawful than pedophilia; in a discussion of legalities, the law has to be considered as an absolute.

When we state that they are different "degrees" of crime, we're no longer discussing law; we're discussing ethics and morality, aka community standards.

[ComerPerro]

17. I hate that, to question policies like this, you have to first qualify it with

"I hate child molesters" or "I hate pedophiles". Especially here. Its like having to qualify any criticism of the supposed "war on terror" by saying, "don't get me wrong, I don't like terrorists, but..."

And I really think you make a good point about the temptation. We never will really know who starts what, and who escalates the talk first. I have a strong feeling, especially on the show "To Catch a Predator" that a lot of the tactics are shady and highly questionable (mainly since the show needs predators in order to exist and make money).

Its completely unethical.

These people, the predators, have something seriously wrong with them. And I am always stunned (although, anymore, less and less) to come here, a progressive site, and read that most so-called progressives advocate this kind of borederline fascist behavior and reccomend life sentences in prison, torture, and even state-sanctioned murder for cases like this.

Its interseting that one thing you never hear from these so-called champions of innocent children is any discussion of how to actually better educate and protect children, and if we can attempt to cure this apparent disease of pedophilia.

But I guess its easier just to sit back and support things like this while pretending to care about children.

[redqueen]

Why does it matter who starts? Who escalates?

It does not matter at all.

While we try to cure the disease, we should also protect would-be victims. Catching the sick bastards before they are "tricked" or "lured" into trying to prey on children is a good way to protect people, IMO, while we try to find a cure.

[ComerPerro]

22. Well, for one thing, it heads into a grey area

where you can't be sure if the crime was initiated and planned by the criminal or the law enforcement agent. And, more importantly, the more involved the agent's words and actions are in the planning, the less certain we can be that any crime would have been committed if not for the agent's involvement.

[redqueen]

33. Does it matters who plans it?

IMO, the mere fact that the perpetrator would go so far as not only to entertain thoughts of such a thing, but to actually act on it... I don't care if they were lured. You take the bait, you are sick... end of story. They know it, too. If this is the only way to lure them into the open to get them help, I'm all for it. That said, I wish there were more help involved in the prosecution. Just locking them up doesn't really do much, but if it keeps them from being 'lured' into abusing another former victim of sexual abuse or just a precocious adolescent, then IMO it's a good thing, on balance.

[ComerPerro]

42. apparently not, to you

[redqueen]

51. It certainly does not.

It's the adult taking action that matters, not 'who started it', IMO.

[Joanne98]

25. I agree with you on the Dateline Show...

When there's money involved it becomes way to untrustable. It's the same thing with the war on drugs and prisons. They make money on prisoners now so we keep piling them in there. It stinks.

[CanuckAmok]

134. Everybody likes Big Brother when he's their personal pitbull.

eom.

[ComerPerro]

137. well said

[Rosemary2205]

13. I have no problem with this.

his going to the motel was an act, not a thought. He's not being arrested for thought crimes, but his acts.

[redqueen]

16. Exactly... it's not something he said he would like to do...

it's something he showed up planning to do.

[superconnected]

21. but you're missing the point.

Police using entrapment is my problem.

Arresting people before they commit a crime doesn't really sound constitutional to me.

We've seen it be used politically - when the police do this with american-"terrorists".

I don't like peds. But, at this point, this man has no victims. Arresting him because he's going to be a ped someday with real people, seems like a bad idea to me. You can't start arresting people because you feel they are capable of a crime you have strong emotions against.

This man will go to prison. But we won't be able to say, "poor child he effed up". There isn't a victim. Instead we have to say, "get him for all children ever molested by pedophiles. "

That mentality is scarier to me than someone being a ped. And IMO police/FBI entrapment is really bad.

[Rosemary2205]

26. I don't agree it's generally entrapment.

While each case is specific, generally the authorities who set these things up are VERY CAREFUL not to take the initiative in any way shape or form. They generally make sure ALL the initiative is taken by the pedophile.

[depakid]

83. What's interesting about internet cases is that there's a transcript

from the initial contact up and until the time where the two (or more) decide to meet. That makes it much easier to apply the relevant law than in he said/said cases.

Of course, there's always the possibility of setting certain people up by doctoring transcripts- and so I suppose that a technical expert would have to verify that in fact what's written on them is accurate.

[Rosemary2205]

90. The guy can run his mouth on the internet all he wants

that is not a crime (although knowingly being sexually explicit with a child on the internet is a crime) -- in these sorts of stings it's the showing up in person for sex with a minor that is the crime. It's the act, not the words.

[redqueen]

34. No, not "get him for all children..."

"Get him before he acts out his sickness with an actual victim."

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. If there's any place that big brother has a place

it's in defending our children. If the slippery slope leads somewhere it shouldn't, I'll be there to help tug on the power of big brother. Until then, I'm all for internet stings that put these pieces of shit in jail.

[alarimer]

27. I am for upholding the Constitution first

To me (though I am by no means a legal expert) the tactics here should not be legal. There's no actual crime here.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

47. When a man goes to a hotel

with the intent of molesting 12 year old children, he's taken the action that makes it a crime.

[Neecy]

29. where do parents fit in here?

If parents did their damn jobs and educated their children about the dangers of online predators, monitored their internet usage, and used basic blocking tools for children it would eliminate most of the threat from these perverts.

Having the State entrap people like this makes me leery. In a way, I'm glad it's scaring off would-be predators. I'm sure it's made a difference. But I wonder where it stops, where the line will be drawn especially in this age of the "Homeland".

[redqueen]

36. Sometimes the parents are predators, too...

which is why some children are promiscuous to begin with.

Have you considered this?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

49. It's not entrapment

Entrapment entails coercing a person to do something they wouldn't normally do. This guy obviously wanted to have sex with children enough to visit a hotel room where he could have his way with them. He asked for the meeting.

I'm not saying that parents should abrogate their responsibility, but we can't watch our kids 24 hours a day. Even the best monitoring, blocking tools, etc. are fairly easy to bypass. Kids are smart, and they want to do things that are off-limits. It's the very nature of teenage behavior to act out.

[Serendipitous]

56. I am going to repost something I posted downthread

We are not hearing or reading the entirety of these conversations, only the juicy highlights that make the accused the only party of ilk. I promise you that in every case, they were led on, coerced, encouraged, etc.

And, as I stated upthread, just because someone "talks the talk" in no way means that they will "walk the walk". I may tell you how I will be jogging 30 miles and voluntering at the homeless shelter, but it in no way means that I will or even REALLY INTEND to. PEOPLE TALK SHIT ON THE INTERNET! Insane, I know.. but true. Is what they discuss still sick and perverted and twisted? Yes... but FUCK... this is just fucked up.

[redqueen]

67. Discussion is not the issue. Showing up at a hotel to act on the

talk, THAT's the issue.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

106. This sicko made an invite

where it was understood he was going to have sex with children, and followed through on that invitation.

[Serendipitous]

30. What happened to parents defending/protecting "the children"?

Why do we need constitutuional rights taken from the masses to protect them?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

48. I didn't say that parents don't have a place also

But unfortunately, parents can't be there to protect their children 24/7. That's why we have law enforcement. Perhaps we should completely disband all law enforcement organizations and make law a "free-for-all"?

What constitutional right was taken away from this piece of shit when he made the decision to visit a motel where he intended to molest several children?

[Serendipitous]

54. You throwing out the silly question of

"Perhaps we should completely disband all law enforcement organizations and make law a "free-for-all"?" is equivilant to me asking you whether a police officer should be specifically assigned to each child to keep them "safe".

I am not a fan of prosecuting people for what they MIGHT do. There is a huge potential for entrapment. We only see or hear one side. People DO exaggerate on the net. I know... crazy, but true. I may say I am going to jog for the next 2 hours, but it does in no way mean that is my INTENT, or ever was. Sick? Yes. Disgusting? No question. But we don't know what this fake "mom" said to lead statements and comments out of this person. Remember... innocent until proven guilty? Silly lil thing we've tossed aside...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

105. Intent and action are different things

The man spoke about molesting the children, invited them to a meeting, then following through on that meeting. His intent is obvious, but he'll still get his day in court.

[CanuckAmok]

130. See, this is not right.

The whole problem with Big Brother-type scenarios is that people, even progressives, tend to think "well, I don't like "X", so I'm in favour of Big Brother punishing "X", as long as he doesn't punish "Y" and "Z".".

What happens, unfortunately, is that as soon as you invite BB in to manage "X", he wants the rest of the alphabet. We can't pick and choose what laws we want to have administered with a choke-chain; when we do, we invite a system that administers all laws with the same chain.

It's like that movement of so-called progressives who successfully lobbied to have the work of fiction "American Psycho" banned in Canada.

It's like Noam Chomsky so perfectly stated it: "Look, you're either in favour of freedom of speech for everybody, or you're not in favour of freedom of speech. I mean, Hitler and Stalin were in favour of freedom of speech for the things they believed in, right?"

[alarimer]

24. Yes these kind of stings make me uncomfortable too

I do not know what the law is on this.

[treestar]

28. This is true, one wonders why they don't go and investigate real

crimes - the government is not supposed to "protect" us this way, and falling for it gives the government too much power. "The Children" are used even more than the "Terrorists." Wielding of power begets a desire for more power, the Founders understood that. It is too easy to fall into their desires for more with the claim they have the "duty" to "protect" us.

It is clear enough what they guy was doing here, but even so, he is being punished for something he might have done, not something he actually did.

It's that we use the law for everything. This sort of program could exist, and whoever responded persuaded into seeking help, showing them they could get caught.

Thinking of the law as a mechanism for making the world into a perfect place is at the root of this kind of thing. We abandon every social question we have to the law and we are paying the price for that more and more as time goes on.

[renate]

31. I don't see the problem

"Scott provided graphic detail of specific sex acts he wanted to perform, and which he wanted the children to perform as well," police said.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Unless the police were at his keyboard forcing his fingers to type those words, I think he got what's coming to him.

[superconnected]

35. Prison for describing what he would like to do to a child?

[redqueen]

37. No, for showing up to meet the child he wanted to screw. n/t

[CanuckAmok]

133. AH HA!

But he didn't show up.

And you have stated elsewhere that talking about it is enough.

If you truly believe what you've just said:

"No, for showing up to meet the child he wanted to screw. n/t"

Then that contradicts your other statements that claim he should be prosecuted for merely discussing the meeting.

If you truly agree with what you've just said, then you and I are in agreement.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

38. Are you outraged by prostitution stings as well?

Those have been going on for ages. Do you consider those to be unethical as well?

[verse18]

40. What would you suggest be done to the pedophiles

to keep them from preying on children? I work in the child abuse and neglect field and I see the devastating effect of children and families when children are abused, so I admitted that I am biased. We in the field call this primary prevention because this tactic stops the abuse before it happens. Do you think there is an alternative to these types of stings?

[seriousstan]

41. His main complaint is that the crime didn't happen yet. I guess we should wait

until it does. Police should never stop any crime until it is thoroughly carried out. Men in masks with guns entering a carryout that has been robbed repeatedly isn't good enough for some.

[verse18]

43. So we should wait until the child is sexually assault?

I'm not okay with that at all. In situations like this, the child's right to safety should be the priority.

[seriousstan]

45. I have no problem with this kind of sting at all. Some people disagree for reasons that I don't

understand. The funny thing is, they are always the same people ...hmmmmmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x410175

[superconnected]

53. In that case I think you should start a campaign for us to be a police state.

You clearly will give up everyones rights for saftey. At that point, why not go all the way.

[redqueen]

68. Give up what rights?

What rights are given up in this situation?

Please explain...

[CanuckAmok]

135. Are you suggesting...

that no time passes, and no events occur between the time the guy logs-off his computer and the child is molested?

For the love of all that's sensible, in this case THERE WERE NO CHILDREN. THE CHILDREN DID NOT EXIST.

Even if the accused were to magically beam himself instantaneously to the meeting-place, there would be NO CHILDREN TO ASSAULT!!!!!!!!!!!

There is absolutely no reason the police could not have taken this to another level by setting-up an in-person sting.

No reason except lazy, sloppy police work.

By doing an in-person sting, they could have::

a) sent a dramatic, tv news-friendly message that anyone who sets-up a meeting to molest a child is likely to get arrested and publicised.

and

b) made an air-tight case against the guy, instead of a less-solid case that will cause this type of debate among the jurors and the public, thereby increasing the risk of the accused's acquittal.

[superconnected]

52. I think your in ability to see the point of the thread

makes it impossible to answer you.

I am not defending pedophiles. I do not like peds.

My problem is gov entrapment won't stop with the peds. The peds only help it along because with them it's acceptable.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

44. How do people here feel about states that prosecute for the act of conversing online

...with someone thought to be a child about having sex with them?

Personally, I have much less of a problem with arresting someone that has shown up intending to commit a crime than one that is fantasizing about it on the internet.

[superconnected]

57. But the point of the thread isn't to protect sex offenders.

I'm a woman who doesn't have a lot of empathy for them. The point is the police are setting people up and arresting them for crimes that if they commited, still wouldn't exist.

Would-be-terrorist are gotten for entrapment all the time in america.

We now have people in prison with no victim for commiting a crime that they didn't commit, that had they fully went through with in the circumstances they were arrested, wouldn't have existed.

I have no problem with police arresting real men showing up to see real children. Then you have a real possible victim.

Letting the police use entrapment though means they are using it on more than sex offenders. With no real victims, there's an open door for abuse of the gov by saying people were going to commit a crime - that doesn't exist and they invented, so they must go to prison. It can easily be terroism, and it has been. After getting rid of the victim, and the crime, the next step is getting rid of needing the person to actually be willing to commit the crime. That's easy to say they were willing, even though they may not be. It's easy because it's all virtual and so completely minipulatable. At this point, they can arrest anyone they want, without commiting the crime, and without the crime itself existing. They can get rid of anti war people, etc. And, they are.

What we have is a totalitarian facism of arresting people with no crime. It's given the okay by saying, but there are child molesters and it's being used for that as well as everyone else.

And sadly, what we have are a whole bunch of dems on DU that can't figure out there's a problem with that. They fully buy into the propaganda.

And thankfully, we have others who understand whats going on.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

60. I should have been more clear

What I was asking about was people who are arrested in sting operations on the internet, much like what you are talking about. The difference is that they never go to a location where the sting is being done because all they need to arrest them is the conversation over the internet. A conversation which took place between two adults, only the arrestee doesn't know that at the time. Entrapment? You bet. And it's also a slippery slope in regards to what they may decide to apply this method to in the future.

[superconnected]

61. I didn't even know that was an option.

Only arresting on the conversation. Wow. It figures... it's even worse than I thought.

[redqueen]

69. Could you cite an instance of this please?

Thanks.

[LizW]

91. Here's one.

http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/032007/loc_trooper001.shtml

This case is in Michigan, but it is also the law in Alabama. I know of a case where a man was arrested for soliciting sex with a minor on the Internet. He plead guilty, but was given a suspended sentence because he had a clean record and never actualy made any improper contact with any child (it was an undercover officer). Now he carries sex-offender status. He must register everywhere he lives, and cannot ever live or work near a school or child care facility.

Maybe some think that is okay, because maybe he was a sicko anyway for getting off on talking about sex with children.

I wonder if someone's life should be ruined for what he talks about in the Internet.

[redqueen]

110. This guy didn't just talk...

"...eight counts of using a computer to solicit a minor for immoral purposes, all 10-year felonies; and five counts of using a computer to disseminate sexually explicit material to a minor..."

Regarding the case you know of... the guy who was arrested and plead guilty... I wonder if walking up to an underage person on the street and soliciting sex is a crime.

I think someone trying to victimize what they believe is a child for sexual gratification is a sicko, yes, and dangerous. I question whether putting their name on a list is 'ruining their life'. If they would try to solicit sex from underage people on line, I don't see how that's too far from trying it in real life... and as such I think it's not a bad idea that those sick people are kept away from easy access to kids.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

109. It's the law inTexas.

From a somewhat recent Dateline episode.

Police Chief Billy Myrick: Under Texas law, the offense had already been committed when the communication was completed through the Internet, so we don’t need them to come in. I mean we don’t even need them to show up at the scene.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17247963/

[redqueen]

111. The "communication" referred to was the setup of the date.

I think that sounds perfectly legit. If the person picked a place and time, and said they would be there, it's pretty much as clear as it can be that they intended to commit the crime.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

115. I disagree

In one instance the person was pretending to be 30 years younger and even sent a photo of a person of that age who was fit and handsome. There was evidence of this person having such conversations before but no evidence of him having ever met a minor. The real person could not have actually met anyone and passed them self off as that young person. It could be considered reasonable to assume they were fantasizing and never actually intended to act on their conversation. I don't think this should meet the requirements under the law of branding someone a sex offender if they never act, nor can it be proven that they ever intended to act on their fantasy. If you or I approve of their fantasy isn't the issue here, it's if they are fantasizing or actually planning to act on their fantasy.

In cases such as this, where the person has no real intention of actually meeting the youth, they should have to establish other criminal activity, in my opinion. If these people were to say, send an illicit photo, or request one from the person they assume to be underage, that would be different. However, that is not how the law reads. Intent is established via an internet conversation even if the person never acts beyond that conversation.

As I said in my first post, I don't have much of an issue if the person goes to a sting location. In my opinion that establishes intent to commit a crime and they should be arrested. However, the way these conversation only laws are written are simply too broad and they need to refine it before the broadness of such laws causes the entire sexual offenders registry to be overturned.

[redqueen]

116. That one case... no link for that?

For the person who never set up a time & place to meet, and lied about his looks & age?

It seems all we disagree on is what constitutes intent... you consider that a visit to the meet up place is required... I consider that all that is required is setting up that time & place.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

119. redqueen, I'm attempting to discuss the law the way it is written

Here's a easy to understand link that explains the way the law is interpreted.

Further, it is now illegal for anyone who is 17 or older to solicit a minor (defined as someone who is under the age of 17), or someone who portrays themselves to be a minor, over the internet for sexual contact or sexual intercourse. One is also prohibited from relaying sexually explicit materials to these minors. (NEW LAW)

http://www.utexas.edu/student/lss/criminal.html#internet

Yes, I find that to be too broad and I believe that it opens doors for other such broadly written laws. For example, if they were to write such a law pertaining to bestiality and a person were to say they had had their eye on the neighbors goat and wanted to have sex should they be convicted of a crime? Or, should talking about infidelity with another person but never acting on it be admissible in a divorce proceeding? Further more, the cyber law is more strict than the actual statutory rape law in Texas which says that a person can legally engage in sexual activities if the defendant is less than 3 years older than the accuser, as in a 16 year old and a 18 year old. Whereas the cyber laws says that if a person who is 17 or older solicits sex with a minor under the age of 17 they've committed an illegal act.

[redqueen]

124. Yeah...

The thing is I think 'solicitataion' goes beyond just thinking about it, which seems to be what you and others consider it. IMO solicitation is acting on it... and should be punishable.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

136. Yes, solicitation goes beyond a thought.

I don't disagree with that. It requires action and I think you and I both agree with that also. Where we are not in agreement is on what type of action it requires.

What I would like to see is a more iron clad law. The current one says that if a person 17 or over is merely communicating in a sexually explicit manner with someone they think is under 17 they've committed a felony. While I understand that for many that proves intent, it does not remove a possibility of entrapment. For example, if a person were to claim that they were led by inducements to be sexually explicit with a subject they thought a minor, it could be possible to reason they were entrapped into committing a cyber crime. If such standard defense were to be removed due to the heinousness of these crimes then a precedence could possibly be set in regards to other entrapment cases. I believe that the claim of inducements altering if a person would or would not commit a crime is a valid one, which I would not want to lose over one poorly written, yet emotionally charged, law. Also, as I stated before, such loosely written laws leave the doors open for more loosely written laws. Another thing I am not in favor of.

I, also, want all sexual predators off the streets, but I don't believe that laws such as this are the best way to achieve that goal.

[windbreeze]

46. when does it become entrapment?

I hate this kind of thing, she led him on, she let him believe she would go along with whatever he proposed.....he suffers from stupidity, big time...he can kiss those stripes and his retirement goodbye...25 years down the drain...with another 25 at hard labor in Leavenworth...or wherever...what an idiot...
wb

[Serendipitous]

55. I think it could easily be construed as such.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... but Webster's defines entrapment as "the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it".

That is exactly what shit like this does. And, yes... prostitution stings fall under this umbrella, too.

We are not hearing or reading the entirety of these conversations, only the juicy highlights that make the accused the only party of ilk. I promise you that in every case, they were led on, coerced, encouraged, etc.

And, as I stated upthread, just because someone "talks the talk" in no way means that they will "walk the walk". I may tell you how I will be jogging 30 miles and voluntering at the homeless shelter, but it in no way means that I will or even REALLY INTEND to. PEOPLE TALK SHIT ON THE INTERNET! Insane, I know.. but true. Is what they discuss still sick and perverted and twisted? Yes... but FUCK... this is just fucked up.

[windbreeze]

59. I agree...

It's entrapment...and I agree, the hooker stings are the same damned thing...put her out there half dressed, she approaches him and leads him on...then she gets in his car, and tells him how much she wants, all he does is agree to it, money doesn't even have to change hands...then she calls in the team to arrest him...it's bullshit is what it is...guess the rule of thumb should be...stay suspicious, if it sounds too good to be true, use the brains god gave you and run, don't walk, in the opposite direction...

This guy's career/life is gone, to think he risked everything for something like this, is almost more than I can fathom...
wb

[redqueen]

71. "to think he risked everything for something like this"

Yes, that's what makes him a sick bastard who needs help / to be locked up.

[redqueen]

70. Stupidity? So grown men who show up at hotels to have sex with children...

they're not criminals... they're just stupid?

This is unreal.

[windbreeze]

73. Obviously

you have your opinion, and I have mine...you have a right to have yours, just as I do...imo...this was entrapment...period...and imo it makes no difference what happened up to that point...because until you actually catch this man having sex with a child...he IS just stupid...stupid for playing along with her...stupid for going to the hotel...stupid on a lot of fronts...BUT...the fact remains...HE DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH ANY CHILD AT THE TIME HE WAS ARRESTED.....I remember a whole lot of people burned at the stake in Salem, Mass...too, because they were supposedly witches...what's the difference???

I will not discuss this any further...you are welcome to your opinion..the guy didn't commit a crime...and unless you are able to read his mind, you don't really know what his intent was...you can assume, but you don't know...did it ever occur to anyone, that he may have thought he was trapping her...and would have taken the kids and turned them over to authorities, if she brought them for him "to have sex with"? unknown, unknowns...we cannot possibly know what HE was thinking...but we sure as hell do know what SHE was doing...she was entraping him...
wb

[redqueen]

78. So you think pedos shouldn't be arrested till they have raped a kid.

Got it.

Agree to disagree.

[windbreeze]

88. heh....

I didn't realize that's what I said...I am beginning to feel as though I am being baited...I am not a man...and I was sexually abused as a kid..I already agreed to disagree with you, because obviously we see two different sides to this, and that's fine..

A pedophile is not determined by the act of raping a child are they? I mean..there are other ways such a person can cause harm to a child, and yet they are still a pedophile...ask me how I know..pedophilia IS considered " abnormal sexual desire of a child by an adult" (according to Webster's New World Dictionary....but it says nothing about rape per se...

my opinion hasn't changed...entrapment is still wrong...and the information in post 74 sounds exactly like what makes entrapment possible...
conversation is now over...
wb

[redqueen]

89. The conversation is now over?

That's cute!

Entrapment is necessary, IMO. Cause pedophiles who act on their sickness should be stopped before they abuse anyone else. Again, IMO.

Yes, the information in post 74 explains how entrapment is legal in these circumstances for which it is necessary.

[Forkboy]

103. "Entrapment is necessary, IMO."

Fucking scary.

[redqueen]

112. See post 74. This isn't new.

The kneejerking cries of lost freedom are what I think are scary, considering that they're intended to protect those who would victimize children for sexual gratification.

[Homer Wells]

58. 1984 was just 16 years off in its predictions

The Thought Police have arrived!!

:mad: :puke:

[redqueen]

72. He wasn't arrested for thinking things, but for showing up to act on those thoughts.

Why is that so frickin hard for some to understand?

[depakid]

75. These facts would have been considered criminal in Orwell's day

just as they are now.

See post #74

[gollygee]

62. I have to assume he was arrested for intent, not for rape

"When actually commiting a crime there are many points where a person may turn back."

IF he were arrested for rape, I'd agree with that sentence. But he was arrested for intent - for showing up with the intent of raping kids. He had the opportunity to turn back there too. He didn't have to show up at the hotel. He could have sat in his car having second thoughts and then left. But he showed up intending to rape children.

[salin]

63. but for some.... it is better that some young child's life is ruined

by the act - and probably MANY lives are ruined before one is reported with the parent and child with the courage to go through the awful experience of bringing charges and going through a case. I would agree there is a problem if the charge is rape - less of a problem if the charge is 'intent'.

[windbreeze]

76. a question....

unless you can read that man's mind...how can you know what his intent was? just curious...it's easy to assume only one scenario was going to happen...but the fact remains that it may not have been as it seemed...I don't know how you can prove his intent, beyond a reasonable doubt..circumstantial evidence is what they have...

my point, you can assume what he was up too...but you can't prove it...his actions up to that point, may have been to trap her...and then to rescue the kids from a mother who would use them for sex...anyone think of that...maybe he was playing along with her, for the same reason she was leading him on...remember..innocent until proven guilty...not guilty until proven innocent...(at least that's the way it used to be, but I gather that's at risk too) I hope none of us are ever arrested on trumped up charges..we might feel differently about what "proof" constitutes...

wb

[redqueen]

81. Would you care to comment on the information in post 74? n/t

[LeftyMom]

66. A teacher at my old high school was busted in one of these stings, a few years ago

He probably thought he was smart, chatting up a kid in another town over the internet and heading down there, rather than screwing around with a kid up here. The intended victim was the same age as his youngest students. Only the kid, as I'm sure you all guessed, was actually a cop for that nearby town.

All I know is that I'm sure glad that man will never teach again.

[depakid]

74. These are ichoate crimes

Here we have solicitation:

a person inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime.

It's not necessary that the person actually commit the crime, nor is it necessary that the person solicited be willing or able to commit the crime (such as if the "solicitee" were an undercover police officer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation

and attempt:

The essence of the crime of attempt is that the defendant has failed to commit the actus reus (the Latin term for the "guilty act") of the full offence, but has the direct and specific intent to commit that full offence. The normal rule for establishing criminal liability is to prove an actus reus accompanied by a mens rea ("guilty mind") at the relevant time (see concurrence and strict liability offences as the exception to the rule).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt

--------------

Just because there's no actual injury to the victim, doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed- and there's nothing new about this body of law.

[redqueen]

79. THANK YOU!

It really appalls me that so many (few?) here seem so willing to bend existing laws to prevent would-be predators from being 'unjustly' punished.

:puke:

[plcdude]

82. exactly

this is established law and is specific to potential harm to a victim real or virtual. If I corresponded with you on the internet and then became incensed and said I wanted to kill you and you said bring it on and I showed up to your place would you want me arrested?

[superconnected]

93. But lets say you show up to kill someone who doesn't exist.

Had you went through with it, nobody would be dead.

Should you go to prison for attempted murder - even though it's attempted murder to an idea of a virtual person.

now people are put in prison for 2nd degree child rape, when the child doesn't exist. If it's a real child he shows up for, by all means, arrest him for intent, but if he's setup to rape a virtual child, gee, I don't think him carrying out the act would render the same result.

I agree that it's good to know who the would be child molesters are. But I think they should put him on a list to watch out for, not imprisoned for doing the crime - if it was a virtual scenario setup.vitural

[gollygee]

94. You shouldn't go to prison for attempted murder, but for INTENT to murder

it isn't attempted murder if you didn't attempt to murder someone. It is *intent* to murder if you went there with the intent of murdering someone.

[superconnected]

95. So intent to murder a virtual person deserves prison.

The outcome of letting that crime happen, is what, nothing.

[gollygee]

96. I'm trying to think of a case where this would even happen

people don't set out to murder random people, do they? Not like perverts want to rape random kids. So it isn't generally parallel. But let's say there were bunches of people looking online for kids to murder, and parents were hooking potential murderers up with their kids for a price. If someone showed up at a motel to meet up with kids planning to murder them, then HELL YES they should go to prison, whether or not there were real kids involved.

[superconnected]

108. The ped was on my local news last night

they got him for _attempted_ rape of a child. Not intent.

It's important to watch the two groups. Pedophiles and police. Because in a nazi-germany totalitarian situation, the first groups to be inhumanly persecuted will be the most hated - peds. They will always lose their rights first. And the people will cheer. After the acceptance of what would normally be illegal procedures, the new rules always expand. That's why terrorists are now being entraped. The terrorists are being entraped for political reasons.

Don't let your support for the stripping of rights of peds blind you.

[redqueen]

113. Stripping of what rights? n/t

[aikoaiko]

77. Its not entrapment if the police didn't engage the perpetrator to have sex.

You don't think he committed a crime because he didn't have sex with a child, but he is charged with "second-degree attempted rape of a child and communication with a minor for immoral purposes". Did he attempt to have sex with a child? We'll see -- if showed up at the meeting spot then that might be good enough. Did he communicate with minor for immoral purposes? Not actually, but I believe these laws are written in a way that stings are permitted -- in much the same way that you can have someone buy a bag of innocuous white powder and charge them with a drug crime.


Bottom line: if you initiate a sexual conversation with a minor and set up a meeting with someone you think is a minor, then youre busted. If you show up at the meeting spot, be prepared to meet Chris Hansen.

[LSK]

80. nevermind

I read it wrong.

[Madspirit]

84. I have no problem

I have no problem with what the police did. The kids may have been fake but the perp wasn't fake and his intentions were not fake.

I have no problem with the police doing this with terrorists, if they are really terrorists and they really think they are making connections to buy stuff for a dirty bomb or whatever.

No problem at all. If you don't want to be caught by Big Brother, don't fuck children and don't build dirty bombs.
Lee

[Madspirit]

87. They don't offer first

They wait to be approached. They do not initiate it. That is NOT entrapment.

Also, drugs and prostitution are victim-less crimes.

Pedophilia and terrorism are NOT victim-less crimes.
Lee

[superconnected]

92. Actually, you do not know what they did. Ideally they don't initiate, but police

have been caught initiating and pushing on the criminal many times - I'm not talking sex offenders, here I mean drug deals.

I don't doubt this guy is a would-be-sex offender.

I do doubt your reasoning on the police having followed the rules to a T on entrapment. You simply do not know any more than I, what they did.

[Madspirit]

98. Not

He's not a would-be sex offender. He IS a sex offender. Just what he did on the computer gave him that status.

I have no idea if this was a crooked cop or not, you're right and neither do you. However, as someone who's field is psychology and someone who has been on both sides of the couch and I know plenty of sick, sick people, I can tell you, not only is there NO successful treatment, at this point, for pedophilia, it has one of the highest recidivism rates of any crime/illness.

So, truthfully, I don't really care HOW they got him. I don't give a shit.

I am a pothead and think of drugs, the same as prostitution, as victimless crimes. I wouldn't like this tactic for a victimless crime. We're not talking about a victimless crime. We're talking about having sex with children.
Lee

[rasputin1952]

97. I have wondered in the past if this entrapment...

While I cannot defend a pedophile, I abhor people who would harm a child, I still have to wonder just what all of these e-mails alluded to?

Who started the "sex talk", was there a "push" on the part of the police to entice such behavior?

Just as I've always thought that female officers acting like prostitutes to lure a "John" into a precarious situation where he gets arrested in a motel room after making a "deal".

I know a guy who worked in Sea-Tac Airport. Occasionally, a wallet or camera, almost anything of value, was left in the bathroom, and someone was in the stall, "observing" the behavior of employees. If you didn't turn in the object to the supervisor, you got canned on the spot. This, while certainly exposes thieves, also brings up the point that they caught very few thieves, most were honest enough to take the item to security. My friend found a $50 bill on the floor of a bathroom, and turned it in, but how could they figure out who the $50 belonged to? My bet is that the security guy pocketed it.

Anyway, back to entrapment. While I will be the first to say this guy should have just avoided the entire situation, we have no idea if he was looking at an alluring pic of the "mother" and thinking of hooking up w/her, and not the kids?

Fishing for victims is not what the cops should be doing.

[Madspirit]

99. Prostitution

Prostitution is a victimless crime. Pedophilia is not.
I don't really care how they got him.
Lee

[rasputin1952]

100. I agree that pedophilia is a horrid situation...

and I am not defending this individual, I am questioning the process.

If this individual would have never come across this "sting" opertation, would he have ever considered the situation?

I don't know, I am not a pedophile, nor have I ever had the desire to look at children in that light; I believe our children need to be protected...and I sure as hell didn't want one of these children exploited before something was done to get the perpetrator.

I am questioning the method, not the result.

[Madspirit]

102. It is that ol' slippery slope

...but only because our police are not trustworthy. Isn't that sad and sick? We can't even feel good about a pedophile being busted because for all we know, the police made up the whole damned thing and just wanted this guy for something else. Therein lies the problem. They might eventually want me because I am a socialist. All they have to do is plant kiddie porn on my computer, etc. For being really hard-assed when it comes to crimes against kids, all in all, I pretty much hate the police and think they are totally crooked.

Have you ever Netflixed Britian's "Spooks"? It's called "MI5" over here. It is just superb and supposed to be really realistic and right on. I've read many articles about it by social critics, etc. It pretty much shows the police, the secret police, CIA, MI5, FBI...whomever....DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. WHATEVER!! There is no low too far for them to sink, in the persuit of someone they want. They will do anything, even to their own, if it suits them. I have a UK friend who burns it for me and I sit there stunned.
Lee

[annarbor]

101. Fishing for victims...

The web is full of sites with pedophiles waiting to meet up with kids to have sex. Cops are not the ones setting up these sites, the sick bastards wanting to have sex with children do. So saying that someone was "lured" to a pedophile site is quite a stretch. The cops set up accounts pretending to be kids and wait for the perps to log in. Once on board the perps begin having conversations with the cyber-kids and generally begin describing what they would like to do to these "kids" ad-nauseum. Once the perp indicates that they want to have sex with the kid, the meet-up place is established. Once the perp shows up, he is then immediately arrested for either "Intent" or "Attempt" depending upon the statutes and circumstances.

I should also add that these "victims" frequents sites such as "My Space" and "Face Book"; sites that are generally frequented by unknowing kids....kids that post pretty detailed info about their schools, hobbies, and friends. Unfortunately, they also post photos of themselves.

Sadly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Once one of these losers is caught and paraded across my TV screen, another one is lined up, ready to go. As the mother of a 13 year-old, I simply can't muster up any sympathy for these people....

Ann Arbor

[rasputin1952]

104. I have no sympathy for pedophiles at all, and I understand your

POV completely.

To me, there is nothing lower than a pedophile, Bringing up two girls and a son ino adulthood, I watched them like a hawk, there are bad people out there, and I don't want any child to be abused.

I am not a violent individual, but I have to say, if I cought someone trying to abscond w/a kid or abusing one, the fight is on.

I have to question some methods though. I know of two pwoplw in AZ that got "busted for pot", after I saw the cop toss a baggie in the back seat. I went to bat for the guys because I was a witness, (so were 4 others, but only 2 others testified). I guess I have a problem w/entrapment becazue I've seen it before, and while I think pedophiles should spend many a year in prison, and even though I don't believe they shold be given "additional" time just to keep them off the street after they servrd theri time sentenced. I am not against a 75 year sentence for a pedophile...there is NO excuse for that type of behavior.

A civil society protects its children and punishes those who who would take advantage of them.

[CanuckAmok]

107. That's interesting....

It's certainly something that I hope is being discussed in law schools as we speak, as it is becoming more common.

The fact that in this case it's an alleged would-be pedophile is going to polarise people, and stir-up knee-jerk reactions. If I don my :tinfoilhat: I could suggest that perhaps that's the point; introduce these tactics on people who's actions make them generally reviled, and continue until it's de rigeur police procedure for all kinds of offenses. By that time there would be volumes of precedent for any prosecutor to cite while seeking a conviction for anything. "Your Honour, the Defendant stated in the course of an instant message session, that he wanted to throw a pie in the face of Ann Coulter", for example. Did he actually attempt to "pie" Ann Coulter? Would he "pie" Ann Coulter if the opportunity arose?

It seems to me the proper way to do this, is the way I heave seen it done by other law enforcement agencies; set-up the meeting, and arrest the suspect if/when he arrives. By then it's clear there's real intent to commit the crime, and not just intent to act-out a taboo fantasy in a virtual environment. Before the accused actually maks the effort to attend a meeting, it's all lip-service. My hunch is that for every 1000 people that are investigated this way, less than five would actually go through with a meeting.

It really is a troubling issue; there are all kinds of sexual (and other) taboos that people fantasise about. Role-play is a part of the sex-lives of many people, and seldom does it lead to actually rendering the fantasy situations in reality.

I know a woman (a friend, not a sex-partner) who fantasises about being gang-raped. There's no way in hell she would really want to be gang-raped, but in a fantasy she creates and controls, she enjoys the scenario. She sometimes has violent sex chat with strangers on-line. So these guys she role-plays with, who are acting out a fantasy in which they rape my friend, are committing crimes, but only in the same sense that the accused pedophile in this post is committing a crime. If my friend was an undercover cop instead of who she claims to be, would it be right to arrest these guys? How many of them would actually accept the invitation to have vilent sex with this woman?

I agree with superconnected; I think this is a dangerous ledge to peer over.

[redqueen]

114. I don't think it's reasonable to compare what two adults say or plan

to what an adult attmempts to plan with a child.

[CanuckAmok]

120. Well there's the rub.

Because in both scenarios it is just adults participating. There are no children involved in either case.

But I see your point.

[redqueen]

125. Yeah... the adult believes they are arranging sex with a child.

So... yeah.

[theboss]

117. So...he should actually have to rape the child first?

I don't think you understand the elements of a crime.

There has to be intent. And there has to be an act.

In this case, there would be intent.
And there was an act...going to hotel.

In your world, if the FBI sold fake plutonium to a terrorist, would it not be a real crime, because it was not real plutonium?

How about sugar instead of cocaine (not that I am a fan of drug laws, but whatever).

Where do conspiracy crimes fall into all of this?

[CanuckAmok]

121. Here's the scenario:

Set up a pedo sting, by communicating with "X" number of suspcts.

After emailing back and forth, set-up a meeting.

Anyone who shows up at the meeting gets arrested; anyone who doesn't, doesn't.

Fantasy and intent are two different things. Why waste resources busting people who won't ever actually pursue their fantasies?

[noonwitch]

118. What the cops are doing is the computer equivilant to the female cops posing as protstitutes

If a detective is portraying a prostitute in order to arrest potential customers, she has no intention of actually engaging in sex with the guy, but has the intent to bust him for solicitation. That's not considered entrapment.

If a pedophile is surfing the internet, looking for a mom who will let him abuse her kids, and that woman ends up being a cop enacting a role, then it's pretty much the same thing.


A better example of entrapment would be if a cop engaged in an illegal activity, then busted the other participants. Let's say a cop shoots dope with someone, then busts that person for possession of heroin. The cop engaged in criminal activity with the defendant in order to get enough information to make the bust.

[CanuckAmok]

123. A better comparison:

Female cop posing as a prostitute, but in the guise of operating an incall escort agency.

Suspect contacts detective (or vice versa), and makes an appointment to pay her money for sex.

a) Suspect dosn't show up for appointment = no charges laid (pardon the expression).

b) Suspect shows up for appointment, clearly demonstrating intent = charged.


I don't see where the confusion lies here; we're talking about prosecuting people for what they think and write, not for what they do.

We may find what they think and write to be reprehensible, but that should not give us the authority, or even the reason, to punish them for it.

This is what Orwell called "thoughtcrime".

With the kind of sting described in the OP, we would be applying the same prosecution to Nabokov.

[redqueen]

126. They set up the appointment... that is not enough of a 'do'?

IMO once they set up a date, it is no longer a thought, but a plan of action. They are actively working towards victimizing a child.

IMO this isn't a thought crime at all. Not even close. It's not people fanatsizing about pedophilia they're going after... only people setting up dates to have sex with children.

[CanuckAmok]

127. Look, I see your point, but no.

Until they actually attend the "date", they are only stating they will do so.

That can't be enough.

[redqueen]

129. I see your point, but I do disagree...

setting up a date to do that... talking to someone you believe is a child in that way is bad enough... but and going so far as to set up a date, IMO that is enough.

[CanuckAmok]

131. Does buying a Porsche make you a speed-law violator?

Perhaps everyone with a car that can surpass 65mph should be given speeding tickets in advance.

[redqueen]

132. No, it is not illegal to buy a porsche.

It is illegal to solicit sex from children.

I don't see the comparison at all. :shrug:

[CanuckAmok]

138. Nor is it illegal to use a computer n/t

[redqueen]

139. But it *is* illegal to *use* a computer to soclicit sex from what one

believes are children.

As it is also illegal to *use* a porsche to go faster than the posted speed limit.

I hope you are enjoying this discussion... I am. I don't wish to cause you any bother with it, though, see. I just like discussing & trying to reach understanding / common goals / that kinda shit.

:hi:

[CanuckAmok]

128. An afterthought:

I was just considering this as a freedom of speech/freedom of expression issue, and I came up with this:

Obviously, there are limits to Freedom of Speech which have stood up to judicial review. For example, as I understand it, it's illegal to threaten the President, even if you're just joking, or have no intention to cause him harm.

It's unlawful to utter threats.

But these exceptions to absolute freedom of speech must be extremely well-regulated, and conform to community standards. These restrictions have become law because the community has demanded they do so , and because a proper sequence of protocols was followed to make them law.

One of the fundamentals of these limitations is that while the threats themselves may be spurious, the intended victim of these threats must exist.

For example:

It is unlawful to threaten the President of the United States.
It is unlawful to threaten the individual George W. Bush.
It is unlawful to threaten Martin Sheen.
It is NOT unlawful to threaten President Bartlett, the character Martin Sheen plays on the West Wing.


I see Redqueen's point, but until it is against the law to write/discuss engaging in acts of pedophilia (I'm assuming it currently is not unlawful to do so), we cannot endorse prosecuting people for doing so.

However, if it is unlawful to discuss participating in acts of pedophilia, then these people can and should be prosecuted. But until then, you're asking the justice system to punish someone for doing something legal, just because you don't like it.

Finally, if it is not currently unlawful to discus participating in acts of pedophilia, but it is widely believed that such discussions should be, it is up to the society-at-large to lobby to make it unlawful, and to test this law Constitutionally.

edited for horrendous spelling.