Let me start this off by saying I in no way condone anything the people may have done (kiddie pr0n).
However, As a user of Egroups for other sites I know that someone (the FBI) needs to create a site, put a description on the site asking people to send in media, approve the users and in many cases, provide sample media of the type they wish to recieve.
So being the FBI created a group, asked for people to do this, knowing it was a crime and that they were hunting for people, and asked for people to give them media, does this count as entrapment?
Now on the flip side, so no one gets the wrong idea. I do not want anyone who is guilty of this to get off scot-free and that the true molesters/perpatrators should be punished.
A side question: the article I read stated that people who uploaded or downloaded were being prosecuted. Would they have a guage for the downloads? If someone downloaded something on a whim, not believeing it truely was what was advertized (how many “teen” sites are 30 year olds in cheerleader costumes), would they recieve the same penalties and treatments as someone who regularily downloaded/uploaded? What if someone created a false logon with your personal information and downloaded a single picture, would that consitute legal action?
I know some people will pop up with "they’d confiscate your computer and look for evidence. Should no evidence exist (like you saw the pic, were revulsed and deleted it) what would happen?
entrapment n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the “criminal.” Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called “stings” in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes’ services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen.
Do you have a cite attesting that the FBI created the EGroups web site(s)? In addition, is there any information indicating the FBI may have entraqped the suspects, within the legal defintion of entrapment?
It would help to establish some sort of factual baseline before proceeding.
Ok based on the fact that people are viewing and not posting I think I need to make this clear:
I am not suggesting we let anyone off on a technicality of Entrapment, what i am really asking is, is this legal… i really just want clarification on our justice system.
Based on the articles on CNN it does state the Egroups were created by law enforcement officers. However it doesn’t state that the perpetrators were encouraged after they expressed a desire not to go ahead.
In reading that definition it looks like it was indeed a legit scenario. With the FBI just supplying the method of contact and the means to interact.
So it looks like it is a nice and legal bust. Chalk one up for the good guys.
Now on a side note, Napster was found guilty of making it easy for people to meet and exchange copywrited materials. Could Yahoo be guilty of breaking the law (in the event that a third party not on a sting operation used the service to swap illegal materials)?
Well, if we just stick to the definition I provided in my previous post:
Were any of those arrested induced to participate by law enforcement authorties, even though they expressed reluctance to participate? From all accounts, I seriously doubt it.
Did law enforcement authorities originate idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act? Again, from all accounts, I seriously doubt it.
Police run stings all the time. Just watch Cops some time when they run a prostitution sting. No one is forcing the Johns to break the law. Do you notice how the Police prostitutes cannot “entrap” their potential customers by making certain suggestions, such as exchanging money for sex? The John must say the words first.
Besides, child pornographers are like flies. One does not have to entice (entrap?) them to break the law. Like flies, they are always on the prowl for fresh meat.
The real question I have with this sting was brought up by an FBI agent interviewed on the Today program this morning. The FBI agent said anyone who visited the web site(s) in question, even if they did nothing, are guilty of committing a crime. I have a real problem with that. Does this mean, for example, if you are walking down the street and some stranger shows you a picture of naked children, offers to sell it you you, you say “No Thanks” and keep walking, the Police lying in wait will arrest you and charge you with child pornography? If this is the case, then something is seriously wrong.
I would have to agree with that last point. There are many times on the net that you can get to a site and have no idea what it is about until you see the content.
It’s entirely possible someone misinterpreted something (well i am making an assumption since I haven’t actually seen the description of the site in question) and the second the person finds out the REAL purpose of the site they never return.
I guess time will tell after more info is shared with the public.
I just get concerned with the sometimes overzealous methods that can be used in enforcing laws that can sweep up unintentional “innocent” people while targeting other more obviously guilty parties.
Napster is a separate, unrelated issue. The Napster technology was created and implemented by private parties, and not the government. The technology itself is benign. However, the apparent intent in the use of the technology was to circumvent copyright laws. I do not know if the creation of the technology was also based on the intent to circumvent copyright laws. If so, then you have intent to break the law from the very beginning: creating technology where the specific, intended purpose is to break the law with that technology and actually implementing the technology to break the law.
As for Yahoo being held liable, I think not. We do not see telephone companies being held liable for crimes when the criminals use the telephone to discuss their illegal activities, before, during or after the fact.
However, and I think this is key, is the current Administration is straddling the law (if not crossing over to the Dark Side on occasion) in many areas to effect its political agenda. This is the real problem. While this current pornography sting many very well have no overt/covert political agenda, this is not to say Bush/Ashcroft would use something similar for political means. Just by reading posts by other Dopers in other areas of this board should give you ammple information in support of this.
What is most frightening of all, IMHO, is the average American is ignorant about all this with the current Administration.
This came out of left field. I’m glad you concede that this current child porn sting ‘many’ [sic] very well not have political implications. But don’t you think that’s a bit of a weak concession? Have you any evidence to suggest that it does? Isn’t it true that both common sense and all available evidence suggest that this is merely enforcing the law? What sort of political agenda might be advanced by arresting child pornographers, anyway?
In any event, I haven’t seen or read anything that would raise an entrapment flag.
As to the “you commmitted a crime if you visited the web site” business, it’s well to remember that every crime has an implied scienter element. That means that at some level, you must have a guilty, or criminally careless, intent in order to commit a crime. Visiting a website that you knew contained child porn is a crime, even if it’s for a quick look, because the law prohibits you from possessing the images, and when you visit the site, the images are stored on your computer. But if you had no idea the site contained child porn, and it wasn’t reasonable for you to know, then you committed no crime.
I just read a recently updated article on CNN that makes more sense. That out of the 4600 “logons” they recieved only about 1/10% of those are being sought out for prosecution. Mainy those who raised “Red flags” .
People who made a lot of uploads/downloads.
I do think that people who did download on “accident” or out of morbid curiosity should recieve emails notifying them that it’s a felony and blah blah… sort of a scared staright program.
I have friends who work for those fast photo outlets and the standing orders are any photos they see are to be reported to management. More times than not, the police are contacted as well.
Is this overkill? One could make a good case of it, especially if the happy snaps are of your own kids growing up. Then again, overzealous prosecutors may not see it that way. And even if cooler heads prevail, don’t forget somone in the chain of events will keep a record of all this and your alleged child pornography may follow you the rest of your life.
Trust me unless it’s explicitly sexual it’s not illegal. Think about all the naturists out there - are they not allowed to take pictures of their kids?
I seem to remember a case for child pornography that WAS thrown out for entrapment. If I remember right, the police suspected some guy without any evidence, so they sent him a fake brochure. As I remember hearing it, he didn’t respond and they kept soliciting him to buy the stuff. He finally did. There was no evidence that he had ever previously bought any such stuff at all; clearly a case where the entire crime was created by the police out of thin air. I don’t see Candyman as being anything like that. The police (or whoever) discovered an existing community. They may have set up a “friendly” environment for the community to meet in, but they didn’t coax those people into it.
Well, in a number of these internet “sting operations”, the police use credit card numbers to track people. People that supply their credit card numbers to these web-sites are doing more than stumbling upon these sites by accident, they are actively persuing material that they know to be illegal.