# Courts unwinding Chris Hansen style net sex sting convictions without actual victims **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929 "2009-01-05T10:50:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/81 "2009-01-06T22:05:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They aren’t “having sex,” they’re being sexually exploited. The relationship is not equal. The “consent” is not informed. Do you think this matters to THEM? do you think a teenager is going to think to themselves “well im too stupid to make my own decisions so i guess they are right”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/82 "2009-01-06T22:07:08Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Am I not the only one that thinks this line of reasoning is absurd? I would like to throw Angelina Jolie down on my floor and have my way with her, but it is not possible under the circumstances (since she isn’t here and I’m alone) > > Does this make me guilty of raping Angelina Jolie? > > I thought if (ACTION X) was not possible under the circumstances then you couldn’t be guilty of action x. How can you be guilty of something which is impossible to do? It’s more than just wanting to, it’s actually _trying_ to. If you TRY to rape Angelina Jolie, it’s not a defense for you that you didn’t see her 6 foot 8 bodyguard standing off to the side and got coldcocked, making the rape impossible to carry out. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/83 "2009-01-06T22:07:26Z")
> [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](#): > > I believe that in regard to 13-year olds being targeted by internet pedos, **DigitalC** already stated his belief that _"if we are talking about a male i have a hard time believing it would be a negative experience at all. "_ :rolleyes: Are you planning on making a point at all or just continue using rolleyes like they help your case at all? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/84 "2009-01-06T22:10:00Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Does this make me guilty of raping Angelina Jolie? You’ve left out only a teeny tiny part of the issue here, and it’s so insignificant I can understand why you’ve missed it. It’s the bit about attempting to actually do something that’s illegal. If you went to Angelina Jolie’s house with rope, condoms and a burglar’s kit, yes, I’d say there is a pretty good chance you’d be found guilty of trying to rape her. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/85 "2009-01-06T22:10:50Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Do you think this matters to THEM? do you think a teenager is going to think to themselves “well im too stupid to make my own decisions so i guess they are right”? Huh? 😕 I don’t understand. You’re saying that if a child doesn’t understand she’s being exploited then it’s ok to exploit her. I really don’t grasp your point here. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/86 "2009-01-06T22:12:11Z")
**DigitalC** , if you’re arguing against statutory rape laws against underage sex, then you’ll admit the Internet-sting aspect has nothing to do with your argument, correct? I just want to be clear here; it seems like you’re arguing that statutory rape should not automatically exist as a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9adbd/32.png) [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fell_through_the_Ice)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/87 "2009-01-06T22:12:51Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Are you planning on making a point at all or just continue using rolleyes like they help your case at all? Do you deny stating that you think being sodomized by an adult male would not be a negative experience for most 13 year old boys? ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/88 "2009-01-06T22:13:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Huh? 😕 > > I don’t understand. You’re saying that if a child doesn’t understand she’s being exploited then it’s ok to exploit her. > > I really don’t grasp your point here. I’m saying that if a teenager agrees to have sex with someone they are not going to feel like they’ve been raped so they are not going to be fucked up for life because of it. I’ve never said its ok to do it, i just fail to see why people think its going to ruin their whole lives. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/89 "2009-01-06T22:18:12Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > I’m saying that if a teenager agrees to have sex with someone they are not going to feel like they’ve been raped so they are not going to be fucked up for life because of it. I’ve never said its ok to do it, i just fail to see why people think its going to ruin their whole lives. A 13 year old child is not capable of “agreeing” to have sex, and whether or not they’re capable of surviving sexual exploitation without permanent emotional consequences (though I think the odds are low that they can) is beside the point. People can survive a lot of crimes without permanent consequences. So what? Why should that have any effect on the law? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/90 "2009-01-06T22:21:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Am I not the only one that thinks this line of reasoning is absurd? I would like to throw Angelina Jolie down on my floor and have my way with her, but it is not possible under the circumstances (since she isn’t here and I’m alone) > > Does this make me guilty of raping Angelina Jolie? > > I thought if (ACTION X) was not possible under the circumstances then you couldn’t be guilty of action x. How can you be guilty of something which is impossible to do? You are missing one of the other key elements of attempt: “An overt act.” > [@](#): > > (2) an overt act toward commission – this is intended to weed out the plotters from the perpetrators, but the standards vary widely by jurisdiction. Acts of preparation do not count. Some places use fairly loose language like “some steps” while other places use the more rigorous “all but last act” standard. There are at least four tests used in various places: > > ``` > * physical proximity doctrine -- this focuses upon space and time, establishes the "last act" standard which requires looking at the remaining steps > * probable desistance approach -- this considers whether the attempt would naturally lead to commission but for some timely interference not related to bad luck > * equivocality approach -- this looks at whether the attempt can have no other purpose than commission of a crime > * substantial steps test -- this is a Model Penal Code-recommended approach which looks for corroborating evidence in the form of conduct which tends to concur or verify a criminal purpose > > ``` [http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3010/3010lect03a.htm](http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3010/3010lect03a.htm) If you wanted to rape Jolie, and took steps toward doing it, you might be found guilty. Similarly, these guys agreed to have sex with minors, made appointments to do so, and showed up for the appointments with the required equipment. Most courts say that’s enough for attempt. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/91 "2009-01-06T22:21:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A 13 year old child is not capable of “agreeing” to have sex, and whether or not they’re capable of surviving sexual exploitation without permanent emotional consequences (though I think the odds are low that they can) is beside the point. People can survive a lot of crimes without permanent consequences. So what? Why should that have any effect on the law? A 13 year old is not capable of giving valid legal consent, they are perfectly capable and willing to agree to have sex and do so constantly and willingly with each other. Mind you, not EVERY 13 year old but theres plenty of teenager who are sexually active at that age. I’ve never said anything about changing any law, i just dispute the fact that having a regretable sexual experience as a teenager means you are mentally screwed up for life. ---
**Author:** ![Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9adbd/32.png) [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fell_through_the_Ice)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/92 "2009-01-06T22:25:20Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > i just fail to see why people think its going to ruin their whole lives. Right. Cuz, ya know, a child who’s been sexually exploited won’t ever have any problems later in life with things like trusting others, forming lasting bonds or handling adult sexual relationships. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/93 "2009-01-06T22:26:16Z")
> [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](#): > > Right. Cuz, ya know, a child who’s been sexually exploited won’t ever have any problems later in life with things like trusting others, forming lasting bonds or handling adult sexual relationships. :rolleyes: Not if she doesn’t feel shes been sexually exploited. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/94 "2009-01-06T22:28:30Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > A 13 year old is not capable of giving valid legal consent, they are perfectly capable and willing to agree to have sex and do so constantly and willingly with each other. Mind you, not EVERY 13 year old but theres plenty of teenager who are sexually active at that age. I’ve never said anything about changing any law, i just dispute the fact that having a regretable sexual experience as a teenager means you are mentally screwed up for life. They’re physically capable of having sex. They’re not emotionally capable of evaluating and appreciating the consequences. Their brains have not yet fully developed. ---
**Author:** ![Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9adbd/32.png) [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fell_through_the_Ice)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/95 "2009-01-06T22:28:32Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Not if she doesn’t feel shes been sexually exploited. Please re-read post #85. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/96 "2009-01-06T22:29:33Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Not if she doesn’t feel shes been sexually exploited. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/97 "2009-01-06T22:30:00Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Not if she doesn’t feel shes been sexually exploited. You appear to be contending that if the child doesn’t feel she’s been sexually exploited at the time of the exploitation, she’s never going to look back on it and feel differently. I’ll be polite and say I think that’s very unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/98 "2009-01-06T22:35:30Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Am I not the only one that thinks this line of reasoning is absurd? I would like to throw Angelina Jolie down on my floor and have my way with her, but it is not possible under the circumstances (since she isn’t here and I’m alone) > > Does this make me guilty of raping Angelina Jolie? > > I thought if (ACTION X) was not possible under the circumstances then you couldn’t be guilty of action x. How can you be guilty of something which is impossible to do? This isn’t the first time questions like this have come up in the category of _attempted crimes_. As you might imagine, there’s a very well-settled body of law dealing with how to analyze attempt. You quoted only one line: **“..and he failed to complete the offense only because it was not possible under the circumstances.”** But there’s more. In order to constitute attempt, the accused has to either make a “substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime…” (if you’re in an MPC state) or you must go beyond mere preparation and commit an act which, if uninterrupted, would lead to the completion of the crime (in common law jurisdictions). So you ask: “How can you be guilty of something which is impossible to do?” The answer is: you didn’t know it was impossible, and you tried to do it, and if it hadn’t been impossible, you would have succeeded. That’s enough to say that you should be punished, since it was only by fortunate happenstance that you couldn’t actually complete the crime. We’ve done these kinds of hypotheticals many times before. You see your neighbor asleep in his backyard and shoot him, furious because he’s complained about your lack of lawn care to the homeowner’s association. Unbeknownst to you, he actually died of a heart attack half an hour before you pulled the trigger. What crime have you completed? Mutiliation of a corpse, maybe, or discharging a firearm in the city limits. But your _intent_ was to murder the man, and so we punish you for attempted murder. There was no victim, no murder… but your actions are exactly the sort of crime that the murder statues are intended to punish. Should you get a pass on your murderous rage? No, not at all. At the same time, we recognize that you didn’t actually kill - you merely _attempted_ to kill. And so that’s the crime. So: no, nothing makes you guilty of raping Angelina Jolie except actually raping her. But if you plan to rape her, intend to rape her, and take some substantial step towards raping her, only to be foiled by her attack mastiff before you can complete the deed, you may well be guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/99 "2009-01-06T22:39:25Z")
> [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](#): > > Please re-read post #85. Please reread the entire thread and try to comprehend what i’ve actually said rather than resorting to strawmen and rolleyes instead of making valid points. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/100 "2009-01-06T22:50:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’ve left out only a teeny tiny part of the issue here, and it’s so insignificant I can understand why you’ve missed it. It’s the bit about attempting to actually do something that’s illegal. > > If you went to Angelina Jolie’s house with rope, condoms and a burglar’s kit, yes, I’d say there is a pretty good chance you’d be found guilty of trying to rape her. Hmmm. Even if it turns out she wasn’t home? (I think that’s a “yes”.) Edit: Yup. Thanks **Bricker**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=6)