# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/121 "2009-01-07T15:39:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > How many go to a Jury? 😕Seems like most of the defendents plead out. > > And if you plead out because the choice is between Registering and 5 years suspended sentence as opposed to 12 consectutive Life Sentences, all while being savagely raped by your fellow prisoners, then even an innocent man could cop a plea. As I pointed out above, most criminal defendants plead guilty: > [@](#): > > Cases were terminated against 86,680 defendants during 2005. Most (90%) defendants were convicted. Of the 78,042 defendants convicted, 74,226 (or 95%) pleaded guilty or no-contest. [Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm#Adjudication) > [@](#): > > Nearly all (97%) convictions obtained during the 1-year > study period were the result of a guilty plea. Eighty-seven > percent of guilty pleas were to a felony. > **[fdluc04.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc04.pdf)** > > 85.31 KB > [@](#): > > Eighty-six percent of sex transportation defendants and 76% of sex abuse defendants pled guilty. [Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf) (sex transportation includes the federal version of what we are talking about here) Plus, in many jurisdictions a defendant can move to dismiss the indictment, lose the motion, and then plead while reserving his rights to appeal the denial of the motion: > [@](#): > > \*\*The defendant pleaded guilty **to attempting to transport a minor (a girl of 15) across state lines to engage in illegal sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a), (e), and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.** But he reserved the right to appeal the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment. \*\*The ground of his appeal is that the person he thought was a minor was neither a minor nor a law enforcement officer posing as one but was instead a private citizen. His lawyer has filed an Anders brief asking us to let him withdraw from representing the defendant because neither that nor any other ground of appeal is nonfrivolous. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We agree, but as the precise issue presented by the appeal has not arisen before, we shall explain our decision in this brief opinion. [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/082329p.pdf](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/082329p.pdf)(Emphasis added.) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/122 "2009-01-07T15:46:57Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In both of the cases in this thread, the guys showed up expecting to meet the girls. One came to ‘her’ apartment with a rope and condoms. Meet. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/123 "2009-01-07T15:51:54Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Meet. “Meet” here was short for “tie up and fuck a 15-year-old.” Every available piece of evidence says he was planning to do it, and so does common sense. Like I said in my first post: if you say you’re going to do something, then you take steps to do it, it’s fair to interpret that you were attempting to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/124 "2009-01-07T16:23:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the correct standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And there’s no question that the evidence is legally sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy is guilty of attempt – in any jurisdiction except Indiana, that is. What’s so special about Indiana ? 😕 > [@](#): > > And so it’s regrettably necessary for police sometimes to assume the identity of criminals themselves and wait for the actual criminals to make the necessary overtures, or for the police to assume the identity of victims and await the criminals’ preying actions. > In an area plagued with a high rate of purse snatching, would you object to an officer disguised as an infirm old lady hobbling down the street holding a purse? That is, after all, “purposefully creating situations to facilitate the commission of a crime.” Why yes, yes as a matter of fact I would. First, because the cop is obviously going to make it look oh so easy and may very well give someone ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise. Second, because said cop would keep the peace and prevent purse snatching a lot better by merely being there in a uniform. As you said, criminals are reluctant to ply their trade in full view of the police, and the mere presence of a cop’d prevent not only purse snatching but assault, drug dealing, theft, B&E and any number of other crimes up to and including jaywalking. Would you object to a cop going to a bar in plain clothes, picking a guy who looks drunk enough, insult him and keep pushing until the guy tries to punch him in the face, at which point the cop flips his badge in a dashing “ha HA ! You’re in for it ! Assault !” ? Because in my mind, that’s exactly what those cops trawling for “predators” are doing. They’re actively pushing and encouraging the suspect, making it tempting and easy to commit a crime ; while said suspect is probably happily surprised to have finaly found THE teenager who won’t treat him like the creep he is. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/125 "2009-01-07T16:30:36Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > What’s so special about Indiana ? 😕 The thread is about the rulings of an Indiana court, which has lost track of its own law and said these convictions are invalid because of impossibility. > [@](#): > > Why yes, yes as a matter of fact I would. > First, because the cop is obviously going to make it look oh so easy and may very well give someone ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise. Oh come on. Have you read the transcripts **Gfactor** linked to? ---
**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 7, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/126 "2009-01-07T16:32:46Z")
If they weren’t already predators, they couldn’t be tempted. PJ doesn’t just go trolling randomly, by the way. They go on sites that are ostensibly supposed to be populated by kids and let the perverts come to them. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/127 "2009-01-07T16:41:59Z")
> [@](#): > > First, because the cop is obviously going to make it look oh so easy and may very well give someone ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise. Sorry, **Kobal2** , I completely disagree. Thieves target the little old lady because they think the chances of success without injury are greater. You are blaming the “victim” for the crime, in your purse snatching scenario. “Honest, your Honor. She was there. So weak. So feeble. I couldn’t resist. I _had_ to rob her! I was thinking about the Charger’s chances in the playoffs, when BAM! There she was, and I found myself grabbing at ther purse.” _Some_ thieves even leave their lair with the full intent of seeking out the weak. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/128 "2009-01-07T16:42:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > First, because the cop is obviously going to make it look oh so easy and may very well give someone ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise. How so? And if they did, the defendant could prove that he wasn’t disposed to steal a purse, and was driven to do so by the officer. > [@](#): > > But stings, including private ones, must be distinguished from entrapment.Stings are schemes forgetting a person who is predisposed to criminal activity to commit a crime at a time or place in which he can be immediately apprehended; they are an essential tool of law enforcement against crimes that have no complaining victim. Entrapment refers to the use of inducements that cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime, and is a defense when the entrapment is conducted by law enforcement officers or their agents. As we explained in United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196, 1200 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc), “The defendant must be so situated by reason of previous training or experience or occupation or acquaintances that it is likely that if the government had not induced him to commit the crime some criminal would have done so; only then does a sting or other arranged crime take a dangerous person out of circulation. A public official is in a position to take bribes; a drug addict to deal rugs; a gun dealer to engage in illegal gun sales. For these and other traditional targets of stings all that must be shown to establish predisposition and thus defeat the defense of entrapment is willingness to violate the law without extraordinary inducements; ability can be presumed. It is different when the defendant is not in a position without the government’s help to become involved in illegal activity. The government ‘may not provoke or create a crime, and then punish the criminal, its creature.’ Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 423 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).” [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/082329p.pdf](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/082329p.pdf) > [@](#): > > Would you object to a cop going to a bar in plain clothes, picking a guy who looks drunk enough, insult him and keep pushing until the guy tries to punch him in the face, at which point the cop flips his badge in a dashing “ha HA ! You’re in for it ! Assault !” ? See above. And see, _Jacobson v. United States_: > [@](#): > > Likewise, there can be no dispute that the Government may use undercover agents to enforce the law. “It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises.” Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441 (1932); Sherman, 356 U.S., at 372 ; United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435 -436 (1973). > > In their zeal to enforce the law, however, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells, supra, at 442; Sherman, supra, at 372. Where the Government has induced an [503 U.S. 540, 549] individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue, as it was in this case, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents. United States v. Whoie, 288 U.S. App. D.C. 261, 263-264, 925 F.2d 1481, 1483-1484 (1991). 2 > > Thus, an agent deployed to stop the traffic in illegal drugs may offer the opportunity to buy or sell drugs and, if the offer is accepted, make an arrest on the spot or later. In [503 U.S. 540, 550] such a typical case, or in a more elaborate “sting” operation involving government-sponsored fencing where the defendant is simply provided with the opportunity to commit a crime, the entrapment defense is of little use, because the ready commission of the criminal act amply demonstrates the defendant’s predisposition. See United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882 (CA2 1952). Had the agents in this case simply offered petitioner the opportunity to order child pornography through the mails, and petitioner - who must be presumed to know the law - had promptly availed himself of this criminal opportunity, it is unlikely that his entrapment defense would have warranted a jury instruction. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 66 (1988). > > But that is not what happened here. By the time petitioner finally placed his order, he had already been the target of 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from Government agents and fictitious organizations. Therefore, although he had become predisposed to break the law by May, 1987, it is our view that the Government did not prove that this predisposition was independent, and not the product of the attention that the Government had directed at petitioner since January, 1985. Sorrells, supra, at 442; Sherman, 356 U.S., at 372 . > > * * * > > Law enforcement officials go too far when they “implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.” Sorrells, 287 U.S., at 442 (emphasis added). Like the Sorrells Court, we are “unable to conclude that it was the intention of the Congress in enacting this statute that its processes of detection and enforcement should be abused by the instigation by government officials of an act on the part of persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them.” Id., at 448. When the Government’s quest for convictions leads to the apprehension of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if [503 U.S. 540, 554] left to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law, the courts should intervene. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/129 "2009-01-07T16:50:55Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > What’s so special about Indiana ? 😕 Indiana’s recent Court of Appeals decision is what motivated this thread and the discussion of the law of attempt contained herein. > [@](#): > > Why yes, yes as a matter of fact I would. > First, because the cop is obviously going to make it look oh so easy and may very well give someone ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise. > Second, because said cop would keep the peace and prevent purse snatching a lot better by merely being there in a uniform. As you said, criminals are reluctant to ply their trade in full view of the police, and the mere presence of a cop’d prevent not only purse snatching but assault, drug dealing, theft, B&E and any number of other crimes up to and including jaywalking. The flaw in your plan is that we have fewer cops than we do blocks to be kept safe. When the cop leaves, the purse snatchers can go back to work. When the cop in disguise arrests the would-be purse snatcher, then there’s one less purse snatcher to ply his trade. > [@](#): > > Would you object to a cop going to a bar in plain clothes, picking a guy who looks drunk enough, insult him and keep pushing until the guy tries to punch him in the face, at which point the cop flips his badge in a dashing “ha HA ! You’re in for it ! Assault !” ? Why yes, I would. You see, when considering the idea of entrapment, a key question is what the police do, if anything, to create the crime. An officer disguised as an old lady walking down the street is considered a proper method of law enforcement, because actual old ladies should be free to walk down the street with purses. People in bars should not be free to insult and push others. So when the cop insults and pushes our drunk, he’s manufacturing a crime out of conduct we don’t wish to protect. When our little old lady decoy ambles along, we’re not. > [@](#): > > Because in my mind, that’s exactly what those cops trawling for “predators” are doing. They’re actively pushing and encouraging the suspect, making it tempting and easy to commit a crime ; while said suspect is probably happily surprised to have finaly found THE teenager who won’t treat him like the creep he is. Again, I welcome your mind to whatever conclusions it has reached, and I’ll say only that what’s “in your mind” is not the state of affairs of the law in the vast majority of the country, and I am personally glad it is not, because if we were to use the standards found in your mind, we would eviscerate the ability of law enforcement to protect the vulnerable among us, be they horny but immature teens or old ladies with purses and a desire to enjoy an afternoon stroll. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/130 "2009-01-07T18:08:55Z")
Let us assume that if the case actually went to a Jury, the defendant coudl put his hand on a magic unicorn, whose horn would glow if the defendant was telling the truch that he had no actual intent to have sex with a child- that it was fantasy, that he thought it was an adult posing, etc. That this was 100% effective. I’d still be againts this sort of IMHO entrapment. Before the man gets into the box in front of the jury, he has to pay out $10000+ for an attorney, a similar amount for his bond, take many days off work, and is likely fired because of the stigma. Even if found innocent, his life is ruined. Just by the arrest and charges. That’s why it is critical IMHO for this decison to go forward and outlaw this sort of trap. Before there is a crime, there must be a victim. It _is_ illegal to have sex with a child- it is not illegal to want to, nor is it illegal to have sex with a adult posing as a child. No child has been harmed, not child coudl be harm in the sting. Nor has anyone come forward with any credible cites that children are routinely raped by strangers they met over the internet- thus there’s no significant danger to the real children. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/131 "2009-01-07T18:28:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Even if found innocent, his life is ruined. Just by the arrest and charges. I agree, it’s a shame the public gets so upset about child molestation. [I should stop being so sarcastic about this. Yes, the hysteria about predators lurking around every corner goes too far, and I’m not wild about the laws barring predators from everywhere in town except one corner up north. While I’m generally supportive of age of consent laws I even agree some of them are too high. BUT:] > [@](#): > > It _is_ illegal to have sex with a child- it is not illegal to want to, nor is it illegal to have sex with a adult posing as a child. No child has been harmed, not child coudl be harm in the sting. What’s being criminalized here isn’t “wanting,” it’s “attempting.” Attempting to do something illegal is itself against the law, which only makes sense. And this particular crime is hard to stop without this this kind of trickery. Without this, you’re basically telling the cops they have to catch Alpin with his dick in a kid. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/132 "2009-01-07T18:41:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You see, when considering the idea of entrapment, a key question is what the police do, if anything, to create the crime. An officer disguised as an old lady walking down the street is considered a proper method of law enforcement, because actual old ladies should be free to walk down the street with purses. People in bars should not be free to insult and push others. So when the cop insults and pushes our drunk, he’s manufacturing a crime out of conduct we don’t wish to protect. When our little old lady decoy ambles along, we’re not. So what you’re saying is real 15 yr olds should be free to consent to icky sex by random strangers and that’s a conduct we wish to protect ? 🙂 Seriously though, while I’m still not 100% comfortable with it, I can see your point. But then I wouldn’t say the old lady scenario is similar to the chatroom one. It’s not like pretending to sell drugs or pretending to be a hooker - there are drug dealers and hookers in the world. There are no teens like those they pretend to be. I know very well what kind of guy trolls teenage channels, seeing as I used to chat on them - they’re not dangerous predators, they’re pathetic freaks, and the kids are fully aware of that. They’ll PM everyone in sight in the futile hope that someone will humor them. Assuming they’re not banned in 5 minutes or laughed out the room, that someone is usually another 45 year old male pretending to be an innocent teen. Penis ensues (on both sides of the screen). I don’t know what kind of 15 year olds you’ve got across the pond, but um… real teenagers do \*not \*answer random out of the blue “u like sex a lot ?” queries like that. Heck, they don’t answer random “a/s/l ?” messages for that matter. Nor do they agree to meet strangers two hours after they virtually first met, or agree to be tied up on a first fucking date. I don’t care how horny, fucked up or desperate they are, they just don’t. Give the some credit. If you suspect your kid might… well, you know what they say about removing all the warning labels :). So in creating that wondrous, fantastic, mythical not-put-off-by-pervs teenager, the cops are doing a little more than just walking down the street with a handbag. They’re manufacturing a situation that would not ever happen were it not for them. And the sicko can’t believe his luck either, that shit happens once in a lifetime, jackpot ! Only, y’know, except for the part where it doesn’t. Like the jackpot, really. ## My point is : not only aren’t these cops protecting anyone (because as \*\*DigitalC \*\*pointed already, child molestors are uncles/neighbors/friends/parents/siblings in the overwhelming majority of cases, and the \*real \*internet predators are way more clever than that), they’re drawing out sad fuckers who’d never have done anything otherwise. Again, the lack of any previous record is quite telling. Totally innocent ? Maybe not, but who is ? And I would argue that in posing as a teenager who isn’t put off by any shit, always answers “yes” and says she has had sex with a number of older guys before (subtext : “so you know my consent is informed and mature enough, and I won’t get you in trouble”), they “implant in the mind of an (innocent) person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.”. As an unrelated note, I must say I’m intrigued by that law exemption for underage teens having sex with other teens as long as they’re within an N year bracket. What’s the rationale here ? Are they mature enough to give informed consent, but not to anyone ? Is it assumed that teenagers aren’t as adept mindfuckers as grown adults (they are. Ooooh yes they are) ? What’s the deal ? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/133 "2009-01-07T18:44:34Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > As an unrelated note, I must say I’m intrigued by that law exemption for underage teens having sex with other teens as long as they’re within an N year bracket. What’s the rationale here ? Are they mature enough to give informed consent, but not to anyone ? Is it assumed that teenagers aren’t as adept mindfuckers as grown adults (they are. Ooooh yes they are) ? What’s the deal ? There’s no 100% rational way to make an age of consent law, but most people aren’t willing to do away with it entirely. So some exceptions are made with the goal of preventing legit boyfriends or girlfriends from being prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/134 "2009-01-07T18:46:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What’s being criminalized here isn’t “wanting,” it’s “attempting.” Attempting to do something illegal is itself against the law, which only makes sense. And this particular crime is hard to stop without this this kind of trickery. Without this, you’re basically telling the cops they have to catch Alpin with his dick in a kid. Right. These folks know, by now at least, that their behavior could subject them to arrest. The fake kids aren’t begging them to play doctor–it’s the grown up making all of the suggestions. They wait for the guy to arrange a meeting. Compare the facts of _Jacobson_, which I cited above. Moreover, they often commit other crimes like child pornography (lots of them have collections, and some send photos to the “kids”). ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/135 "2009-01-07T18:50:14Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I don’t know what kind of 15 year olds you’ve got across the pond, but um… real teenagers do \*not \*answer random out of the blue “u like sex a lot ?” queries like that. Heck, they don’t answer random “a/s/l ?” messages for that matter. Nor do they agree to meet strangers two hours after they virtually first met, or agree to be tied up on a first fucking date. I don’t care how horny, fucked up or desperate they are, they just don’t. Give the some credit. If you suspect your kid might… well, you know what they say about removing all the warning labels :). I never met anyone on the Internet (within two hours or two years) when I was a teenager. But I did do the other stuff when I was 12 or 13 and really, really curious about sex. There was a lot of cybering, a lot of pretending to be someone else, a lot of sex-talk. At the same time, I do think the whole cyber world of doom theme is overplayed. But there are kids out there who genuinely are saying sexual things. Not that that mitigates anything. > [@](#): > > * * * > > As an unrelated note, I must say I’m intrigued by that law exemption for underage teens having sex with other teens as long as they’re within an N year bracket. What’s the rationale here ? Are they mature enough to give informed consent, but not to anyone ? Is it assumed that teenagers aren’t as adept mindfuckers as grown adults (they are. Ooooh yes they are) ? What’s the deal ? I’d assume it is because they’re perhaps not necessarily as influenced by someone their own age than by someone older and in a position of authority over them. Might be harder for a fifteen year old to say no to someone their parents age, than to a peer. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/136 "2009-01-07T19:02:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Before there is a crime, there must be a victim. If you’re saying we must wait until someone’s life is completely ruined before we take any steps at prevention then I have to disagree. Suppose there’s a bear lurking around the edge of your town. It’s going through garbage, it’s nosing around someone’s back yard, it’s getting very familiar with humans. But there’s no _victim_, so there’s no danger? No: there’s definitely danger. Steps should be taken, against this particular bear. Relocation is an option; tagging the bear with a radio collar is another. Waiting around until there is a grisly (heh) death is not one of the _better_ alternatives, in my mind: which one of the townspeople do you sacrifice in order to bell the cat? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/137 "2009-01-07T19:05:27Z")
> [@](#): > > As an unrelated note, I must say I’m intrigued by that law exemption for underage teens having sex with other teens as long as they’re within an N year bracket. What’s the rationale here ? Are they mature enough to give informed consent, but not to anyone ? Is it assumed that teenagers aren’t as adept mindfuckers as grown adults (they are. Ooooh yes they are) ? What’s the deal ? I thought it was meant to cover situations were one of the “significant others”, who may have been a longtime “significant”, turns 18 before the other. People are not interested in jailing two 17 year olds who have sex with each other. If one turns 18, is that person reasonably expected to go “hands off” until his/her boy/girl friend turns 18? A lot of jurisdictions are trying to (through legislation) to give that second situation a pass, as well. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/138 "2009-01-07T19:17:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If they weren’t already predators, they couldn’t be tempted. PJ doesn’t just go trolling randomly, by the way. They go on sites that are ostensibly supposed to be populated by kids and let the perverts come to them. Not true, every perv has a first time. Until then he is clean. Then ,would a first timer actually go through with it. We are assuming he would declaring him guilty. His actual crime is going there to potentially commit a crime. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/139 "2009-01-07T19:17:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I agree, it’s a shame the public gets so upset about child molestation. > > What’s being criminalized here isn’t “wanting,” it’s “attempting.” Attempting to do something illegal is itself against the law, which only makes sense. And this particular crime is hard to stop without this this kind of trickery. Without this, you’re basically telling the cops they have to catch Alpin with his dick in a kid. No, just that there has to be _a kid._ Not a cop pretending to be a kid. If the perp is waiting in the hotel with rope and condoms for a real kid, then there’s a real crime. ---
**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 7, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/140 "2009-01-07T19:25:44Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Not true, every perv has a first time. Until then he is clean. > Then ,would a first timer actually go through with it. We are assuming he would declaring him guilty. His actual crime is going there to potentially commit a crime. In virtually all of these cases, the perp has already expressed a spefic intent to commit the crime. If a guy says, “I’m going to rob that bank,” then goes into the bank with a gun and a robbery note, that’s probable cause for an arrest. He’s free to try to convince a _jury_ he wasn’t really going to go through with it, just like these perverts are free to try to tell the jury they weren’t really going to get the kids drunk with that booze they brought and fuck them with those condoms in their pockets. That’s a decision for the jury, though, not the cops. The cops just need probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=8)