# 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:** 8
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/141 "2009-01-07T19:30:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. If I catch you in a dark alley and hold you up at gunpoint, then it should be a crime, even if you don’t have money in your pockets. ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/142 "2009-01-07T19:30:22Z")
**Kobal2** and **DrDeth** offer similar objections: > [@Kobal2](#): > > 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 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. > [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. If I may paraphrase, they both seem to argue that it’s highly unrealistic for real kids to agree to meet strangers online. My question would be: how many instances to the contrary would I need to offer for you to rethink this position? I assume if I post one case of a kid being lured into meeting via Internet chat and it turning into sexual abuse, you’d be unconvinced. Five? Ten? Fifteen cases? I don’t mind doing the legwork to provide cites, but if I dig up ten cases and it’s dismissed as “only ten” then I won’t bother. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/143 "2009-01-07T19:31:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. This doesn’t respond to the point I made, which is that it makes prevention much more difficult. I guess it does allow for police to luck into stopping the assault if the child’s parents read his IMs before the kid meets the would-be predator at the hotel. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Then ,would a first timer actually go through with it. If first-timers never went through with it, then it would never happen in the first place. It seems to me you are assuming a conscience that may not exist. If a guy shows up to have sex with a kid and brings condoms and rope he’s pretty obviously set on doing it. If he shows up and changes his mind, it’s on him to prove it. > [@](#): > > His actual crime is going there to potentially commit a crime. Which is a crime in itself. That’s why we have attempted murder. ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/144 "2009-01-07T19:33:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. Why does there have to be a real kid, when _every other instance of “attempt” crime doesn’t have to have a real victim?_ ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/145 "2009-01-07T19:35:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If first-timers never went through with it, then it would never happen in the first place. It seems to me you are assuming a conscience that may not exist. If a guy shows up to have sex with a kid and brings condoms and rope he’s pretty obviously set on doing it. If he shows up and changes his mind, it’s on him to prove it. Correct – which is why renunciation can be a defense to the crime of attempt. If you can show that you intended to commit a crime, but changed your mind and backed out of it, then that’s a defense to the charge of attempt.[sup]\*[/sup] - Subtle distinctions and nitpicks glossed over. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/146 "2009-01-07T19:42:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. When a female cop pretends to be a hooker, and waits on street corners for guys to proposition her, there is no actual hooker present either, and no “victim”. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/147 "2009-01-07T20:01:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct – which is why renunciation can be a defense to the crime of attempt. If you can show that you intended to commit a crime, but changed your mind and backed out of it, then that’s a defense to the charge of attempt. And the fact that you could have backed out–there was a _locus penitentiae_–doesn’t establish that you would have. You’ve got to actually renounce the crime: > [@](#): > > A court’s focus should thus be on “the distance or gap between the defendant’s actions and the (unachieved) goal of the consummated crime.” Id. at 258.(9) “If the preparation comes very near to the accomplishment of the act, the intent to complete it renders the crime so probable that the act will be a misdemeanor although there is still a locus penitentiae [opportunity to withdraw] in the need of a further exertion of the will to complete the crime. . . . [T]he degree of proximity held sufficient may vary with circumstances, including among other things the apprehension which the particular crime is calculated to excite.” Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 408 Mass. 463, 471-472 (1990), quoting from Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. at 272. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=appslip/16471&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=appslip/16471&invol=1) > [@](#): > > The accused must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (he/she) abandoned (his/her) effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances that show a complete and voluntary decision to renounce (his/her) criminal purpose. The abandonment of the criminal effort must begin with the defendant and not be forced upon (him/her) by some outside event, such as police intervention.5 Renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if the reason for it is that it seems more likely that defendant will be detected or caught, or the objective seems more difficult than it did at the beginning of the course of conduct. Renunciation is not complete if the defendant only decides to postpone the criminal conduct to a better time or to focus on another but similar objective or victim. If mere abandonment of the criminal effort in not enough to prevent the offense, then the defendant must have taken further and affirmative steps that actually prevented the commission of the offense. [https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web0/criminal/charges/inchoate1.pdf](https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web0/criminal/charges/inchoate1.pdf) Some courts treat renunciation a bit differently: > [@](#): > > In United States v. Shelton, 30 F.3d 702, 706 (6th Cir. 1994), the Sixth Circuit made clear that it does not recognize the defense of abandonment or renunciation, holding that “withdrawal, abandonment and renunciation, however characterized, do not provide a defense to an attempt crime.” The court stated that the crime of attempt is “complete with proof of intent together with acts constituting a substantial step toward commission of the substantive offense,” but noted that if a defendant withdraws prior to forming the required intent or taking the substantial step, then the question arises if he has committed the offense since the elements of the crime cannot be proved. Id. [http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/Internet/crim\_jury\_insts/html/chap5\_12.htm](http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/Internet/crim_jury_insts/html/chap5_12.htm) and see [http://www.jmls.edu/facultypubs/oneill/oneill\_column\_0600.pdf](http://www.jmls.edu/facultypubs/oneill/oneill_column_0600.pdf) (discussing the distinction between Holmes’s objective theory of attempt and the MPC’s subjective theory). ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/148 "2009-01-07T20:28:40Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > And the fact that you could have backed out–there was a _locus penitentiae_–doesn’t establish that you would have. You’ve got to actually renounce the crime: > . > . > . > Some courts treat renunciation a bit differently: Um… > [@Bricker](#): > > Subtle distinctions and nitpicks glossed over. 😃 ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/149 "2009-01-07T20:31:27Z")
Right. I was agreeing with you in my own special way. 😃 ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/150 "2009-01-07T20:50:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My question would be: how many instances to the contrary would I need to offer for you to rethink this position? I assume if I post one case of a kid being lured into meeting via Internet chat and it turning into sexual abuse, you’d be unconvinced. Five? Ten? Fifteen cases? > > I don’t mind doing the legwork to provide cites, but if I dig up ten cases and it’s dismissed as “only ten” then I won’t bother. I don’t dispute the fact that it happens. I object to the idea that it’s so widespread that it’s a clear and everpresent danger, and to the idea that the real rapists use such clumsy come ons. Provide me with 10+ cases of teenagers meeting someone over “hi u wan fuk ?”, and I’ll change my mind. Also, provide proof that these stings have significantly reduced the incidence of rape-by-chatroom. Finally, provide figures comparing # of kids molested through chatrooms vs. # of kids stuck by lightning, because to me you’ve got about the same chances. [QUOTE=Marley23] If first-timers never went through with it, then it would never happen in the first place. It seems to me you are assuming a conscience that may not exist. If a guy shows up to have sex with a kid and brings condoms and rope he’s pretty obviously set on doing it. If he shows up and changes his mind, it’s on him to prove it. [/QUOTE] Errr isn’t it the other way round ? Innocent until proven guilty ? Especially if he’s not given the opportunity to change his mind in the first place - how can he prove anything ? Until he’s met the girl, she’s a non-person. A thing - a figment of the net with no substance, feelings, or fear. Meeting her in the flesh changes things a great deal. No kid, far less opportunity to hear one’s conscience crying. Factual question though : if an adult has consensual sex with a minor, and neither of them reports the crime, is it still a crime ? Say a neighbour witnesses them fucking in the garden and calls the cops, but the minor doesn’t want to press charges (nor do the minor’s parents - the minor is very much in love in this scenario, and convinces them there’s no foul), will the adult still wind up on the sex offender DB and all that jazz ? ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/151 "2009-01-07T20:52:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Factual question though : if an adult has consensual sex with a minor, and neither of them reports the crime, is it still a crime ? Say a neighbour witnesses them fucking in the garden and calls the cops, but the minor doesn’t want to press charges (nor do the minor’s parents - the minor is very much in love in this scenario, and convinces them there’s no foul), will the adult still wind up on the sex offender DB and all that jazz ? Yep. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/152 "2009-01-07T20:55:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Errr isn’t it the other way round ? Innocent until proven guilty ? Everybody’s innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. > [@](#): > > Especially if he’s not given the opportunity to change his mind in the first place - how can he prove anything ? He’s able to change his mind at any time between the point they start talking and the point where he shows up to have sex with the kid, which in this case was a period of days. It’s true he is not presented with a child and offered the chance to continue or follow through on his stated plan to have sex with the child. > [@](#): > > Meeting her in the flesh changes things a great deal. Yeah, sure. That’s why kids never get molested. Once these guys are confronted with an actual human being, they realize they’d never want to inflict that kind of pain and suffering. Except some of them do want to do that, and others are screwed up enough that they don’t care or can’t stop themselves. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/153 "2009-01-07T21:02:13Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s not like pretending to sell drugs or pretending to be a hooker - there are drug dealers and hookers in the world. Actually, when I think of entrapment, it’s generally situations like LEO posing as hookers or dealers I have in mind. If a LEO says “pssst…I’m selling drug/sex! Do you want to buy some?”, that’s encouraging a crime that the person might not have committed or even envisioned to commit otherwise (guy is depressed for some reason and think : “hmm…sex/drug. Haven’t thought of that. I guess I could use some”). Basically, I’ve a problem with a LEO taking any positive action that could be a cause of the crime. “Creating a crime”, in any shape or form shouldn’t be their business. And in my opinion, it should be very strict so as to avoid grey areas. I’ve no problem with the cop posing as an old lady with a purse. I’ve a problem with the supposed old lady shouting “Hey! Anybody willing to rob me? I’ve a lot of cash in my purse, I’m unarmed, plus I looove to be robbed! I want to have an interesting story to tell!!! Please, rob me!” Basically, that’s what we have with the LEO posing as a teen. Each conversation should be dissected to see whether or not the LEO encouraged the potential culprit at any time. And any instance where it could be construed as encouraging the culprit should result in dropping the case. Since it’s going to be a big mess, and since it’s going to be extremely difficult to end up in a situation where said culprit will go to a meeting and where it could be shown that he went there with an intent to have sex with the supposed teen without ever encourage it, it just shouldn’t be done as a general rule, IMHO. Let’s take a more extreme instance : I’m a LEO and I approach Suspected Creepy Dude (SCD) telling him : “I’d be willing to pay 10 000 for some porn pictures of a cute 10 yo". SCD answers : " 10 000? Sounds good. I’ll be back”. Scenario 1 : SCD comes back with the pictures : “You were lucky. I happened to have porn pictures of my 10 yo daughter. Gimme the money”. Should SCD be charged for distributing child porn? I don’t think so, since he was enticed in selling the pictures. Should he be prosecuted for taking the pictures at the first place? You bet! Scenario 2 : SCD comes back with the pictures : “You were lucky. I happened to have a 10 yo old daughter, and I took the pictures you wanted. Gimme the money”. Now, we have a crime that wouldn’t have happened at all without the intervention of the LEO. Should SCD be prosecuted for taking the pictures? I say no because we don’t want to encourage LEOs whose actions result in child porn being produced. So, again, I’m strongly in favour of severely limiting the possibility for LEOs to artificially create situations that result in a crime being committed or attempted. Because I want LEOs to prevent or stop criminal activity, not encourage it or even worse, cause it. Transforming law-abiding (even of dubious morality) citizens into criminals should be the job of other criminals, not of the police. ETA : And of course it _never_ should be the job of vigilantes or commercial TV stations. ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/154 "2009-01-07T21:02:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Kobal2** and **DrDeth** offer similar objections: > > If I may paraphrase, they both seem to argue that it’s highly unrealistic for real kids to agree to meet strangers online. > > My question would be: how many instances to the contrary would I need to offer for you to rethink this position? I assume if I post one case of a kid being lured into meeting via Internet chat and it turning into sexual abuse, you’d be unconvinced. Five? Ten? Fifteen cases? > > I don’t mind doing the legwork to provide cites, but if I dig up ten cases and it’s dismissed as “only ten” then I won’t bother. I’ll accept as few as a half-dozen. But it has to be a stranger, the “kid” has to be under 16 and the perp over 30, so we exclude anything that might reasonably be a real “date”. In other words, if a 19yo dude meets a 17yo dudette on MySpace and they hook up, and he’s later charged with Statutory rape, this isn’t the level of crime we are talking about, OK? ---
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/155 "2009-01-07T21:05:26Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > When a female cop pretends to be a hooker, and waits on street corners for guys to proposition her, there is no actual hooker present either, and no “victim”. And, IMHO there’s no “crime” either. ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/156 "2009-01-07T21:07:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I’ll accept as few as a half-dozen. But it has to be a stranger, the “kid” has to be under 16 and the perp over 30, so we exclude anything that might reasonably be a real “date”. **Fell through the Ice** already gave you two of those. And really, I think you should count two more even though they miss out on on the ‘30’ part, because if a guy drugs the kids and then molests them I don’t think you can say it might’ve been a date. ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/157 "2009-01-07T21:07:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why does there have to be a real kid, when _every other instance of “attempt” crime doesn’t have to have a real victim?_ Becuase, in the other cases, such as attempted larceny, there’s not so much of the "crime’ going on in the perps head- what he really thinks and intends. Sexual fantasies, and sexual roleplaying on the internet are extremely common, but few exchange fantasties about other crimes. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/158 "2009-01-07T21:31:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > fuck them with those condoms in their pockets. By the way : several people mentioned the condoms. I’m not sure how having condoms is an evidence of anything. I’ve had condoms in my wallet at essentially all times for the last 20 years or so (though unfortunately I rarely got an unplanned use for them). ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/159 "2009-01-07T21:38:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I’ll accept as few as a half-dozen. But it has to be a stranger, the “kid” has to be under 16 and the perp over 30, so we exclude anything that might reasonably be a real “date”. In other words, if a 19yo dude meets a 17yo dudette on MySpace and they hook up, and he’s later charged with Statutory rape, this isn’t the level of crime we are talking about, OK? OK: [Man changes plea on child sex charges](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/20/2010072.htm) > [@](#): > > Liam Mark Sullivan, 48, had been due to face trial tomorrow. > > But today he pleaded guilty to four charges of unlawful sexual intercourse, three counts of procuring a child for sex and possessing child pornography. > > Sullivan met a 15-year-old and two 14-year-old boys through internet chat rooms between December 2004 and July 2005. > > The court heard that one of the victims identified himself in a photograph with Sullivan four days ago. > > Sullivan’s bail has not been revoked and he will appear in court again in three weeks for a decision on whether he will be taken into custody ahead of sentencing. [Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli announced the arrest of Michael Raggi](http://www.bcpo.net/go.php?display_id=25&content=./bcpo/press_releases/2007-11-08.html) > [@](#): > > The arrest came about as a result of an investigation conducted by members of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Squad, under the direction of Acting Chief Joseph Macellaro, and the Norwood Police Department, under the direction of Chief Jeffrey Krapels. > > ``` > On Sunday, November 4, 2007, the Norwood Police Department was contacted by the North Vale Police Department after a brief investigation revealed Michael Raggi had sexual relations with a fifteen (15) year old female. The fifteen (15) year old female was interviewed and revealed she met Michael Raggi over the internet and maintained communications with him. On or about October 29, 2007, Michael Raggi picked her up at her residence, located in Pearl River, New York and brought her to a location in Norwood, New Jersey, where he engaged in sexual relations with her. On Sunday, November 4, 2007, Michael Raggi again, picked the female up at her residence and attempted to bring her to a location, however, the female’s parents followed him in their vehicle and intervened, at which time law enforcement was contacted. > > ``` [Internet affair led to sex, sheriff says](http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/438104211.html?FMT=FT&dids=438104211:438104211&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+04%2C+2003&author=DUANE+BOURNE&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=Internet+affair+led+to+sex%2C+sheriff+says) > [@](#): > > A 33-year-old Spring Hill man was arrested after he was accused of having sex with a teenage girl he met over the Internet, authorities said. > > Kyle R. Mellow, was taken into custody Saturday after sheriff’s units were dispatched to his home on 9496 River Road in an attempt to find a 14-year-old Plant City girl, who they thought had run away from home, a sheriff’s report stated. > > When authorities arrived, they found both Mellow and the girl, who he thought was 18. > > Sheriff’s spokesman Lt. Joseph Paez said deputies went to Mellow’s residence after the victim’s mother had told them that her daughter may be there with someone she met on the Internet. > > During the investigation, authorities learned that Mellow and the girl, whose identity is being withheld by authorities because of her age and the nature of the allegation, had an online relationship for a couple of weeks and had gone out together before. > > On Friday, the teen told her mother that she was spending the night at a friend’s house. Instead, she traveled with Mellow to his home in Spring Hill, the report said. > > During the investigation, the teen initially told authorities that she and Mellow were just friends and that they slept in separate rooms. > > Her story quickly changed, however, after authorities told the teen they had contacted her mother and that she was on her way to the Sheriff’s Office, the report said. > > She told investigators she had sex with Mellow twice that morning, the report said. > > The teen was taken to Pinebrook Medical Center, where a rape exam was performed. She later returned home with her mother. > > Mellow, who works in sales, was taken into custody and charged with lewd or lascivious battery on a child - a second-degree felony. He was being held at Hernando County Jail on $5,000 bail. [A man who used cigarettes and cash to entice sexual favours from four schoolgirls was yesterday jailed for at least six years.](http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/26/1064083191156.html?from=storyrhs) > [@](#): > > Richard Jongsma, 41, paid hundreds of dollars to the girls, aged between 14 and 16, and took them shopping at a suburban mall, buying shoes and underwear. > > In exchange, County Court Judge Tom Neesham said, Jongsma received sexual favours in his car, at a local park and at home. He also convinced two of the girls to pose for pornographic photographs. > > “It is clear that you satisfied your undoubted perversion by paying them to accommodate you,” Judge Neesham said. > > Jongsma, of Primula Street, Blackburn North, was sentenced to eight years in prison with a minimum term of six years. > > Earlier this month he pleaded guilty to 17 charges including seven counts of performing an indecent act on a child under the age of 16, two counts of causing a child to take part in an act of prostitution and counts of making and possessing child pornography. The offences were committed between July 2001 and September 2002. > > Jongsma met the first girl through an internet chat room when she was 14. The other victims were her sister, aged 16, and two schoolfriends, both 14. [Man sentenced for sexually exploiting 13-year-old girl](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-09/27/content_268159.htm) > [@](#): > > A man who chatted online with a 13-year-old girl about bondage sex and her wish to run away was sentenced to 19 years in prison Friday for taking the girl home with him and sexually exploiting her. > > The defense argued that Scott William Tyree deserved a lesser sentence because the girl said she had bondage fantasies in an Internet chat. The judge rejected the request and said Tyree should get counseling in prison. > > Tyree, 41, pleaded guilty in March to taking the girl across state lines for illegal sex and sexually exploiting a minor. > > Assistant US Attorney Stephen Kaufman said Tyree was looking for vulnerable girls and took advantage of the victim no matter what she said. ``This girl was 13 years old \_ she can’t consent to anything,‘’ the prosecutor said. > > Tyree, who lives in the state of Virginia, drove to Pennsylvania on New Year’s Day 2002 and took the girl home with him. The FBI found her three days later, still restrained, after another man told authorities Tyree had sent him a picture of a teenage sex slave who looked like the missing girl. [It started as a random sex offender check. But inside 52-year-old Raymond Gomez?s home, Tampa police found a 15-year-old girl.](http://www.channel10.com/includes/tools/print.aspx?storyid=58177) > [@](#): > > So, I said, ‘Are you naked?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ And I said, ‘Well, put your pants on because we’re going to do a check on you.’” > > Gomez did and then let the two officers inside. But as he was talking to them, another red flag went up. Ofr. Pecora noticed he was pacing deliberately in front of the bedroom door. > > “That’s when I kinda stepped in the bedroom. And as I walked past the door, I saw a young girl in the bed like this,” Ofr. Pecora said as she made a motion showing a stiff body, “with her hand kinda hidden, and I said, ‘Who are you?’” > > The girl first told officers she was 18, but she is 15. She said she’d met Gomez about seven months ago through a Christian chat room online. But neither of them were using their computers to access the internet. They were using cell phones. > > “A lot of times parents don’t realize kids can get access to the internet through their cell phone. What she said was a 50-cent chat session, and that’s how they met,” Ofr. Pecora said. > > Since then, the two had talked on the phone about God and religion. Eventually, Gomez visited the girl at her house in Bartow when her parents weren’t home. > > Since then, police say the two had had sex about 20 times at various locations, including Gomez’s home Thursday night. [Guilty plea in myspace sex case](http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/nov/22/news/chi-childpornnov22) > [@](#): > > A Woodridge man pleaded guilty Wednesday to luring a teenage girl to havesex with him by exchanging explicit photos and messages on the Web [sitemyspace.com](http://sitemyspace.com), authorities said. > Huston Kline, 29, of the 7600 block of Woodridge Drive entered the pleaagreement in U.S. District Court to one count of persuading a minor to engagein sexual activity. > The charges are among the first in Chicago-area child exploitation casesrelated to the popular social networking Web site, prosecutors said. The sitestarted in 2003 and has at least 200 million members. > In the plea agreement, Kline admitted he asked the victim, 13 at the time,to send him sexually explicit photos through the Web site. He also sent thevictim explicit photographs of himself. > The exchanges occurred over a six-month period in 2006. At one point, Klinealso asked the victim’s teenage friend to send him explicit photographs. > Kline drove to the victim’s middle school at least three times and took herto his home in Woodridge where they engaged in sex. ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/160 "2009-01-07T21:47:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK: > > [Man changes plea on child sex charges](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/20/2010072.htm) > [Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli announced the arrest of Michael Raggi](http://www.bcpo.net/go.php?display_id=25&content=./bcpo/press_releases/2007-11-08.html) > [Internet affair led to sex, sheriff says](http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/438104211.html?FMT=FT&dids=438104211:438104211&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+04%2C+2003&author=DUANE+BOURNE&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=Internet+affair+led+to+sex%2C+sheriff+says) > [A man who used cigarettes and cash to entice sexual favours from four schoolgirls was yesterday jailed for at least six years.](http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/26/1064083191156.html?from=storyrhs) > [Man sentenced for sexually exploiting 13-year-old girl](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-09/27/content_268159.htm) > [It started as a random sex offender check. But inside 52-year-old Raymond Gomez?s home, Tampa police found a 15-year-old girl.](http://www.channel10.com/includes/tools/print.aspx?storyid=58177) > [Guilty plea in myspace sex case](http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/nov/22/news/chi-childpornnov22) Well, I’ll concede it’s more common than I thought. However, do note that in at least two of the cases, the child had represented herself as being 18+. " When authorities arrived, they found both Mellow and the girl, who he thought was 18." “The girl first told officers she was 18, but she is 15”. That isn’t the sort of case we are talking about here. But again, I concede it’s more common that I thought. We _do_ agree that most child molestation is done by someone who is NOT a “stranger”, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=9)