# 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:** 9
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/161 "2009-01-07T21:50:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > 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. The problem with this request is I have access to resources that you don’t, like transcripts of court proceedings. I’m not sure how to provide you with this proof. although it certainly exists. > [@](#): > > Also, provide proof that these stings have significantly reduced the incidence of rape-by-chatroom. That’s a difficult requirement. But why is it relevant? It’s not legally significant to whether or not this is a permissible law enforcement tactic, is it? > [@](#): > > 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. For any person: odds of being struck by lightning in any given year: [1 in 700,000](http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm) Most often struck are adults, so we may infer that kids’ chances are far more remote than even this. [13% of all youths online](http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/2/138) are targets of unwanted sexual solicitation in 1 year. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/162 "2009-01-07T21:51:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. Sure – that’s why I gave you an extra case. Want six more? > [@](#): > > 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? Yes, but that’s not relevant to this discussion. Child molestation is a separate problem than sex predation online. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/163 "2009-01-07T21:58:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [13% of all youths online](http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/2/138) are targets of unwanted sexual solicitation in 1 year. To be more clear, here’s the relevant paragraph\*:"Online interpersonal victimization was defined by the report of either an unwanted sexual solicitation or harassment online in the previous year. Unwanted sexual solicitation was defined by 3 questions (with yes or no answers): “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet: (1) [E]ver try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to? (2) [A]sk you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? I mean very personal questions, like what your body looks like or sexual things you have done? and (3) [A]sk you to do something sexual that you did not want to do?” As reported elsewhere,1 13% of respondents to the YISS-2 reported an unwanted sexual solicitation in the previous year. "\* Note _their_ definition of "unwanted sexual solicitation " , and I think some would disagree that “[E]ver try to get you to _talk_ online about sex when you did not want to?” is nessesarily “unwanted sexual solicitation”. Also that it’s actually “13% of youths …_report or claim_”. One should also read the “LIMITATIONS” section of that study. ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/164 "2009-01-07T22:02:02Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Yep. [/QUOTE] Well that kinda sucks doesn’t it ? And I’m sure glad my first gf’s parents actually liked me if the French law works the same way 😛 (I was 21, she was 17. She jumped me though, so there’s that. Or does that not matter either in the eye of the law ?) > [@Marley23](#): > > 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. Well there’s your fair and impartial jury :rolleyes:. @\*\*clairobscur \*\*: which is exactly why I’m very ambivalent about the concept as well, as I already stated it doesn’t seem ethical to me (nor do I think it’s the law’s business to prevent crime in the first place for that matter), but for the purpose of this discussion I’m willing to give \*\*Bricker \*\*and the cops in this particular affair the benefit of the doubt. It’s quite obvious that should the stingers actively encourage the stingee through either direct or indirect means, they’re in the wrong, but it’s not readily apparent in the quotes provided in Gfactor’s document. Of course, I also wonder about the contents of their discussions during the week or so between first contact and arrest, but again, sake of discussion, assumption they’re playing 100% “fair” - is it right still ? I don’t believe so. I also agree with you on the vigilantism and commercial shows - in fact I think they cater to another kind of perv… or maybe even the same. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/165 "2009-01-07T22:03:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > To be more clear, here’s the relevant paragraph\*:"Online interpersonal victimization was defined by the report of either an unwanted sexual solicitation or harassment online in the previous year. Unwanted sexual solicitation was defined by 3 questions (with yes or no answers): “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet: (1) [E]ver try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to? (2) [A]sk you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? I mean very personal questions, like what your body looks like or sexual things you have done? and (3) [A]sk you to do something sexual that you did not want to do?” As reported elsewhere,1 13% of respondents to the YISS-2 reported an unwanted sexual solicitation in the previous year. "\* > > Note _their_ definition of "unwanted sexual solicitation " , and I think some would disagree that “[E]ver try to get you to _talk_ online about sex when you did not want to?” is nessesarily “unwanted sexual solicitation”. > > Also that it’s actually “13% of youths …_report or claim_”. > > One should also read the “LIMITATIONS” section of that study. Of course – but the request was absurd. “Provide figures comparing # of kids molested through chatrooms vs. # of kids stuck by lightning?” C’mon. ---
**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 7, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/166 "2009-01-07T22:05:00Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > I was obviously talking about straight males having sex with females, Here is the exact quote from your post: " Im sure a **13yo that has sex with a 30yo** would regret it, but i strongly disagree that the child will be messed up for “a good chunk of his/her life”, hell **if we are talking about a male i have a hard time believing it would be a negative experience at all.**" While female sex predators do exist, adult male pedophiles outnumber them by a huge margin. Claiming that you were referring to a male child enjoying being sexually exploited by an adult female is a very lame attempt to backpedal here. And it is still an absurd statement to make - rape of a child is rape of a child, no matter the gender of either the rapist or the victim. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/167 "2009-01-07T22:08:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [13% of all youths online](http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/2/138) are targets of unwanted sexual solicitation in 1 year. Note that in this case, unwanted sexual sollicitation is defined as such : > [@](#): > > "Unwanted sexual solicitation was defined by 3 questions (with yes or no answers): “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet: (1) [E]ver try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to? (2) [A]sk you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? I mean very personal questions, like what your body looks like or sexual things you have done? and (3) [A]sk you to do something sexual that you did not want to do?” It’s not restricted to sexual solicitation by adults. If a 15 yo asks another 15 yo if she has big boobs, the latter ends up in your 13%. It really doesn’t bring any light about the frequency of sexual harassment of minors by adults. And to be frank, having hung out in chat rooms, I’m very surprised that the percentage of unwanted sexual solicitation is _that low_, especially when defined in such a broad way. ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/168 "2009-01-07T22:09:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course – but the request was absurd. “Provide figures comparing # of kids molested through chatrooms vs. # of kids stuck by lightning?” C’mon. Maybe I can go about this a different way. In an average year, there are 700 instances of people being struck by lightning. According to my previous cite, one-third of these occur during work, so we know they’re not kids. Let’s generously assume that of the remaining 460 cases, a fifth are children. That’s roughly 100 cases of kids struck by lightning in a given year. VERY GENEROUSLY, I might add. I can show 100 cases of criminal charges being filed for internet predation in a year. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/169 "2009-01-07T22:17:40Z")
> [@Fell\_through\_the\_Ice](#): > > Here is the exact quote from your post: > > " Im sure a **13yo that has sex with a 30yo** would regret it, but i strongly disagree that the child will be messed up for “a good chunk of his/her life”, hell **if we are talking about a male i have a hard time believing it would be a negative experience at all.**" > > While female sex predators do exist, adult male pedophiles outnumber them by a huge margin. Claiming that you were referring to a male child enjoying being sexually exploited by an adult female is a very lame attempt to backpedal here. And it is still an absurd statement to make - rape of a child is rape of a child, no matter the gender of either the rapist or the victim. Backpedaling? Are you kidding? You’ve missquoted me, taken me out of context, outright changed what i’ve said and claimed i’ve stated things that have been no where in any of my posts and now you are seriously claiming you honestly think i was talking about young teens enjoying anal intercourse? I’m sure it makes you feel all righteous up there on your pedestal to think something that idiotic is what i actually meant but us here in the real world would have loved to get laid when we were 13 by any willing FEMALE. I am done arguing with you, you have not made one single valid point in the whole thread and obviously have absolutely no interest in having an honest discussion on the topic. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/170 "2009-01-07T22:18:44Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well that kinda sucks doesn’t it ? > And I’m sure glad my first gf’s parents actually liked me if the French law works the same way 😛 (I was 21, she was 17. She jumped me though, so there’s that. Or does that not matter either in the eye of the law ?) The fact she jumped on you doesn’t matter under French law. However, the age of consent being 15 here, you were in the clear as long as you hadn’t any authority, formally or de facto on the minor (actually, if the parents bring charges, there are theoretically some legal possibilities related to the subtraction of the minor from his parent’s authority and/or his moral corruption). ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/171 "2009-01-07T22:18:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with this request is I have access to resources that you don’t, like transcripts of court proceedings. I’m not sure how to provide you with this proof. although it certainly exists. Well, I’ll take your word for it. I’m a trusting guy. Yes, I’ll meet you at your van in an hour. On the other hand, if “Hi u wan fuk ?” does indeed work to get teen sex, I’m going to be very angry. Nobody told me that when I was a frustrated teen, why didn’t \*anybody \*tell me that ?! Booty-hogging bastards, all of you. > [@](#): > > That’s a difficult requirement. But why is it relevant? It’s not legally significant to whether or not this is a permissible law enforcement tactic, is it? Of course it’s relevant - I’m making the case that the stingees are not people who would have attempted to molest anyone had they not met the magical kinky kid. If the incidence of rape-by-chatroom did decrease significantly because of the stings, then I’m in the wrong. If the numbers are the same stings or not, then not only are they ethically questionnable, they’re also useless and used to convict “innocents”. Isn’t that significant ? > [@](#): > > For any person: odds of being struck by lightning in any given year: [1 in 700,000](http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm) Most often struck are adults, so we may infer that kids’ chances are far more remote than even this. > > [13% of all youths online](http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/2/138) are targets of unwanted sexual solicitation in 1 year. Ahem. Unwanted sexual soliciation isn’t exactly the same thing as actual molestation isn’t it ? It’s the internet, it’s anonymous. People are going to be creepy, that’s a given. And like Freudian Slit said, teenagers do talk about sex, do cybersex, and some of them are aggressive about it. That’s because teenagers are jerks. But again, “unwanted sexual solicitation” doesn’t equal “unwanted sexual solicitation by an adult” doesn’t equal “unwanted sexual solicitation by an adult leading to statutory rape”. And the request isn’t that absurd, even though it was made tongue in cheek. Consider the number of American teenagers chatting online at any given moment. Consider the number of those that’s going to figure proeminently in a statutory rape case directly linked to said chatting (to a stranger - people who know you badgering you online isn’t the same). Is it a high percentage ? High enough to justify the moral panic ? I don’t have those numbers, but my own experience would point to “ARE YOU INSANE ?” ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/172 "2009-01-07T22:29:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And, IMHO there’s no “crime” either. Right. I get that now. (I am slow.) I understand the argument about how two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex together on whatever terms they both find agreeable. Would I now be correct in guessing that you feel that a 13-15 year old should be allowed to consent to have sex? (Because the actual charges are not dealing with prostitution, but teenagers.) Because it seems that there are two debates going on in this thread. 1. Whether, when swept up in the “sting” operations, as exemplified by the “To Catch a Predator” format, qualifies, legally speaking, as an “attempt to have sex with a minor”, (which was the question in the OP as I remember it) and answerable by lawyers and judges looking through the legal code of the jurisdiction in question; and, now, it seems: 1. Whether such laws are “proper”, which is addressed by the law _makers_ (and the people that vote them in). I am not debating #2 (although I have an opinion on it), but #1 (even though I’m not a lawyer 😛 ), which seems to fit the long accepted pattern and definitions of the law, and law enforcement, as practiced. I can compartmentalise the questions. However, it seems that some folks feel that, because they feel #2 to be a “no”, #1 is therefore an invalid practice. Not so, IMO. The police are tasked with enforcing the laws as we have them now, and _not_ just those that will be assumed to remain applicable 1-100 years in the future. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/173 "2009-01-07T22:30:12Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Of course it’s relevant - I’m making the case that the stingees are not people who would have attempted to molest anyone had they not met the magical kinky kid. If the incidence of rape-by-chatroom did decrease significantly because of the stings, then I’m in the wrong. If the numbers are the same stings or not, then not only are they ethically questionnable, they’re also useless and used to convict “innocents”. Isn’t that significant ? That doesn’t follow. Let’s say there are 20,000 predators out there, all attempting to molest kids met in chat rooms. Let’s say 2,000 are successful in a year. Now let’s imagine stings catch 200 of them. Rape-by-chatroom doesn’t decrease significantly because of the stings. Yet no innocent is convicted. Indeed, every year brings a few new ones into the mix, and a few older ones “retire” because of death, age, or whatever, just like with any of type of criminal. > [@](#): > > Ahem. Unwanted sexual soliciation isn’t exactly the same thing as actual molestation isn’t it ? It’s the internet, it’s anonymous. People are going to be creepy, that’s a given. And like Freudian Slit said, teenagers do talk about sex, do cybersex, and some of them are aggressive about it. That’s because teenagers are jerks. But again, “unwanted sexual solicitation” doesn’t equal “unwanted sexual solicitation by an adult” doesn’t equal “unwanted sexual solicitation by an adult leading to statutory rape”. Agreed; that was a non-responsive cite. I have since refined the lightning counting argument. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/174 "2009-01-07T22:34:22Z")
Cause I had a bit of time to kill and access to Westlaw: **Commonwealth v. Garvin** “At trial, the Commonwealth established that the twenty-six year old defendant lured the victim, an eleven year old girl that he met on the Internet, out of her home, engaged in two open-mouthed kisses with her (inserting his tongue) and invited her back to his apartment. The Commonwealth contended that the defendant proffered the invitation with the intent to engage in sexual conduct that would constitute, if completed, statutory rape or indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen years of age.” He had done it before: “Here, the testimony of Emily and Helen regarding their meeting, interactions, and sexual conduct with the defendant was properly admitted to prove the defendant’s intent when he invited the victim back to his apartment, an essential element of the offense.” **State v. Stanley Stadler** “ On August 29, 2004, 14-year-old K.T. ran away from her Clark County, Washington foster home and was reported missing. Following a tip from a private organization that had tracked K.T.'s recent Internet activity, officers eventually located K.T. at Sadler’s residence” “The subsequent searches of Sadler’s residence and computer equipment yielded a significant amount of evidence, including numerous images of K.T. engaging in sexually explicit activities.” **Thao v. State** “L.X. testified that she met Thao in an Internet chat room, gave him her phone number, and told him that she was 13 years old, and that Thao told her that his name was Tommy and that he was 16 years old.” “Officer Ratajczyk went to his squad car, accessed a photograph of Thao from the Minnesota Driver Vehicle Services website, recognized the man in the car as Thao, and learned that Thao’s actual birth date is March 10, 1972, which made him 32 years old on that evening.” **Evans v. Commonwealth** “In 2004, victim, born May 29, 1990, began communicating with appellant over the internet. During their first communication, victim told appellant her true age, and appellant told victim he was twenty-six years old. [he was actually 37] On February 14, 2005, victim invited appellant to visit her at her father’s home in Stafford County. During that conversation, they discussed having sexual intercourse when appellant arrived. … Around 1:00 a.m. on February 15, 2005, appellant arrived at victim’s father’s home, without her parents’ knowledge, and they engaged in sexual intercourse.” **In Re Commitment of Philip Goldhammer** Those were the results I got in a half hour of looking. And they’re only cases that went to trial and have already been decided by the appellate court, so it doesn’t include pleas or cases pending on first appeal. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/175 "2009-01-07T22:37:27Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well there’s your fair and impartial jury :rolleyes: I’m not on Alpin’s jury, but more importantly, in those two cases, it seems to me the lawyers aren’t even contesting the fact that these guys wanted to fuck underage girls. They’re just saying ‘they were undercover cops even though my client didn’t know that, so no harm, no foul.’ ---
**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, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/176 "2009-01-07T22:58:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Those were the results I got in a half hour of looking. And they’re only cases that went to trial and have already been decided by the appellate court, so it doesn’t include pleas or cases pending on first appeal. Yup. I tried to provide cases that were reported in the media, because otherwise I suspected I’d hear complaints about not being able to verify the cites. But yes – there’s no shortage of these cases. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/177 "2009-01-07T23:00:35Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Would I now be correct in guessing that you feel that a 13-15 year old should be allowed to consent to have sex? > > Because it seems that there are two debates going on in this thread.. No, I don’t think a 13-15yo can give an informed consent to sex. Of course, their consent will change the nature and seriousness of the charges. Here’s my point- as long as it’s an adult doing the sting, there is no victim and no crime. What’s also important is that too much of the 'crime" depends upon what the prosecutor can allege was going on in the defendant head. I mean, it really is quite common for dudes to play sexual fantasies on the internet, one “pretending” and the other knowing full well it’s just pretend. Is the guy really thinking it’s a kid? Is he really going to go through with it? And, it’s really hard to defend when accused of this sort of crime. If I was accused of “attempted burgalry” as I was playing some involved modern day RPG over the internet and even had constume gear- I’d fight it all the way, and it’s doubful if the proecutor would go after me with any zeal. Even if I lost, the penalty might be a years suspended sentence. Even if I went to the grey-bar hotel for a bit, it’d be as a burglar, and I’d have some respect. I’d only get fired if I was actually convited of a felony. Change that to a _sexual_ fantasy, and I’d be charged with crimes amounting to 99 consectutive life sentences, the prosecutor would be looking at parlaying my crime into a run for DA, if I lost I’d go to prison for a loooong time, and I’d be horribly abused by the other prisoners. I’d _have_ to plead out, no matter how innocent I really was. In any case, the notoriety would get me fired, even if I was foudn “not guilty”. The two really can’t be compared. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/178 "2009-01-07T23:00:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not on Alpin’s jury, [nitpick]It’s _Aplin_ [Indiana Judicial Branch: Appellate Decisions](http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07110803lmb.pdf) [/nitpick] ---
**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 7, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/179 "2009-01-07T23:02:23Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > here in the real world would have loved to get laid when we were 13 by any willing FEMALE. So if a male child is horny and interested in sex, it’s okay for an adult sexual predator he met online to swoop in when his parents aren’t home and fuck him? ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929/180 "2009-01-07T23:05:45Z")
For the record, **DrDeth** is right that this kind of abuse happens more often in the family and I am sure it is harder for the police to draw it out, precisely because these people can already be alone with the kids because they’re related and trust is more easily granted. That doesn’t make these efforts or conviction invalid on their own, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-unwinding-chris-hansen-style-net-sex-sting-convictions-without-actual-victims/479929.md?page=10)