Yes, THAT girl did. And the many others that didn’t? What of them?
No. I proposed a warning long before diddling. The RCC extends its holy protection pre-, during and post- diddling.
Which ones ? The imaginary ones ? The assumed ones because obviously he’s got monster genes and certainly fucked hundreds of them before the police finaly got him ?
No, the many girls abused by people just like him.
While every case must be judged on its own merits, the purpose of writing laws ahead of time is to apply basic fairness to the process. Every person is told, with specificity, what conduct is forbidden before they ever act.
What informs our laws? Two key elements are the harm created by the forbidden conduct, and the culpability of the actor. A person can stumble and accidentally scratch a car’s finish, a person cannot stumble and accidentally send lewd messages to underage students. His conduct is deliberate, and we can craft penalties based on our general understanding of how similarly-situated offenders have acted. If he is a special case, deserving of leniency, there’s prosecutorial discretion in bringing charges, leniency on the part of the jury in finding guilt, and leniency on the part of the judge (or jury) in sentencing. But to short-circuit that system in favor of a “warning” to the teacher is … well, “ridiculous” isn’t a strong enough word.
How do you picture him responding to the “warning,” by the way?
“Oh, right! Thanks for reminding me that’s illegal! I had forgotten!”
“This is actually forbidden? I thought it was just ‘frowned upon.’”
“But look at her! She’s smokin’ hot! Damn!”
It would be useless. Maybe I haven’t said that clearly or something. If you’re willing to cyber with a preteen or underage kid, you are probably not in need of a ‘hey, maybe you shouldn’t.’ If you make it explicit that you’re planning to meet with that preteen or underage kid for sex, while you might appreciate a warning instead of real punishment, it’s not going to do anything.
How many otherwise well-intentioned adults do you think are out there on the internet, talking dirty to underage kids and asking “do u want 2 meet @ teh mall or @ ur house” because, you know, they’re totally sexually heathly and mean no harm, but just haven’t considered that it might not be the greatest idea?
“But she’s consenting ! That’s OK if she says yes, right ?” “NO, FUCKWIT !” (actually, many guys follow that “if she says yes, all bets are off, don’t care why or how” ethic, even when they happen to fancy adults)
“But I can’t help myself, what can I do ?” “Shrink, pills, castration, suicide, pick one.”
or maybe, and more likely :
“Oh shit, they know. I thought the internet was anonymous and nobody could find me. Fuckityfuckfuckfuck. Screw that, not worth it.”
You assume it would. Since it’s not given, we don’t know how many of those guys really are irredeemable. We just nuke 'em from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.
We’re both working on assumptions. I think mine is based in reality. From what I can see, yours isn’t. Anyway I think the question I asked, which Bricker repeated with a little less sarcasm, does deserve a real answer since you’re proposing it would actually happen. Give me a percentage range. I know it’s not a cite, but I’d like to know your expectation: how many adults have cybersex with underage kids and make plans to meet them for sex without realizing it’s wrong, and not intending to go through with it? How many would be helped by this kind of warning?
Wow.
Just… just wow.
I have absolutely no idea. But neither do you, and neither does Bricker. It’s just not done, nobody can answer that question. But speaking of unanswered questions, you haven’t answer the man-in-a-bar one.
Look, I’m not saying “oh come on, let them walk away, it’s not *that *bad is it ?”. Far from it. I’m saying the first resort shouldn’t be an aggressive sting. Like I said, warn them once before anything can happen.
Repeat : Once. Before anything can happen.
If they don’t take the hint, by all means, sting away, fuck’em with a chainsaw, twice. You can even use that first warning to make the latter conviction stick harder and get the put away for much longer, kinda win-win there.
How exactly would that work?
You know that, at trial, the general rule is that you cannot admit into evidence prior bad acts of the accused… right?
So why are you convinced it’s worthwhile?
Okay.
My response is that this isn’t an apt comparison. A man drinking in a bar has diminished capacity and he’s in the heat of the moment. A guy who goes to a chatroom, singles out a kid, makes repeated contact with the kid and then goes to meet the kid to carry out a plan he’s already made does not have that excuse. He’s not being goaded into something that starts as idle talk. The point of these stings, if they’re carried out properly, is that the accused does all the suggesting and planning, and the undercover cop goes along with it. In your scenario the cop is directly encouraging him to do something. Whereas if the cop actually thinks the guy in the bar is a threat to his wife at that moment, he can probably hold him temporarily rather than goading him to do something worse.
“Fuck, I didn’t know they’d be able to trace the hitman I hired back to me! Forget it, I’m not going to through with murder.”
Ahem. Ahem. Canadian law, sure - I’m quite convinced a US court would reach the same verdict, esp. considering the nature of the crime.
I’m not. I don’t know, how many times must I say this ?
I still think it’s the right thing to do on principle. Try to help before you punish, that sort of thing. But then, philosophically I’m in the “better to have bad guys out than one innocent in” camp, which you may not agree with.
Are there every any things that you think people should go to prison for, without warnings? Is there any situation where a man can attempt sex with an underage girl and be arrested/tried, where you think that’s okay?
Clarify what the “that” in “that’s okay” refer to, please. I’m not sure whether you’re asking about :
- a man attempting sex with minor
- idem and be arrested/tried
- ibid & go to prison without warning
I’m seeing a disconnect here. Maybe I’m being dense. It’d be nice if we were positive everybody was acting with 100% crystal clear evil intent when they commited a crime rather than just being stupid, but it’s not possible to be sure and it’s not practical to warn them. It also doesn’t matter what the reason is, a lot of the time; it doesn’t reduce the harm done.
It’s also not the law’s function to do this kind of thing, really - that’s something for the people in their lives to do.
A lot of these people need help, but what do you do with people who can’t or won’t seek help? If you let them off the hook over and over it becomes unfair to everyone else. If one of these guys gets a warning after trolling a chatroom for a kid, and later on he does it again, doesn’t get caught in time for a warning and rapes a child, then where are you? You can say it is more ethical to the perv to warn him first because you weren’t sure he’d really go ahead with it, but that doesn’t un-molest any children. It might make you feel better, but there are other concerns in play here.
I’m in that camp, but I don’t think this is hurting innocent people.
Is there any situation where arresting, trying and then convicting a men of attempting to have sex with an underage girl is all right, with no warnings at all? Because I gave you a situation where the man both initiated and tried to go through with sex, where you said he should be let off with a warning. That man clearly was looking for an underage girl to have sex with–I’m not sure what he needed to be warned about. Or do you think that attempted rape just isn’t a crime?
Suppose we enact your “let 'em off with a warning” policy. How many molested children would you be willing to sacrifice to test your theory?
Well, think again.
The test in US law for admission of prior bad acts (so-called “404(b)” acts after the evidence code section discussing them) in the prosecution’s case-in-chief is whether the acts in question are evidence of a common plan, scheme, or design, or whether they’re so sufficiently unique as to present a signature. And as always, the question of whether their probative value outweighs their prejudicial value must be answered in the affirmative.
So what in the world makes you think evidence of a man being “warned” after chatting up a minor would be admissible against the man in a trial for his sexual abuse of another minor?
Wouldn’t “chatting up a teenager for the explicit purpose of sex” and “chatting up a teenager for the explicit purpose of sex and attempting to go through with it” be considered a common plan, scheme or design, sufficiently unique and have a pretty good probative value ?
How does my “theory” sacrifice anyone ? It effectively prevents one attempt, and possibly more. Note also that I did not say “give them a warning and forget about it”. Watch them and wait for the eventual slip - but do not hasten, provoke or facilitate it in any way shape or form.
I already said I was ambivalent about your story - there was a real girl feeling real distress.
Yeah, I know we’ve moved further from that and I’m far out of my depths by now - I’ve pretty much been thinking aloud since then, and this is a difficult problem.
But what the hey, easy, kneejerk answer : if the kid is prepubescent, there’s no ifs and buts. If the kid (no matter their age) hasn’t agreed to anything yet they still takes steps, no ifs and buts either. Most importantly, if the unrequited (or even requited) sex talk happens in Real Life rather than hiding behind a screen, that’s also more worrying. And though I’m playing Devil’s Advocate for them, I’m also very understandably queasy about adults specifically looking for minors (as opposed to having a crush on a single one) and furthermore only intersted in them for sex purposes.
On the other hand, as clairobscur said, 'round these parts the age of consent is 15, I don’t think girls (and boys) past that age are delicate flowers who don’t know how to deal with unwanted advances (especially from 'net strangers), I believe the idea that some of them might actually be attracted to older people (be it sexually or emotionally) isn’t preposterous, and like I said before I’ve been in a relationship which did involve lots 'n lots of US-defined statutory rape (I stress however that it was not the *reason *behind the relationship). No one was harmed, no trauma was applied, good time was had all around, believe it or not she was in control of the relationship, and I don’t think I’d have found it fair to be thrown in jail and scarlet letter’d for life over it. It’s one of my happier memories goddammit, don’t you mess with that ! 
In your head it does. On paper it’s a perfect plan. What could go wrong?
See, I’d want more than your personal assurance that, in theory, it is more effective than getting these bastards off the street first go. If your theory is wrong people will suffer; even if your theory is right, most of the perpetrators are gonna suffer jail anyway. Net loss: victim side.