I’m not so sure about that. The online docket shows the Court of Appeals decision as the last entry on 12/31/09: http://hats.courts.state.in.us/ISC3RUS/ISC2menu.jsp (you’ll have to run your own search–It doesn’t seem to generate a stable search results page). At any rate, I don’t see any filing from defense counsel or any subsequent order, and I’d be surprised to given time frame). As you note, the Indiana Supreme Court did refuse to review Aplin. So I *think * the state supreme court still has a shot at getting it right in Gibbs.
Yeah, my mistake. It was Alpin that they declined.
There are basically two ways to prevent a crime, to my non-legal expert mind: you can break it up while it’s going on, or you catch people while they are trying to do it. The first one seems particularly difficult and, in many cases, it carries very high stakes. I have no problem with officers catching pedophiles this way. I’m trusting Gfactor and Bricker that this case was not correctly decided and I hope the ruling gets tossed.
The objection that “there’s no crime because there’s no child,” is, to me, nonsense unless you want to throw out the entire idea of stings. I think there is a place for them. If a man hires a an undercover cop to kill his wife, should we declare no harm, no foul because there’s no actual hitman, just a cop pretending to be one? No. Otherwise you’re saying the only way to prevent murder for hire is to arrest the assassin as he prepares to shoot. I don’t agree at all with this line of reasoning.
I object strongly on journalistic and legal grounds to shows like “To Catch a Predator,” which are prurient vigilantism, and I’m not comfortable with what perverted-justice does either.
This case makes me rethink my position on elected judges. These guys are appointed, but the voters vote to retain them: http://www.corruptusjudicialsystem.org/in-votersretainall-insc-inca-taxcourtjudges.pdf
For whatever reason, they were unable to understand a very basic statute that codifies a well-known principle of criminal law. I especially love the part where the judges try to twist the law of indictments to justify their silliness.
My state’s court of appeals issues opinions that are just as poorly reasoned, based on goofy arguments that the judges come up with on their own without doing legal research, and ignores (or does not look for) state supreme court decisions that are contrary to its reasoning. I had thought that was because they weren’t selected based on merit. I was wrong.
Yes of course both of those things would mess up her life, but they would mess up the lives of 16, 21, 35 and 55 year olds just as bad. I don’t know why you ommited the part of my post were i said i knew and understood that by law a teenagers consent is not valid, that does not mean that its not valid for them personally. If they consent to have sex with someone why would they be fucked up for life just because the law keeps telling them they’ve been raped? Someone having no idea about condoms at 13 is a result of being uneducated, not a result of being 13.
No, but if a 55yo male just* fantasized *about having sex with someone pretending to be a 13yo girl, who is actualy an adult, where’s the harm?
I think it’s right around the point where he tries to follow through on the fantasy by setting up a date to have sex with the kid. I may be crazy here, though.
Or maybe it’s a result of being, I dunno, a child?:rolleyes:
IIRC, most states have long since modified their laws so that that’s legal. If memory serves, in most jurisdictions it’s legal for two people to have sex if they’re within 2-3 years of each other in age, even if one’s over 18 and the other isn’t.
I’m sure others can add some specifics to that.
If you think a 13 year old should not be educated about sex and condoms then i really don’t know what to tell you. That kind of asinine puritanism leads directly to the whole “pregnant and full of STDs” scenario you so kindly provided, not the creepy internet pervs.
Fantasies are one thing. If this guy is demonstrably willing to take concrete steps to actually contact a 13-year-old in person for that purpose, does it matter whether there’s a victim? He’s already proved he is a very real hazard to very real 13-year-olds. It’s only a matter of time before he bags himself a real one; must we wait?
Are you whooshing us or something?
You honestly think there is no difference whatsover in life consequnces between a raped 13-year old having a child vs a 21 year old giving birth as a result of consensual sex? 
I’m sure theres a difference, but getting pregnant when you didn’t intend too is not a good experience NO MATTER YOUR AGE. So far you haven’t presented one single reason why a 13 year olds life would be ruined by having a sexual experience they regret. You can call it rape all you want and the law will obviously see it that way but do you seriously think someone who agreed to sex will feel raped just because everyone else is telling them it is? Thats simply bullshit.
How do you know he will go through with it? How do you know he really thinks it’s a 13yo, not some 23yo in pigtails?
There are hookers who will happily wear a schoolgirl outfit and play along with the fantasy, you know.
How many real 13yo are actually raped through encounters through the internet? Got some numbers?:dubious:
So what if it were a 12 year old who agreed to the sex?
How about an 8 year old?
Suppose I get a 6 year old to agree to “play doctor” with me and we have intercourse, that’s fine? After all, the kid agreed, so it can’t be rape no matter how many times people try to make the kid think it was!
So the defense would be, “I assumed she was lying about her age?” ‘Flimsy’ doesn’t begin to cover it.
If you look at the cites Gfactor provided, for example, these guys definitely believe they’re making plans to meet with an underage girl.
There is a presumption that each and every one of these guys would have gone through with the act. I am sure there are different degrees of pervdom here. Some may have actually been lured to try a first time experience and may have chickened out. Others may have been guilty of doing it many times. But a sting treats them all the same.
12 if definitely pushing it, the rest are clearly children. Are you actually going to provide any reason at all why a teenager who agrees to have sex with someone would be fucked up for life because of it or is it just going to be more of your “OMG SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN” hystericals?
Disclaimer: I detest and despise the attitudes, tactics and behaviors of Perverted Justice. However, I have no reason to believe that the case files listed on the right column of their site are made-up. Here is what is listed there today:
***07/17/08: Ex-prison guard sentenced…
2008 story about a 35 year old male who used the internet to abduct and rape a 14 year old girl
07/16/08: 24 year old man arrested…
2008 story about a 24 year old male who used the internet to lure and molest a 12-15 year old girl
07/15/08: Man Accused Of Luring Teen…
2008 story about a 37 year old man who raped two girls, one 14 and one 12, that he met online
07/14/08: Ferndale man arrested for…
2008 story about a 26 year old male who lured a 15 year old girl off a social networking website in order to be drugged and molested
07/13/08: Man arrested for alleged…
2008 story about a 26 year old male who met a 15 year old boy online before luring him offline and raping him***
These are just the ones from July, 2998. Still “dubious” that this actually happens in real life? :rolleyes:
If you were actually fairly young but pretending to be a schoolgirl, wouldn’t you make it clear you were actually of age? Like it’s one thing to say, “I’m a 21/f with 34DDs and I love saucy schoolgirl fantasies,” but are many young girls going to actually pretend to be underage?