See Bricker’s post. If you attempted to commit a crime, failing because you’re an idiot is not much of a defense.
I agree with you in principle that not every 13-year-old who has sex will be Screwed Up For Life.
The trouble is, our laws are not constructed to give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt in these matters. It isn’t always possible to know which kids are SUFL and which aren’t at the time of the crime. We don’t give the victim a vote whether or not to prosecute and we certainly don’t allow the perpetrator to wiggle out of responsibility with a statement like “she looked she was 18, officer, I swear”.
I wouldn’t object strenuously to some kind of graded system — mandatory prosecution for statutory rape below age 9, mandatory prosecution for victims 9-13 unless the perpetrator is also a minor, and optional prosecution between 14 and 17. But I also don’t object strenuously to present no-wiggle-room system we have now, either.
Interesting question though. Going to Angelina’s house with intent to rape and failing because she’s not in, I can see you’re on shaky ground. Going round to Wonder Woman’s house and failing because there is not and never was any such person…?
True dat.
Now, there is the concept of renunciation. If you decide to commit a crime, take substantial steps in furtherance of that crime, and then suddenly remember Fr. O’Malley’s homily last Sunday, and decide on your own to call it off, that abandonment of the course of criminal conduct can be used as a defense (in MPC jurisdictions, anyway) against the crime of attempt.
Which is why i haven’t sugested changing any laws.
Extremely poor example. I know of no way of being pleasantly stabbed. I know of plenty of ways of having pleasant sex.
You can’t assume that the “child” will be harmed, nor that it will have a devastating impact on him, nor that he will come to regret having had sex. Especially when you define “child” as “being underage”. I would note that in previous threads on similar topics, some female posters have mentioned having had sex with adults when they were underage and not regretting it.
Especially ticking for me was the fact that a previous poster referred to a 15 yo, since a 15 yo would have reached the age of consent where I live. And I can’t conceive that an obviously hateful crime would suddenly become something like “OK, albeit creepy” just because you board a plane.
You might answer that you were talking about a 13 yo, but I remember distinctly that you think that even a 18 yo having sex with a 17 yo deserves to get any available book to be throw at him. You have an history of being unreasonably emotional and/or unreasonably concerned with the letter of the law when it comes to the issue of “adults” having sex with “children”.
Also, in a latter post you state that a teenager can’t give an informed consent. That’s not a fact. You can’t argue that a person objectively can’t give an informed consent just because that’s what is written in the relevant statute in the state you happen to live in.
Regarding the original issue, I’m not nearly as much bothered by the concept of prosecuting an attempted crime than by the entrapment. And by entrapment, I’m not referring to a particular legal definition in a particular jurisdiction, but to the concept of a LEO (or worst a third party, or even worse a TV station doing so to get more audience, hence money) artificially creating a situation that leads to the attempted commission of a crime.
In estonia, a 14 year old is. A number of other countries as well have 14 as the age of consent. Meanwhile, in the US, these people are criminals to be demonized, and the girls victims.
I’ve had sex with 15 year olds. I was 17 at the time, but tbh that is irrelevant. The girl wasn’t harmed, nor was I, and a good time had by all, aside from some initial awkwardness and embarrassment. Were I to do that same thing today, something I’ve already done, I would go to prison, be on the sex offenders list, and be ostracized by society. I wouldn’t go after a 15 year old, of course, since I generally find teens to be annoying at best now, but I know that she wouldn’t be traumatized by a little sack time.
Most especially if the ‘victim’ encourages the crime and gives consent to it.
Agreed - but it’s a longshot from talking to a supposed 13 yr old in an anonymous internet chatroom to actually showing up at her place dick in hand. Do we consider cybersex to be marital infidelity ? Phonesex services to be prostitution ?
Fantasizing about taking a young person’s virginity is one thing (and I think it’s quite a common male fantasy TBH), but thinking about it and even talking about it are not the same thing as actual molestation. Hell, even arranging a meeting doesn’t tell me beyong the shade of a doubt that the guy is going to show up instead of frantically masturbating to the idea that he might have. Considering the chatroom banter a substantial step is, well, silly.
A lot of other countries also cut off hands of thieves, allow genital mutilation, and arrange marriages.
Yeah, criminalizing stuff tends to make criminals.
Baloney. A vast majority of states that regulate sexual encounters with minors also make exception for those who are the same or less than 5 years older than the minor. And most of those treat them as misdemeanors.
It scares me that you’ve apparently picked out a 15 year old for “sack time” and know it won’t traumatize her.
And those things are not likely to meet the statutory requirements of “attempt”. And arranging a meeting, but not showing up, or not doing anything else to try and show up, isn’t likely to either.
You realize that that’s what the law is for, right, to stop people from doing things they might otherwise do?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
No one in this case has been convicted of attempt based solely on chatroom banter. The “substantial step” in this instance was the accused showing up at the location with rope and condoms on him.
As a matter of law, I doubt that mere talk (or chat) would be sufficient to sustain a crime of attempt. (If the “talk” included webcam masturbation then it certainly would be sufficient for attempt to provide a minor with sexually explicit material, of course…)
So what are you talking about?
This case discusses a lot of the issues that have come up here. I’m quoting a short section on the law of attempt, but the whole case is worth a read:
I’m sorry, I am unfamiliar with the show and from the debate I had assumed that’s what the premise of the conviction was. I stand corrected - apparently the conviction discussed is (or rather was) based on the guy showing up… which still doesn’t convince me beyond the shade of a doubt that he would have gone through had a real 15 yr old been there instead of a squad of cops, especially if the guy doesn’t have a previous record.
And I’m with **clairobscur **on this, purposefully creating situations to facilitate the commission of a crime sounds to me like very shaky ethical grounds.
Once again, since you dodged the question earlier, do you deny stating that you think being sodomized by an adult male would not be a negative experience for most 13 year old boys?
I was obviously talking about straight males having sex with females, any more utterly ridiculous assertions about what i’ve said that you would like to make?
Then why did you also dodge DTC’s question, “Do you have the same criteria for boys, by the way? Should it be legal for adult males to bugger 13 year old boys if the boy appears willing?”
Why did you refuse to respond to this?
I never said anything should be legal so no i obviously don’t think that. Are you actually going to present any kind of argument whatsoever or simply keep miscontruing my posts or rolling your eyes?
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.
Well, you’re of course welcome to your opinion. But there are many crimes which the criminals are loathe to commit in full view of the police, or even in view of upstanding citizens. You’d be amazed at how seldom it works to assemble a nun, a surgeon, a wealthy philanthropist, and the Dali Lama and then wait for a crime to be committed so that the prosecution may draw upon unimpeachable testimony. Criminals, for some reason known only to themselves, often commit crimes only in concert with other criminals, or upon victims that will not be likely to serve as strong witnesses. 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.”