As I pointed out above, most criminal defendants plead guilty:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm#Adjudication
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fpcseo06.pdf (sex transportation includes the federal version of what we are talking about here)
Plus, in many jurisdictions a defendant can move to dismiss the indictment, lose the motion, and then plead while reserving his rights to appeal the denial of the motion:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/082329p.pdf(Emphasis added.)
Meet.
“Meet” here was short for “tie up and fuck a 15-year-old.”
Every available piece of evidence says he was planning to do it, and so does common sense. Like I said in my first post: if you say you’re going to do something, then you take steps to do it, it’s fair to interpret that you were attempting to do it.
What’s so special about Indiana ? 
Why yes, yes as a matter of fact I would.
First, because the cop is obviously going to make it look oh so easy and may very well give someone ideas they wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Second, because said cop would keep the peace and prevent purse snatching a lot better by merely being there in a uniform. As you said, criminals are reluctant to ply their trade in full view of the police, and the mere presence of a cop’d prevent not only purse snatching but assault, drug dealing, theft, B&E and any number of other crimes up to and including jaywalking.
Would you object to a cop going to a bar in plain clothes, picking a guy who looks drunk enough, insult him and keep pushing until the guy tries to punch him in the face, at which point the cop flips his badge in a dashing “ha HA ! You’re in for it ! Assault !” ?
Because in my mind, that’s exactly what those cops trawling for “predators” are doing. They’re actively pushing and encouraging the suspect, making it tempting and easy to commit a crime ; while said suspect is probably happily surprised to have finaly found THE teenager who won’t treat him like the creep he is.
The thread is about the rulings of an Indiana court, which has lost track of its own law and said these convictions are invalid because of impossibility.
Oh come on. Have you read the transcripts Gfactor linked to?
If they weren’t already predators, they couldn’t be tempted. PJ doesn’t just go trolling randomly, by the way. They go on sites that are ostensibly supposed to be populated by kids and let the perverts come to them.
Sorry, Kobal2, I completely disagree. Thieves target the little old lady because they think the chances of success without injury are greater. You are blaming the “victim” for the crime, in your purse snatching scenario.
“Honest, your Honor. She was there. So weak. So feeble. I couldn’t resist. I had to rob her! I was thinking about the Charger’s chances in the playoffs, when BAM! There she was, and I found myself grabbing at ther purse.”
Some thieves even leave their lair with the full intent of seeking out the weak.
How so? And if they did, the defendant could prove that he wasn’t disposed to steal a purse, and was driven to do so by the officer.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/082329p.pdf
See above.
And see, Jacobson v. United States:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540
Indiana’s recent Court of Appeals decision is what motivated this thread and the discussion of the law of attempt contained herein.
The flaw in your plan is that we have fewer cops than we do blocks to be kept safe. When the cop leaves, the purse snatchers can go back to work. When the cop in disguise arrests the would-be purse snatcher, then there’s one less purse snatcher to ply his trade.
Why yes, I would.
You see, when considering the idea of entrapment, a key question is what the police do, if anything, to create the crime. An officer disguised as an old lady walking down the street is considered a proper method of law enforcement, because actual old ladies should be free to walk down the street with purses. People in bars should not be free to insult and push others. So when the cop insults and pushes our drunk, he’s manufacturing a crime out of conduct we don’t wish to protect. When our little old lady decoy ambles along, we’re not.
Again, I welcome your mind to whatever conclusions it has reached, and I’ll say only that what’s “in your mind” is not the state of affairs of the law in the vast majority of the country, and I am personally glad it is not, because if we were to use the standards found in your mind, we would eviscerate the ability of law enforcement to protect the vulnerable among us, be they horny but immature teens or old ladies with purses and a desire to enjoy an afternoon stroll.
Let us assume that if the case actually went to a Jury, the defendant coudl put his hand on a magic unicorn, whose horn would glow if the defendant was telling the truch that he had no actual intent to have sex with a child- that it was fantasy, that he thought it was an adult posing, etc. That this was 100% effective.
I’d still be againts this sort of IMHO entrapment. Before the man gets into the box in front of the jury, he has to pay out $10000+ for an attorney, a similar amount for his bond, take many days off work, and is likely fired because of the stigma.
Even if found innocent, his life is ruined. Just by the arrest and charges.
That’s why it is critical IMHO for this decison to go forward and outlaw this sort of trap. Before there is a crime, there must be a victim. It is illegal to have sex with a child- it is not illegal to want to, nor is it illegal to have sex with a adult posing as a child. 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.
I agree, it’s a shame the public gets so upset about child molestation.
[I should stop being so sarcastic about this. Yes, the hysteria about predators lurking around every corner goes too far, and I’m not wild about the laws barring predators from everywhere in town except one corner up north. While I’m generally supportive of age of consent laws I even agree some of them are too high. BUT:]
What’s being criminalized here isn’t “wanting,” it’s “attempting.” Attempting to do something illegal is itself against the law, which only makes sense. And this particular crime is hard to stop without this this kind of trickery. Without this, you’re basically telling the cops they have to catch Alpin with his dick in a kid.
So what you’re saying is real 15 yr olds should be free to consent to icky sex by random strangers and that’s a conduct we wish to protect ? 
Seriously though, while I’m still not 100% comfortable with it, I can see your point. But then I wouldn’t say the old lady scenario is similar to the chatroom one. 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 know very well what kind of guy trolls teenage channels, seeing as I used to chat on them - they’re not dangerous predators, they’re pathetic freaks, and the kids are fully aware of that. They’ll PM everyone in sight in the futile hope that someone will humor them. Assuming they’re not banned in 5 minutes or laughed out the room, that someone is usually another 45 year old male pretending to be an innocent teen. Penis ensues (on both sides of the screen).
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. Give the some credit. If you suspect your kid might… well, you know what they say about removing all the warning labels :).
So in creating that wondrous, fantastic, mythical not-put-off-by-pervs teenager, the cops are doing a little more than just walking down the street with a handbag. They’re manufacturing a situation that would not ever happen were it not for them. And the sicko can’t believe his luck either, that shit happens once in a lifetime, jackpot ! Only, y’know, except for the part where it doesn’t. Like the jackpot, really.
As an unrelated note, I must say I’m intrigued by that law exemption for underage teens having sex with other teens as long as they’re within an N year bracket. What’s the rationale here ? Are they mature enough to give informed consent, but not to anyone ? Is it assumed that teenagers aren’t as adept mindfuckers as grown adults (they are. Ooooh yes they are) ? What’s the deal ?
There’s no 100% rational way to make an age of consent law, but most people aren’t willing to do away with it entirely. So some exceptions are made with the goal of preventing legit boyfriends or girlfriends from being prosecuted.
Right. These folks know, by now at least, that their behavior could subject them to arrest. The fake kids aren’t begging them to play doctor–it’s the grown up making all of the suggestions. They wait for the guy to arrange a meeting. Compare the facts of Jacobson, which I cited above. Moreover, they often commit other crimes like child pornography (lots of them have collections, and some send photos to the “kids”).
I never met anyone on the Internet (within two hours or two years) when I was a teenager. But I did do the other stuff when I was 12 or 13 and really, really curious about sex. There was a lot of cybering, a lot of pretending to be someone else, a lot of sex-talk. At the same time, I do think the whole cyber world of doom theme is overplayed. But there are kids out there who genuinely are saying sexual things. Not that that mitigates anything.
I’d assume it is because they’re perhaps not necessarily as influenced by someone their own age than by someone older and in a position of authority over them. Might be harder for a fifteen year old to say no to someone their parents age, than to a peer.
If you’re saying we must wait until someone’s life is completely ruined before we take any steps at prevention then I have to disagree.
Suppose there’s a bear lurking around the edge of your town. It’s going through garbage, it’s nosing around someone’s back yard, it’s getting very familiar with humans. But there’s no victim, so there’s no danger?
No: there’s definitely danger. Steps should be taken, against this particular bear. Relocation is an option; tagging the bear with a radio collar is another. Waiting around until there is a grisly (heh) death is not one of the better alternatives, in my mind: which one of the townspeople do you sacrifice in order to bell the cat?
I thought it was meant to cover situations were one of the “significant others”, who may have been a longtime “significant”, turns 18 before the other.
People are not interested in jailing two 17 year olds who have sex with each other. If one turns 18, is that person reasonably expected to go “hands off” until his/her boy/girl friend turns 18? A lot of jurisdictions are trying to (through legislation) to give that second situation a pass, as well.
Not true, every perv has a first time. Until then he is clean.
Then ,would a first timer actually go through with it. We are assuming he would declaring him guilty. His actual crime is going there to potentially commit a crime.
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.
In virtually all of these cases, the perp has already expressed a spefic intent to commit the crime. If a guy says, “I’m going to rob that bank,” then goes into the bank with a gun and a robbery note, that’s probable cause for an arrest. He’s free to try to convince a jury he wasn’t really going to go through with it, just like these perverts are free to try to tell the jury they weren’t really going to get the kids drunk with that booze they brought and fuck them with those condoms in their pockets. That’s a decision for the jury, though, not the cops. The cops just need probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.