TV time, I wouldn’t buy that for one hot second. Someone might claim to be 18 or 19 to be younger, but I doubt most 25-year-old girls would want anything to do with a guy who would agree to meet a 14-year-old.
My problem with the PJ method is that one perv was called a “chicken” by the teen when he tried to back out- don’t egg them on, if they realize what they are doing is wrong, or maybe a set up.
True, but the claim here is that he has committed a crime because he wanted to have sex with a 14 year old. But if his contention is, it was not his intention to have sex with a child, but in fact a young woman in her majority (which it turns out the woman with whom he was communicating on line was)…is he committing a crime?
Or more to the point, is it a defense to the crime?
Yes.
Please note, however, that “defense,” does not mean “automatic acquittal.” He would be perfectly free to argue to the jury that despite his words on the chat log, he knew he was talking to an adult. The jury is free to believe him, and if they do, it negates any criminal responsibility.
But they do not have to believe him. They are also free to conclude that the chat log represents the truth, and his testimony now is self-serving and false. And if they reach that finding, they can convict him.
At the point he was called a “chicken,” though, do you understand he had already committed a crime? There was no “backing out” available to him. The purpose of the tactic at that point, as I understand it, was to get him to the house for ease of arrest, not to make the criminal case.
I may be remebering it wrong- if she called him a chicken when he was at the back door not wanting to come in, agree, the crime has been done. I thought one at least called one perp a chicken or in some other way encouraged him to come visit after he said online its not good idea and tried to back out- maybe I’m confused, or the perp was lying about it. If that is the case, that they are egging on guys while they are still at home online, if they are doing that I think thats a bit questionable.
Isn’t “I thought she was 18(+)” a classic cliche of how to get the book thrown at you? IANAL, but I can tell you for experience that “it’s not my weed” doesn’t work, and this doesn’t sound too different.
It’s probably pertinent to establish the difference between “I knew I was talking to an adult,” in defense to an attempt charge, and “I knew she was 18,” in defense to a statutory rape charge.
Statutory rape belongs to the very small class of crimes that are most generally “strict liability” crimes – which means that they have no scienter element, no requisite mens rea. If you did it, you’re guilty, no matter what your state of mind was about what you were doing. These kind of crimes are generally disfavored, because an important element of our criminal law is that, as a general proposition, you must intend to commit a crime.
Indeed, part of the chorus of objections above to the dateline/PJ tactics has been the spectre of “thought crimes” – the idea that intending a crime alone is sufficient to create criminal liability. It’s not, but attempt of a crime can be close… you must have the intent, even if you don’t follow through with the crime successfully.
So – statutory rape has the crime without the intent; ‘attempt’ has the intent without the underlying crime.
Now… “It’s not my weed,” brings up a whole different wrinkle. It’s probably the most similar to “I knew I was talking to an adult.” If the jury believes your story that it wasn’t your weed, you walk away. But if the circumstances establish constructive or actual possession, then the jury is free to disbelieve you… and often does.
IF “I thought she was 18(+)” combined with the fact that the victim was in no way 18(+) could be a problem. What we are talking about here is the accused saying “I thought she was 18(+)”, and she is.
Right. The only element in dispute in this scenario would be the difference between the accused’s actions before his arrest, from which a fact-finder can infer he thought the girl was 14, and his self-serving testimony post-arrest.
If the fact-finder believes he truly thought the girl was 18+, he’s free. If the fact-finder believes he merely concocted that story after it became clear this was a sting, then he can be convicted. The record supports either inference.
People role-play in sexually-charged Internet interactions? I’m shocked.
Been following this since the beginning. Let’s try a slightly different chat log.
Somewhere in the course of the conversation, keeping in mind Malacandra’s comment:
Prospective perp: So, how old are you?
Supposed innocent: Well, I’m 14…
PP: Nah! I refuse to believe it! The maturity you display in our chat leads me to conclude that you must be at least 18.
SI: Oh, well, no, not really…
PP: OK, say what you wish, I’m just going to continue this chat as before, but keeping in mind my private conclusion about your age. So, wanna get together?
etc. follows as typical, cue Chris Hanson
Bricker, have I perhaps established a state of mind suitable for the defense most recently postulated? Or at least made your job as my defender more workable? What if I repeat similar snark toward the SI’s declarations of age a few more times throughout my chat? And perhaps add “Yeah, and I’m really only 21 myself-- when I play roles” and similar statements.
As I say, the fact-finder - the jury, or the judge in a bench trial – is free to believe the claim that it was merely role-play.
Clifford Wallach, one of the Ft. Myers arrestees, offered that defense at his trial – he told the jury he was engaging in role-play “fantasy” with what he knew was an adult on the subject. The jury took two hours to convict him.
Rancho Cucamonga’s Christopher Urban offered a simialr defense, claiming he was well aware he was talking to an adult, even though he admits the chat logs don’t show any hint of that. He was also convicted.
There are plenty of other examples of trials at which some version of this defense has been offered. Thus far, I don’t believe it’s succeeded in generating an acquittal even once.
However, one of the Riverside cases where charges were dismissed came after an initial mistrial, where the jury was deadlocked 10-2 in favor of an acquittal. The accused was an Iraq war veteran. The prosecution theorized that the jury was reluctant to convict a Marine recently returned from service in Iraq. Still, in fairness, I must say that his attorney offered the “I knew it was an adult the whole time” defense, and ten jurors believed it. The prosecution elected not to re-try the case.
You’d sure build a much stronger defense. With that kind of evidence to point to, the defense could very credibly argue that you knew all along this was an adult and you were role-playing. Assuming that you didn’t do something at your arrival to the house that undercut that… you’d be good. If their extremely-young-looking decoy appears, for example, how do you react? “Oh, my God! You’re REALLY 14!” followed by a quick exit, would almost certainly lock in an acquittal (or, more accurately, almost certainly guarantee no prosecution in the first place).
“Excellent, I KNEW you were really 14,” followed by your stripping naked in the foyer, on the other hand, would probably torperdo that defense.
The jury is entitled to assume that people intend what they appear to intend. They can look at the totality of the circumstances to reach their conclusion.
Just a side-note…
So I’m talking with my friend yesterday. My friend’s mother is an invalid and a new woman has started coming in to bathe her. She and my friend were chatting and it turns out her husband was one of the men busted on Dateline! He’s doing 5 to 20. She says she doesn’t know what to do…he’s been so good to her…
OK, now that we’ve established a credible means to avoid prosecution (Trademark declared-- I’m gonna buy a banner ad and make millions!!), let’s get to my discomfort with the whole sting scenario.
I’ve watched a few episodes and been uncomfortable with all. The guys strike me most commonly as classic losers, not as hard core pedophiles. IANAL but I agree with Bricker’s explanation of entrapment, and agree that it does not apply in a legal sense. But still, in a more euphemistic sense, these slobs are indeed entrapped.
Yes, they are probably deliberately trolling for tail. But I suspect that they are more surprised than anyone when they actually get a seemingly positive reply. I suspect that they would gladly accept any positive reply, from anyone posing as (or actually being) a female of any age, and throw themselves wholeheartedly into the chat. I doubt that they would drop the chat if the Perverted Justice plant described herself as 20 years old, or 30, or even 40 or more. The vicarious pleasure is in the chat. But of course PJ wouldn’t be interested if the guy said “not until you’re 18”.
Taking this to the next stage, the in-real-life scenario, seems to be just more of the same fantasy. Oh, the PJ plant may indeed be careful to let the Prospective Perp be the first one to suggest a meeting. But encouraging that suggestion, accepting it, making actual plans to consumate it-- well, most of these guys probably had zero expectation that their “Wanna meet?” would be answered in the affirmative. They probably drooled all over their keyboard when they finally got a positive reply after however long they’ve been trolling.
Their real problem seems to be an inability to separate reality from fantasy. Poor saps, they don’t have a “good game”. They probably have trouble picking up girls in bars, even near last call. So when someone – anyone – seems agreeable to a meeting, they fall all over themselves to get there.
I doubt that these cretins actually prefer underage children in a predatory sense. Perhaps they just feel safer interacting with someone who may be less mature than they are. Playing out a fantasy where they feel macho, feel complimented, feel wanted, instead of their own mundane real life. I don’t think they even entertain the notion of causing harm to this child. They certainly do not seem to rise to the level of real predation upon a genuine innocent. Just a poor asshole who gets carried away with his fantasy. Demonstrating, more than anything else, a towering mountain of immaturity.
Don’t get me wrong-- this behavior should not be acceptable. It is certainly different from the earlier mentioned scenarios of ‘close in age, but not quite legal’. Still, as earlier posters have noted, this TV infotainment glosses over the real harms caused by real predators acting on women and children under their actual control (measured by the statistical evidence cited).
So just color me “uncomfortable” with this TV reality program.
I don’t agree.
I invite you to take a couple of anti-nausea pills and then wade through the chat logs posted on the PJ site. You will shortly be disabused of this notion.
Now, when you argue that their relative loserdom drives them to try to connect to younger targets, because they are intimiated by adults closer to their ages, I’d accept that as a workable theory. But what you picture above doesn’t seem right to me, based on the chat logs I’ve waded through.
Plenty of pedophiles are convinced they are experiencing “real love” and deny vehemently that they are harming their targets. They speak of letting love flower, no matter what the ages involved are – and they believe it, honestly and completely. Doesn’t make them harmless.
Obviously, each case is to some extent sui generis, and there no universally applicable rules. But I find it disturbing how often the young girl decoys are asked if they are shaved “down there.” Plenty of adults keep shaved/waxed, of course… but combined with the fact that they know they’re targetting a newly pubescent teen in the first, the near-universal desire for a shaved look is highly suggestive.
These people are predators, and are a very legitimate target for law enforcement attention.
Not to mention you would now be at the mercy of Chris Hanson. Torpedo ensues.
Quoted for truth. Excellent post.
Hostile Dialect, thanks.
Bricker, I’ve waded through some of that slime. As you say, the individual cases are indeed sui generis. But the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I have three daughters of my own (now safely well beyond the ‘tender years’ ages) and I make no apology for these vermin. Nor do I suggest that they are unsuitable for law enforcement attention. But then, so is every perpetrator of even the most minor crime. When it comes to enforcement – and when it comes to real societal harm – there’s a big difference between the guy that exceeds the posted limit by 10 mph on the interstate, and the other guy who absorbs half a keg then proceeds to drive around on residential streets like he is channeling NASCAR.
Enforcement commonly ‘trades up’ to catch the largest fish. Surely in your career you’ve had clients whose (relatively) minor crimes were overlooked if they could serve up a shark higher on the food chain.
Perverted Justice though doesn’t seem interested in making any distinctions, and neither does Hanson’s program. So the craftier pedophile, the harder core, the more suspicious, the more cynical, doesn’t seem to fall often into PJ’s net. Presumably he’s out there inflicting his misdeeds in person, upon family members and others.
Meanwhile, those who have difficulty with personal interaction, the losers, the imbeciles, the terminally lame, seem to be most often snared in PJ’s net. Indeed, their fantasies include some of the hallmarks of childhood on the part of their – well, presumptive victims, or at least the recipients of their attentions. Disgusting? Sure. Again, these are profoundly immature men acting out fantasies in which they have competance and power. Might they actually harm someone? Yes. Should they be stopped, or at least diverted? Yes. But is this really a good use of resources? We’re catching a shoal of minnows, and imposing the harshest of sentences upon them. And the sharks are watching the program, and probably laughing.
Better perhaps that we find some way to identify them too, and stop their greater harm.
How does someone like John Kennelly fit into this behavior model, I wonder?
Kennelly was the naked man that Chris Hansen encountered in Fairfax, Virginia, when he arrived to visit a young boy.
THE VERY NEXT DAY, he signed back on to the computer and arranged to meet another young boy at a local McDonald’s – again coming face to face to the Dateline cameras.
“Just a poor asshole who gets carried away with his fantasy?”