[QUOTE=Queen Bruin]
Except they aren’t guilty of rape. They never raped anyone. Surely you understand this distinction?
[/QUOTE]
Of course, but they intended to rape. That isn’t a crime?
[QUOTE=fetus]
. . . . I, for one, didn’t respond to it because I would’ve just been repeating myself. Unfortunately, what you quoted is a textbook example of entrapment, but AFAIK there’s nothing illegal about private citizens doing it. (After all, if entrapment by private citizens were illegal, someone could go to jail for introducing pot to someone who later sold pot to kids, which would be pretty fucked up if that guy was just a college roommate with an extra bowl or something.)
[/QUOTE]
I guess you needed to repeat yourself then, because the question was whether people thought it was entrapment when the girl writing it was doing so as part of a police sting (and the evidence of which was used to arrange this guy). She wasn’t doing it as a private citizen, as I so clearly stated, so I don’t know what you would have been repeating.
[QUOTE=fetus]
Assuming that most 14-year-old girls don’t go trolling for older men on MySpace–and I think that’s a pretty safe assumption, since 14-year-old girls can probably get all the ass they want from 14-to-18-year-old boys at school–couldn’t this kind of sting pull someone in who wouldn’t have actually molested a child for their entire lives otherwise? I mean, knowing how MySpace works, the only way I can really see this kind of sting working is if the fake-out guy goes and finds older men and sends them naughty messages. Of course they’ll snag some dudes that way. Unless there’s conclusive proof that (a lot) more actual 14-year-olds act like that on the Internet than do Dateline correspondents, the only reasonable conclusion for me is that Hanson and crew are just as evil as most of the men they snag.
[/QUOTE]
This is the head-scratcher for me when I watch the show. Hanson and his minions spend so much time on the chat logs from the alleged pervs, but not much time is spent on the conversation from the other side. I truly wonder how much “egging on” is actually being done by the Perverted Justice decoys. The fact that most of the stingees get little or no punishment tells me that their methods are questionable at best, and entrapment at worst.
The fact that these guys are e-mailing pictures of their dicks to alleged 13-year-olds is disturbing to be sure, but are they sending them of their own volition or are they being encouraged to do so by the decoys? How many of these guys are just getting into the chats for the thrill of talking to a young girl, only to be led into a criminal act? If they were sending decoys into bad neighborhoods with twenty-dollar bills hanging out of each pocket, the decoys will be robbed for sure. Send them out normally, and I wager a lot less of them will be robbed.
One other thing:
Open message to all you middle-aged guys out there: If a 13-year-old girl invites you to her place for sex in an online chat room, you are being scammed! Because there is nothing, repeat NOTHING a 13-year-old girl wants with your flabby, wrinkled ass! Their schools are filled with Justin Timberlake look-alikes; what does she want with you?
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
And here in Canada, there are laws in place which preemptively punish those who are considered a likely risk to offend. If a rapist is due for release and the authorities decide he presents an imminent threat to society, they keep him locked up beyond his original sentence. He’s being punished for something he hasn’t done yet. <–Canadian legal experts: correct me if I got that wrong.
[/QUOTE]
You mean “Dangerous Offender Status”?
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Of course, but they intended to rape. That isn’t a crime?
[/QUOTE]
They did not intend to engage in statutory rape until they were enticed to do so. In the meantime, people who go out to commit actual rape all on their own are getting away with it, because valuable time and resources are being wasted for the sake of television ratings.
Way to fight crime.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
And here in Canada, there are laws in place which preemptively punish those who are considered a likely risk to offend. If a rapist is due for release and the authorities decide he presents an imminent threat to society, they keep him locked up beyond his original sentence. He’s being punished for something he hasn’t done yet. <–Canadian legal experts: correct me if I got that wrong.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a little different - in this case, the person is already convicted, and I am assuming it is not due to entrapment on a national TV show. So they aren’t being preemptively punished - they are still considered a risk to society based on their previous crime. I am really not quite sure how I feel about that, except I dislike it less than I do the sex offender registry system we have just on first blush.
Entrapment perverts intent (no pun intended, sorry). Inducing or putting pressure on someone to commit a crime does not prove intent.
Nice try, but if you’re going to backpedal you ought to make it a little less obvious. It’s not such a bad thing to admit you’re wrong. Hell, I’ve done it a few times and it felt pretty good.
There is none, which is why I don’t use mousetraps. YMMV.
That’s the point–they may not have intended to rape before someone claiming to be a 14-year-old girl seduced them online. Most rapists are husbands and/or fathers, since those are the men who have easy access to women. Entrapping single men who may or may not have actually intended to commit a crime otherwise, for ratings and advertising revenue, is pure evil.
Um, I guess my answer is yes.
[QUOTE=Queen Bruin]
By definition, any sex with a minor is non-consensual because minors cannot consent.
[/quote]
Not “by definition”, but legally. A minor is perfectly capable of consenting, but the law won’t recognize it. And our definition of “minor” is set ridiculously high; this idea that teenage girls can’t consent to sex is the sort of thing that gets teenage boys tossed into jail and labeled a sexual predator because they had sex with their girlfriend. And traumatizes the girl we are “protecting” when she watches the boy she’s in love with get hauled away and ground up by the system, while she’s told what a monster he is.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
They did not intend to engage in statutory rape until they were enticed to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Can someone be “enticed” to rape?
Statutory rape? Sure. You’re not doing your credibility any favors by equating that with forcible rape, though.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not “by definition”, but legally. A minor is perfectly capable of consenting, but the law won’t recognize it. And our definition of “minor” is set ridiculously high; this idea that teenage girls can’t consent to sex is the sort of thing that gets teenage boys tossed into jail and labeled a sexual predator because they had sex with their girlfriend. And traumatizes the girl we are “protecting” when she watches the boy she’s in love with get hauled away and ground up by the system, while she’s told what a monster he is.
[/QUOTE]
I generally agree with you. I think that’s why in CA at least, it’s only a misdemeanor if there are 3 years age difference. I think over 21/under 16 is punished more severely, though.
The law is not perfect.
[QUOTE=fetus]
Nice try, but if you’re going to backpedal you ought to make it a little less obvious. It’s not such a bad thing to admit you’re wrong. Hell, I’ve done it a few times and it felt pretty good.
[/QUOTE]
What?
I restructured my statement into a basic, generalized opinion and you extrapolated a bunch of extra stuff off of it.
[QUOTE=fetus]
That’s the point–they may not have intended to rape before someone claiming to be a 14-year-old girl seduced them online. Most rapists are husbands and/or fathers, since those are the men who have easy access to women. Entrapping single men who may or may not have actually intended to commit a crime otherwise, for ratings and advertising revenue, is pure evil.
Um, I guess my answer is yes.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the TV component is total bullshit, but I like the idea of trapping people with a proclivity towards raping children. I really like the idea. Identify them and get them help.
I will not talk to you in this thread until you stop trying to equate statutory rape with forcible rape.
[QUOTE=fetus]
Statutory rape? Sure. You’re not doing your credibility any favors by equating that with forcible rape, though.
[/QUOTE]
Rape is rape, is it not? The decision to rape someone comes from within and I don’t think a rapist can pass the responsibility buck by externalizing a portion of the motivation.
[QUOTE=fetus]
I will not talk to you in this thread until you stop trying to equate statutory rape with forcible rape.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, just so we are on the same page, what are the definitions for those terms?
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Rape is rape, is it not? The decision to rape someone comes from within and I don’t think a rapist can pass the responsibility buck by externalizing a portion of the motivation.
[/QUOTE]
No, rape is not rape, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Hey, crime is crime, right? Does that mean shoplifters should be equated with murderers?
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Ok, just so we are on the same page, what are the definitions for those terms?
[/QUOTE]
Look it up.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Look it up.
[/QUOTE]
No, no. I mean for the purposes of this thread, we should at least agree on the definitions.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
No, no. I mean for the purposes of this thread, we should at least agree on the definitions.
[/QUOTE]
For the purposes of this thread, look it up.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
No, rape is not rape, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Hey, crime is crime, right? Does that mean shoplifters should be equated with murderers?
[/QUOTE]
It has been pointed out to me repeatedly that statutory rape is not forcible rape?