Of course, but they intended to rape. That isn’t a crime?
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.
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?
You mean “Dangerous Offender Status”?
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.
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.
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.
Can someone be “enticed” to rape?
Statutory rape? Sure. You’re not doing your credibility any favors by equating that with forcible rape, though.
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.
What?
I restructured my statement into a basic, generalized opinion and you extrapolated a bunch of extra stuff off of it.
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.
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.
Ok, just so we are on the same page, what are the definitions for those terms?
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?
Look it up.
No, no. I mean for the purposes of this thread, we should at least agree on the definitions.
For the purposes of this thread, look it up.
It has been pointed out to me repeatedly that statutory rape is not forcible rape?