[QUOTE=BrickerHave there been cases of real teens falling for real older guys? I’m sure there have.[/QUOTE]
can’t remember all the details, but there was a case involving a US serviceman who traveled to England (IIRC) to rendevous w/his underaged beloved.
No, it wouldn’t, because you really did try to kill your boss, but through happenstance, your boss wasn’t in his chair at the time. If you shot through a window at the back of his chair when you thought he was in his seat, but it was empty, it’d still be attempted murder.
Here’s the thread I was looking for, by the way, in which people explain why shooting at a robot moose can get you busted for attempting to shoot an endangered species (a real live moose, that is, not the rare endangered robot moose). This is Bricker’s post that I was thinking of.
For the “prove he wasn’t fantasizing she was a teen when he knew she wasn’t” supporters, did you read the part in the article where he told her to buy a webcam, hook it up, and send him explicit images of herself? And how when “she” said she had and would do so that night, he said he’d be online and waiting? If Doyle thought he’d hooked up in the Adult Men/Women Act Like Underage Teen Girls to Cyber With You (And Get Young-Sounding Women to Call You Occassionally) chatroom, why would he even ask that when he “knew” that his chat partner couldn’t provide what he wanted?
Not so.
He wasn’t charged with ‘attempt’ at all. My commentary above referred specifically to the analysis of “attempt” as opposed to a completed crime.
Doyle was charged with violating a Florida law which criminalizes the act of any person who:
(emphasis mine).
He completed that crime the moment he (1) knowingly used, (2) a computer Internet service to (3) seduce, solicit, lure or entice, (4) another person he believed to be a child.
He was also charged with transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment. That law provides in pertinent part that:
(emphasis mine)
Once again, he completed that crime the moment he: (1) transmitted, (2) electronically, (3) to a person he believed was a minor, (4) image, information, or data that is harmful to minors.
“Harmful to minors” is further defined as:
I’m with you. I simply don’t understand how these laws can make sense to anyone. If he met this girl in the park and talked dirty to her, but didn’t touch her sexually, would that be a crime?
I think he purposely wanted to get caught so he wouldn’t go to the next step. Unless he’s admitted a direct contact that I’m unaware of.
Amazingly, repeating your non-analogous example doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
no, I believe you are wrong in your “no teller, no bank” response.
It is a crime to kill some one. You shoot a corpse, intending the death, not knowing that the corpse is dead, you are still guilty of attempted murder. Old law school example.
the “Victim” involved in any criminal case is (essentially) ‘the people’, there are many crimes wherein there is no specific person who was phsycially harmed through the crime. Indeed, an attempted assault is still a crime even if you swing and miss - your intent was clear, the fact that you’re a lousy shot doesn’t negate your intent, nor does the absence of a harmed victim negate the crime. In the case herein, the intent is clear. the fact that we were able to avoid having an underaged person harmed is a good thing.
Bricker’s post answers my original question. I didn’t think a person could get arrested for child endangerment when there’s no child, and I’ll stand by that assumption. In this case, the guy violated a crime that is specifically written to cover his actual actions.
I do suspect he could have been charged with “attempt” instead - using the reference I posted from the second thread in which I posted - though they might have had to actually try to meet in that instance. It looks like Florida’s legislation is set up to be much more lenient in what is required before they can act.
Did you read the linked threads above concerning attempt?
It’s possible to be charged with the ATTEMPT of a crime even with no victim. The lack of a victim does prevent being charged with the completed crime, however.
My “no teller, no bank” response was completely my opinion on the appropriateness of the analogy offered. While other examples (drunk driving, for instance) can clearly show how dangerous behaviors can be punished, they speak to specific laws that criminalize that behavior, rather than punish crimes that weren’t committed at all. It turns out, re: Bricker’s email, that the mere behavior of casting about for little darlings is criminalized in Florida, and good for Florida. This appeases me that a person can only be arrested for committing actual crimes on the book, and not for other crimes that only existed in his head.
Bricker’s email - I meant Bricker’s post. :smack:
did you note his other post wherein he (like others of us) has stated that for the crime of “intent” to be applied, it is simply not necessary for there to be a victim.
so, FLorida specific statute notwithstanding, you were incorrect in your assumption that w/o a minor involved there was no chargable offense.
(ITALICS MINE)- So, all the prosecution has to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the defendant “believed”. :dubious: And, those laws- which criminalize a “belief”- must also hold up as Constitutional. :dubious:
The fact remains- Internet postings of this are known to be of extremely doubtful veracity, so anyone “beliefs” can’t be taken as a given just because someone claimed to be underaged. I carried on quite a long email “flirtation” with a woman who claimed she was the spitting image of Betty Page. Neither of us thought it was true for a second, but the fantasy was quite nice, thankyouverymuch.
So, what’s your ideal legal system like? If I try to kill my boss by firing a pistol into the back of his office chair, but it turns out he’s not sitting in it at the time, the cops can’t arrest me until I take a shot at him when he’s actually around? This makes sense to you? Wouldn’t it be better, if you have such clear evidence that I intended to commit a crime, to arrest me before someone gets killed, rather than wait around until I try it a second time?
I never said there was no chargeable offense, I asked what the legal issues of the case were and didn’t believe a person could get charged with statutory rape for picking up someone who is not a minor. I still don’t they can. They can, however, be arrested for casting about the Internet for minors to have sex with. THIS is the crime he’s committed and that he’s being charged with.
The problem with you and other people is that you think there’s some default “being a bad person” law that can be enforced at any time for any reason. In fact, there is no such law and cops and lawyers have to arrest people for committing actual crimes on the actual books. Attempted murder… planning a murder, etc… is against the law. So is attempted robbery. But not all crimes have default “attempted…” prefixes. Hence, those are not analogous to someone attempting a sexual liaison with a federal agent. In this case, he is NOT being charged with picking up a minor at all, and god be damned if there was any minor. He’s charged with violating a state law specificallly written to cover his actual actions.
Ah, but to make this analogy correct, the “attempt” would only be a Blog where the “killer” fantasied at lenght about how he’d like to kill his boss, and how he’d perform the act and so forth. When the “killer” actually goes so far as to take a shot, then it’s gone from fantasy to attempt.
Huh. well then all the folks I’ve worked w/who were serving time for “Attempted drug possession w/intent to sell” will be relieved. And you are most certainly wrong that there is no statuary “attempted sexual contact” laws around. Or at least the dozens of my clients serving time for that would attest.
and although I’ve not personally met anyone who was charged w/attempted CSC when there was a real person who stated they were underaged, but weren’t, I’ve no doubt that the person would be charged.
My ideal legal system is one where I can pick up a 40-year-old, put her in piggy tails and a party dress, and make sweet love to her all night while she says “unca, don’t!”
Not that I would, but acting out sexual fantasies with consenting adults ought not to be a crime.
This is more akin to a guy going to a junior high school playground with his dick hanging out. He shouldn’t be charged for rape, but he should be, and will be, charged for indecent behavior.
Those attempted rape laws are for unsuccessful rape against actual minors, not actual sex with consenting adults.