I’ll be damned… in my state you can be arrested for screwing somebody of age who was actually old enough. That’s fucked up.
I should add that it’s also against the law to give or receive head. So this state is fucked up anyway.
*"“Attempted * drug possession w/intent to sell” ? They didn’t have any drugs, but were convicted anyway? 
:dubious:
that’s what they’re serving time for. yep. I think it’s funny, too, brings up an image of “come on, let me hold onto 'em”.
try Michigans “Seduction” law - illegal to “seduce or debauch an unmarried woman”. it’s a felony. I know folks who are serving time for it.
I agree with you on death, but not on it being painful. They simply need to be put down as you would a rabid dog, quickly and cleanly.
Of course. what you believe is extremely relevant to whether you’re committing a crime. Laws that criminalize only your actions, without regard to what you believed, are very rare indeed - they’re called “strict liability” offenses. In general, to be guilty of an offense, you must have both a guilty act AND a guilty mind.
That’s true, but it goes to the issue of sufficiency of proof. We’re discussing whether, IF a defendant believes the person on the other end of the keyboard is a minor, he may be found guilty. The question still remains how you can show his belief.
In general, a finder of fact is entitled to assume that a person’s beliefs and intent may be reasonably inferred from his actions. In this case, he’d have a much better time arguing toa jury that he was simply living out a fantasy if he hadn’t gone the webcam route… that step certainly indicates he wasn’t expecting to discover an adult at the other end of his chat connection.
I’d be surprised if you could find a crime that isn’t prosecutable just for the attempt. In fact, I suspect that there’s probably a seperate law to cover just such instances: “Any attempt to break a law, even if unsuccesful, shall be prosecuted etc. etc.” At least, that seems like the easiest way to do it, but I’m not a lawyer.
From the article:
Sounds like that’s exactly what he’s being charged with. And with good reason: that’s precisely what he was trying to do.
More likely, they attempted to gain possession of some drugs which they were going to sell later on, if they hadn’t been arrested.
The newspaper said he was charged with “using a computer to seduce a child,” but he wasn’t. He was charged for using a computer to try to seduce a child. The newspaper should be more accurate in describing the actual offense to avoid this confusion.
A similar case, with the “it was just a fantasy!” defense, was busted for soliciting sex with a minor. His protest might have been more believable if he hadn’t been arrested after setting up a meeting with the fictitious 15-year-old, and that he’d been trying to meet with her for more than a year.
What if I argue that my sexual fantasy is to talk dirty to middle aged cops pretending to be teenaged girls? Of course I went to the webcam. The best part is when I get “busted.”
Entirely plausible, that there may be a statute that outlaws lewd verbal displays in presence of an minor. Not the same crime as if he did touch her, mind you.
Well, considering that the first paragraph of the news story points out that he wasn’t actually talking to a fourteen year old girl, I’m not really seeing where the confusion enters into it. Incidentally, if the charges listed in the newspaper are inaccurate, what were the exact charges? I’m assuming you’re basing your claim that the newspaper was inaccurate on some other, more reliable source.
Well, then you’d better have some really fucking convincing evidence when they haul your dumb ass into court, otherwise you’re going to be doing hard time. The ability to create an alibi does not result in the automatic dismissal of charges. The alibi also has to be believable.
(1) Bricker quoted the actual law, which makes it easier to understand for people who don’t understand how a guy can get arrested for propositioning a minor when the person wasn’t a minor.
(2) Maybe so, but our laws are moving in a very dangerous direction when a guy needs “some really fucking convincing evidence” to avoid “hard time” when no crime was committed except in somebody’s head.
I’m really not trying to be insulting or condescending here, but it boggles my mind that this is a hard concept for someone to understand. It’s illegal to break the law. It’s illegal to try to break the law. This guy tried to break the law. So he’s been arrested. How is that confusing? This isn’t advanced legal knowledge, it’s common sense: a guy tries to break the law, but through happenstance or incompetence, fails to pull it off. For some reason, you think he should be allowed to keep trying until he gets it right before you arrest him. In an astounding twist, our lawmakers actually had more sense than that, and wrote the laws so that you arrest the guy the first time, before he hurts anyone. Seriously, what’s so difficult about the concept?
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Yes, in an ideal world, a person who goes out of their way to create a situation where it looks like they’ve committed a crime, but in reality haven’t, don’t actually get arrested. The fact that we live in a less than ideal world doesn’t mean that our justice system is “moving in a very dangerous direction.” You came up with a hypothetical specifically designed to be indistinguishable from an actual crime. The problem isn’t with our justice system, the problem is with your crappy analogies.
I wish you’d stop saying that. A crime WAS committed.
Even if the crime is attempt – known as a type of inchoate crime – it is still a crime. An attempt happens when you have the requisite guilty mind, and you commit some substantial step in furtherance of the crime, and the crime does not occur because of some circumstance unknown to you, or some event outside your control. This cannot be mere preparation – it must be an actual step towards completing the crime.
This has been the general rule for hundreds of years. Our laws are not “moving” in any direction. Attempt has, in your lifetime, ALWAYS been against the law.
Actually, certain types of general intent crimes cannot be attempted. A crime that’s predicated on a general reckless state of mind can’t ever have the specific intent to commit the harm that the crime causes, and thus never have that element of the attempt. For example, you cannot attempt manslaughter. Manslaughter arises when you act recklessly and someone dies as a result. If no one dies, there’s no manslaughter. Nor can there be an ATTEMPT – because if you intended to cause the death, but failed, that’s attempted murder, not manslaughter.
Reading all of this had made me reconsider my confused and visceral response.
A very interesting thread!
For what it’s worth, I’m concerned that this basically amounts to “Thought Crime”, too.
I don’t for a moment advocate trying to chat up little kids on-line, but IMO, a 15 year old is an entirely different kettle of fish. Certainly, when I was 15/16 the majority of girls I knew were basically horny (now I think about it, probably part of the reason I knew them! 
) and more than capable of enjoying “fantasies” online without warping their fragile little minds- and certainly telling anyone they didnt like to get lost. More importantly, they often lied about their ages (in RL), and even now (as a 24 year old), I see young women wandering about in public and couldn’t pin down a specific age beyond “Older than 13 and younger than I am”.
In short, whilst I’m not supporting or defending this guy, I AM disagreeing with the “Lock up anyone who even talks to a 15 year old girl and throw away the key!” crowd- which includes legislators in many places.
Here’s the thing legislators forget: Internet Chat Rooms have “ignore” features. Some creepy old man hitting on you and you don’t like it? Click the “Ignore” button and he goes away. It’s not like he’s following you home from school or whatever. Click a button, and he’s gone, never to bother you again.
Now, the creepy old man hitting on kids at the park/mall/wherever should get in trouble for attempting to solicit a minor or whatever the equivalent charge is, but I don’t think it’s fair or right to compare someone who’s actually gone out of his way to identify someone who is possibly underage with someone who’s in a chat room and simply says they’re underage- although it depends on the chat room, of course.
Incidentally, I believe that Queensland law has a “reasonable belief” defence, but it’s highly subjective. For example, if you’re in a Nightclub and go home with a girl who says she’s 19 (and is presumably dressed up for nightclubbing), and in the morning it turns out she’s only 15, you’d be likely to get off. (You have to be 18 to get into a nightclub, therefore it is reasonable to assume that everyone in said Nightclub is also over 18, and therefore an adult).
Of course, if you met her at the mall and she was wearing a school uniform, said she was 18, and then later you found out she was only 15, different story entirely (and so it should be!)
I can’t find my copy of Carter’s Criminal Law Of Queensland to back this up though, but I’m positive I’ve seen it in there.
- italics mine*
Objection, Counselor, assumes facts not in evidence.
So far, there is no proof we have the “requisite guilty mind”, we have not even heard his defence.