How can some people go to jail for 2+ years for being on To Catch A Predator?

[Zeriel]

@chartreuse_w_envy

An estimated 20% of online pornography is of children/minors

Can you provide a cite for this, frankly, astounding claim?

[Bricker]

@Zeriel

Can you provide a cite for this, frankly, astounding claim?

Well, I’m guessing 20% is watched by minors. Does that count?

[miss_elizabeth]

There is no way 20% of online pornography is child porn. I’d be shocked if it was even 2%.

[Zeriel]

@Bricker

Well, I’m guessing 20% is watched by minors. Does that count?

Do you not hang out with a lot of middle-aged men, that you believe this?

[StusBlues]

@Zeriel

Can you provide a cite for this, frankly, astounding claim?

In point of fact, how would anyone even begin to compile statistics on this, since child porn is illegal and even looking at it may get one in legal trouble?

My God, the Heisenberg Effect applies to porn!

[Bricker]

@miss_elizabeth

There isn’t any entrapment. Entrapment is a legal term, and this doesn’t (even begin to) fit the definition.

And here’s an interesting fact: these stings do not, as you say, meet the definition of entrapment by police. But for those folks caviling about the “untrained” PJ people, you might be surprised to learn there is no such thing as an entrapment defense when the entrapment is done by a private party.

In these cases, with PJ working with the police, they are considered agents of the police and are held to the same standard the police are. But working alone, even if they intend to notify police after they develop enough evidence, they cannot, as a matter of law, entrap.

As the Seventh Circuit explained:

@US v. Manzella

Private entrapment is just another term for criminal solicitation, and outside the narrow haven created by the defense of necessity or compulsion, the person who yields to the solicitation and commits the solicited crime is guilty of that crime. All crime is a yielding to temptation, the temptation to obtain whatever gains, pecuniary or nonpecuniary, the crime offers. The temptation is a cause of the crime but not a cause that exonerates the tempted from criminal liability if he yields, just as poverty is not a defense to larceny. Cause and responsibility are not synonyms.

[miss_elizabeth]

@Bricker

But working alone, even if they intend to notify police after they develop enough evidence, they cannot, as a matter of law, entrap.

OH NOEZ THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IS OUT OF CONTROL!!1!!!

:rolleyes:

[Czarcasm]

Bricker, does this:

@US v. Manzella

Private entrapment is just another term for criminal solicitation…

not mean that the producers of the show are guilty…not of entrapment, but of criminal solicitation?

[Zeriel]

@Czarcasm

Bricker, does this: not mean that the producers of the show are guilty…not of entrapment, but of criminal solicitation?

Not in PA, at least.

@18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 902

§ 902.  Criminal solicitation.
    (a)  Definition of solicitation.--A person is guilty of
 solicitation to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting
 or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or
 requests another person to engage in specific conduct which
 would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime
 or which would establish his complicity in its commission or
 attempted commission.
    (b)  Renunciation.--It is a defense that the actor, after
 soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not
 to do so or **otherwise prevented the commission of the crime**,
 under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary
 renunciation of his criminal intent.

IANAL, but it seems to me that taking the case to the police or otherwise taking actions against the solicitee falls under the bolded section of 902b.

There’s also probably an argument to be made that no crime could possibly be committed (due to the lack of any actual victim), therefore there never was criminal intent (also an affirmative defense under 902b). Please note that the statutes preventing solicitation of minors, corruption of minors, statutory rape, etc. in PA do NOT have this affirmative defense involved.

[Bricker]

@Zeriel

Not in PA, at least.

IANAL, but it seems to me that taking the case to the police or otherwise taking actions against the solicitee falls under the bolded section of 902b.

There’s also probably an argument to be made that no crime could possibly be committed (due to the lack of any actual victim), therefore there never was criminal intent (also an affirmative defense under 902b). Please note that the statutes preventing solicitation of minors, corruption of minors, statutory rape, etc. in PA do NOT have this affirmative defense involved.

Zeriel is right, although we’re actually getting into some interesting and technical territory. As a general principle, inchoate crimes like attempt and solitication can be renounced. But at common law, there is a distinction between the case of A encouraging B to commit the crime alone, and A encouraging B to commit the crime as a team. Common law solicitation requires the latter.

In these cases, it’s not clear to me that both A and B would be criminally liable. That is, let’s imagine everyone were real --a real 13 year old, Anna, and a real 45 year old, Bill. Anna and Bill communicate by computer, and Anna comes up with the idea of having sex with Bill, plants that idea in his mind, and encourages him to do it. Bill and Anna meet and have sex.

Has Anna committed a crime?

Obviously there are fifty states and fifty different sets of laws under which to answer this question, but at common law, no. Under the Model Penal Code, in contrast, this distinction does not exist, and Anna would be guilty of criminal solicitation, but the Model Penal Code has the affirmative defense of renunciation that Zeriel outlined.

[chartreuse_w_envy]

since you can’t physically search it yourself…Statistics on Pornography, Sexual Addiction and Online Perpetrators and their Effects on Children, Pastors and Churches

[Bricker]

@chartreuse_w_envy

since you can’t physically search it yourself…http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php

No, I don’t believe you’re correct.

Your cite, which credits the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, says: “Approximately 20% of all Internet pornography involves children.”

Notice that it does not contain any detail about how the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children discerned this statement.

A bit more investigation reveals that in 2008, this was debunked:

The “current study” however is a study conducted 14 years ago in 1994 which analysed 150 postings into Usenet newsgroups.

The NCMEC’s Fact Sheet reference numbers [12] and [13] cite page 3 of a March 2001 report commissioned by the NCMEC titled “Child Pornography: The Criminal-Justice-System Response” which states:

“One study has estimated that as much as 20 percent of all pornographic activity on the Internet may involve children; however, even the authors of this study admit to a high margin of error.

Mehta & Plaza’s report on their 1994 analysis of postings into Usenet newsgroups states:

“We examined the nature and content of 150 randomly selected pornographic images available through newsgroups… Using content analysis, we identified themes that appear…

[and found] …images of children/adolescents (phi=.21, p<.01)…

…If an image was accompanied by text suggesting that subjects were under the age of 18, we coded this image as a “hit.” In other words, models in such coded images may be technically adults by age, but props or descriptors give the illusion of being an adolescent. As a qualifier, the vast majority of the small number of such images depicting children and adolescents probably come from nudist magazines or are taken by those who have visited such communities. We never came across an image depicting a sexual act between an adult and a child/adolescent, or acts between children.”

In summary, claims in 2008 that “approximately 20% of all Internet pornography involves children” originate from a 1994 study which found that approximately 20% of of 150 images posted to Usenet newsgroups depicted naked persons who were or were claimed to be (by the poster) under 18 years.

And now that claim is uncritically repeated in 2011. As the author of my cite dryly observes, obviously any 1994 statistic that concerns “The Internet” is well overdue for retirement.

It is to weep.

[Zeriel]

@chartreuse_w_envy

since you can’t physically search it yourself…http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php

First of all, you’re a new member so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt–when you make a claim in Great Debates here, you are expected to bring forth evidence upon request. It’s basic politeness so that we’re all on the same page. Further, it’s probably a good idea to backtrack cites to the original research so you know what you’re actually bringing forth to support your argument.

Secondly, Bricker has already dealt with your indirect cite, but I should note that the website you cited is specifically chartered to “assist parents in protecting their children from pornography”, which doesn’t portend a very unbiased or scholarly take on the matter at hand, to say the least.

Thirdly, the specific link you posted actually cites something called the “National Center for **Mission **& Exploited Children” which tells us something about their rigor and attention to detail.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

It is to weep.

Ain’t it just.

But people need their recreational outrage, so debunking is no fun.

[ModernPrimate]

@Bricker

Proxy server. Off-site. Inaccessible to decoy. Police offered opportunity to have second proxy server at their control. Chat logs stored with md5 hash.

Next?

This is all well and good in theory, but yahoo is a huge international organization with their own principles, policies and protocols. They probably hated TCAP using their chatrooms for these investigations (in fact TCAP may have played a big part in why they had to shut them down). The last thing they’d want to do is to “team-up”.

Also a lot of these people have the spirit of free communication in mind, like their customers, possibly are members of Electronics Frontier Foundation or something, disagree with the general shambles of TCAP and don’t wish to play any part in this type of thing. So for any number of reasons, including beaurocratic ones, yahoo might really have to be subpoenaed (sp?) every single time the government wanted them to produce the files. If they had some sort of “continuous sub-poena order” then that would create continuous work for yahoo employees creating more complications. Just because it might work that way in the US doesn’t mean every other organization is going to follow suit.

Given the ad hoc nature and general fecklessness of P-J and TCAP, I doubt there was any such thing like some kind of “continuous sub-poena” involved even if it were possible. In fact I doubt they had anything at all that would indicate that the person sent the logs. If they used that type of proof, then why don’t we ever know about it? Why don’t we hear that that is what they did? No, I’d say they were just hoping for the guy to admit it straightaway and everyone would get carried away in this whirlwind and next thing you know this guy with a lack of foresight would be in jail for 5+ years.

How do we know but that for every guy caught that there weren’t two that just walked out as soon as they saw Chris Hanson and denied everything? That’s what the smart thing would be to do. In fact, to me, this is just another case of America just picking on the people who are less smart, are struggling through life, and are beaten down by the supposed “superior” white collar individuals, who continually get away with shifting millions and escape jail almost no matter what they do. All beating down the lower class who they depend on.

@Ibn_Warraq

There were no “moaning sounds” in that clip

Well it seems we have a different idea of the word “moaning” also. I would argue that every time you say “pleeeeease”, you are moaning. You could read a book and it might say: “oh please take me with you”, she moaned", and you wouldn’t assume it means that she said “oh please take me with you” and THEN she moaned. No, she moaned vocally. You express things vocally. This is just a pathetic argument of semantics, something a lot of people love to do online to pick fights with people.

What did you think I meant, that she would just moan like she was having sex? Come on, get a grip.

@Ibn_Warraq

You have yet to produce any evidence that the girls put up “sexy pictures” of themselves on their yahoo profiles.

I do not mean sexy as in, showing cleavage. I mean sexy as in a girl who looks hot. Often times completely normal childhood pictures can be sexy to potential predators.

@Ibn_Warraq

All the reports have said that the girls dressed in normal clothing and from the pictures we saw, only a pedophile would consider the photos “sexy”.

So we’re back to this again are we? You cannot criminalize people for being a pedophile, only if they act on it. You are being ridiculously subjective and I can’t deal with this again.

But I will say that the girl in the video I linked to was very sexy and many girls in ordinary attire are sexy.

Do you even KNOW what sexy means? Sexy just means hot. Fathers often tell their daughters they look sexy. gawwwdddddd.

@miss_elizabeth

Where has anyone said they don’t have pictures? What was in dispute was whether the pictures were sexy, and they aren’t. Once again (surprise surprise) you have no evidence to back up your claims.

There was someone who said it and asked me to provide evidence for it. They were unaware of it.

@StusBlues

In point of fact, how would anyone even begin to compile statistics on this, since child porn is illegal and even looking at it may get one in legal trouble?

I agree. It is a ridiculous statistic pulled from nowhere. It’s only intention is to scare people.

Once again I must make the observation that some people who consider themselves so high and mighty feel at incredible liberty sometimes to spin things or even make them up while probably justifying it to themselves as “I’m doing it for a good cause”. And I daresay this is part of what happens in TCAP, the mob mentality takes over and all the lies get lost in between.

@Bricker

And here’s an interesting fact: these stings do not, as you say, meet the definition of entrapment by police. But for those folks caviling about the “untrained” PJ people, you might be surprised to learn there is no such thing as an entrapment defense when the entrapment is done by a private party.

In these cases, with PJ working with the police, they are considered agents of the police and are held to the same standard the police are. But working alone, even if they intend to notify police after they develop enough evidence, they cannot, as a matter of law, entrap.

Yeah well it just goes to show you what a broken joke of a system the US has.

@Bricker

If I ask you for a specific country, you cannot respond with “every country,” because all I have to so to show you wrong is provide one counter-example.

In this case, though, I will treat your further suggestion of Netherlands and Sweden as the specific countries you’re suggesting.

This article claims that Swedes do use sting operations:

And so do the Netherlands:

So now that I have at least some authority to the contrary, perhaps you could provide some cites for your claims that the Dutch and the Swedes don’t?

Did you read my post about predisposition to commit a crime, and how that nullifies the persuasion and defeats an entrapment defense?

We’ve seen exactly one example of that. Where are the others?

Well if you go to the Wikipedia page, it says they are illegal in Sweden and Netherlands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation That is what I was going by. I don’t know what the cause for the discrepency is, but I hugely doubt anything like TCAP would be allowed in the Netherlands.

[Marley23]

ModernPrimate, most of what you’ve said throughout this thread has been incorrect, and in most cases, when those errors have been pointed out to you, you’ve responded by making new claims without supporting them. You’re taking to an extreme now, so if this is all you have to offer, I’m going to close the thread. Do you have any facts to support the things you’re saying here?

[Bricker]

In my view, your ignorance is invincible. You simply assert a doubt, produce no evidence for it, and seemingly believe you have refuted claims.

In addition, I find your discussion about ‘sexy’ quite disturbing.

When seeing a claim of yours debunked, you simply pass on to the next with no admission of error.

I cannot imagine any further value in talking to you.

[ModernPrimate]

@Marley23

ModernPrimate, most of what you’ve said throughout this thread has been incorrect, and in most cases, when those errors have been pointed out to you, you’ve responded by making new claims without supporting them. You’re taking to an extreme now, so if this is all you have to offer, I’m going to close the thread. Do you have any facts to support the things you’re saying here?

@Bricker

In my view, your ignorance is invincible. You simply assert a doubt, produce no evidence for it, and seemingly believe you have refuted claims.

In addition, I find your discussion about ‘sexy’ quite disturbing.

When seeing a claim of yours debunked, you simply pass on to the next with no admission of error.

I cannot imagine any further value in talking to you.

What? I’m not making radical new extreme claims, I’m not making any new claims at all. I’m saying a couple of common sense things.

There are only two things in this thread which I’ve wrong on and I had very good reason to believe they were right:

1. I said that in some cases the decoys led the sexual talk. I believed I had very good reason to say this, as the anchor of the show himself claimed it in an article he wrote which is still written up on that page.

2. I stated that sting operations in Netherlands and Sweden are illegal. I took this from the Wikipedia page about sting operations.

Now Marley23, I challenge you to name something else that I said that was false.

Come on Marley23, out with it. You talk big, now let’s see what you’re talking about. What claims have I made that been proven to be false? Where are all of these claims?

I did not claim ANYTHING else that was proven to be false and I had exceptionally good reason to believe those things were true, and I still am unsure if they’re not.

They WERE dressed in sexy clothing, they WERE moaning on the phone, they WERE begging them to come over, they did at least on one occasion call the predator up at least three times, they DID show their photographs, they WERE on webcam. I was questioned for all of this and produced evidence for all of this… and next thing people are coming in questioning over whether I was questioned over it.

I claimed many things. You’re saying “most” of that has been proved to be false after all of those things I’ve said have been proven to be right?

What kind of drugs are you sniffing?

I had very good evidence (in the TCAP anchor case) and good informal evidence (in the sting case) to back up the two things I may not have been fully accurate on.

Stop talking ****.

[Marley23]

That’s not going to cut it. I’m giving you a warning for insults, and the staff may review your posting privileges. Regardless, this thread is closed.