Yes, quite a shame. I know that if I elaborate, you’d read it with an open mind and genuinely learn from it.
Ha! Ha! I slay myself.
With… you know… humor.
Not from what I read. My interpretation is specific to the issue of who is being victimized, since this crime is not a crime unless there is a victim. Apart from this type of set up, when does undercover law enforcement pose as the victim without whom no crime can exist? The elements of this crime demand a victim. Most other crimes that involve undercover work do not. The two that come immediately to mind are both the very definition of victimless crimes, in fact: drugs and prostitution! In what other scenarios do cops commonly go undercover? As gang members, not victims, and I can’t think of other instances. So it seems at the moment that this kind of undercover work is unique in having someone pose as a “victim”.
And that’s why I would love to see it fully tested. You say the PJ stings have resulted in lots of convictions with very minor sentences, which is probably why they haven’t been fought very hard. It would be interesting for someone to really fight it, take it to appeal, see what the higher courts have to say about the legitimacy and legal soundness of this type of sting. I thing they would throw it out. Reluctantly, I’m sure, but I think that they would have to. The victim is imaginary.
As for being able to pick her out of a lineup…Huh? Is that your way of saying he would have fucked any female that claimed to be 14, that his goal and intent was to have sex with a female body that had only been on earth for 14 years, no matter what it looked like? I guess you could make that argument, but I think you’d be wasting your time, because you are trying to stretch this act against an imaginary victim into a pattern of behavior that has existed, will exist, and on that basis this person must be locked up. I’m not studied up on the topic, but I still feel pretty sure that while we consider past acts in sentencing, we don’t generally convict people for things we think they might have done or might do in the future, we try to stick with convicting them for things they really did.
Maybe PJ should consider working with concerned parents and their real underage children to do their stings with those genuine underage people, that way the issue of imaginary victims goes away completely.
Which leads me back to the undercover thing…I am really blanking on thinking of any crime at all in which law enforcement poses as a victim. This may be unique either way.
So your definition of learning means “shut up, listen, and swallow whole without question of any kind”? Man, Socrates would be so disappointed.
If we didn’t think it was funny would it be attempted humor?
Well you may wish to consider that since he spent a little time in the biz he might know a thing or two. I know I don’t agree with Bricker on several topics but on general concepts of criminal law I would be very hesitant to challenge him.
IIRC he also used to be a criminal defense type, you would think that just maybe if your proposed defense was seriously effective he would probably know something about it too.
Which underage person would that be? There is no underage person in such cases.
Does this work with other crimes? Say I artfully constructed a lifelike dummy of myself and set it on a park bench. Someone with an ancient grudge against me sees it there, takes what he imagines to be the opportune moment and smashes it over the head with a shillalegh.
Is he guilty of attempted murder?
I’m confident that when the jury sees the videotape of him smashing the decoy, hears that he was carrying several guns, a hunting knife, and a garotte on his person, and reads the extensive correspondence in which he laid out his desire to kill you and plans to do so when you met in the park that day, they’ll return the right decision.
Baiting pickpockets is done fairly regularly with police officers set up as targets.
I’m sure he knows a tremendous amount, that does not make him the ultimate unchallengable authority on every aspect of criminal law, and that would be a very strange position for anyone to take. The law itself is challenged every day, that’s why it keeps changing.
I examined the ideas and responded reasonably, including a link to more information in the form of a thoughtful argument on the topic written by a law professor. I treated the ideas respectfully and addressed them very directly, in detail, leaving it open for further discussion and examination, because, as I’ve said, I find the ideas interesting.
That his only response is dismissive mocking of my likely unwillingness to simply accept whatever he might otherwise say without daring to question it actually undermines the idea that he’s an expert with better information on this subject, it doesn’t promote it.
I find (as did Socrates) that real learning happens when you question, probe, discuss, test, challenge. Just accepting what you are told is empty.
From the Foundation for Critical Thinking:
Contrary to the suggestion made by Covered in Bees (I love him for that handle…Izzard forever) and elsewhere lately, I do not and have not “waved away” anything I’ve been told by experts. Not even close. What I actually do, what I have done here, and what I always do exactly so I can get as thorough an understanding as possible, is question the hell out of it. Test it. Probe it. Challenge it.
Bricker pointed to a legal theory that would seem to undermine my assertion about sex with a 20 year old who claimed she was 14 not being a crime. I considered it carefully and examined it closely, and I questioned whether it really would have the affect of making such sex a crime. I didn’t question it blindly, dismissively, mindlessly. I questioned it (and do question it) very thoughtfully, from a reasonable basis.
Now, if Bricker had cited even a single case in which the fact pattern matched my scenario, in terms of an adult woman telling an adult man she was underage before they had sex, and it followed that the man was found guilty of attempting to have sex with an underage girl after the court rejected his defense that it was impossible for him to have attempted to have sex with an underage girl that wasn’t actually underage, I would not have argued. I would have been damned annoyed that the law did that, but there would be no argument about the original question, which was whether a crime would have been committed. The facts would speak for themselves.
He didn’t, though. He presented a legal theory that might lead to that result. That is open for discussion. His choice of response tells me his interest in the “discussion” lies in having his ego stroked, not in actually having a discussion, and that’s fine, we’re all here for our own reasons and we’re entitled. But obviously Bricker and I are not a good fit for each other in terms of getting our Straight Dope needs met, and that’s ok too.
What are the elements of the crime? Lay them out. Are they met – that is, was the crime completed? What are the elements of attempt of that crime?
No one is talking about some vague “attempted statutory rape” charge. We’re talking about statutes like coercion and enticement of a minor, as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2422, or travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual contact with a minor, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2423. In both of those cases, the crime is completed regardless of whether a victim actually exists.
Stop being sure when you’re wrong.
To pick one example, in U.S. v. Kaye, the Fourth Circuit discusses precisely the contention you raise.
18 USC 2422 provides in pertinent part:
Kaye, 54, travelled from Maryland to Virginia to meet “MadC Rad1992”, who he believed to be a 13 year old boy. The screen name was actually used by an adult, and there was no thirteen year old involved at all. After meeting Chris Hansen, kaye was arrested and charged with violating 18 USC 2422.
He argued that since there was no actual 13 year old boy, he couldn’t be guilty. The federal court dismissed this argument, pointing out that Virginia Code § 18.2-370 prohibits “…[a]ny person 18 years of age or over, who, with lascivious intent, …Propose[ing] that any such child [14 or under] feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of such person or propose that such person feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of any such child…”
The federal court further pointed out that the Virginia Supreme Court, in Hix v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 335, 619 S.E.2d 80, 83-87 (2005), upheld an inchoate (attempted) violation of this statute when there was no actual minor involved. ("…the absence of an actual child has no bearing on the crime of attempt under § 18.2-370…") The federal court, applying this definitive application of Virginia law, found that Kaye’s conduct violated 18 USC 2422.
Kaye appealed this decision to the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld this finding. And it upheld his six and a half year sentence. So your belief that this legal construct has not been fully challenged, or has produced only minor sentences, is not remotely supportable.
Because I am familar with your unique method of legal analysis, I am certain none of this information will change your mind one iota. Even as you read these words, you’re erasing them, misinterpreting them, or doing whatever other voodoo you accomplsih in an effort to remain unaffected by ideas which you don’t agree with.
However, to the extent that some others that read this will get something out of it, it’s not time wasted.
Now, while this addresses the actual controversy, I’m sure you’ll point out that your scenario can be distinguished from this one. Your scenario was very much a legal hypo, because while it paints a legally sufficient case for guilt of attempt, there is not going to be an actual case, because of the difficulty in proof and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This will cement itself in your mind as proof that your hypo was right, although how you will reconcile the Kaye case to the larger point of “no victim” means no crime is anyone’s guess.
Yes.
Probably. If you follow the links Drachillix provided, you will read about some attempted murder convictions involving people who believed they were killing or trying to kill a particular person, but could not have succeeded. One was a wife who believed she was poisoning her husband but was actually giving him something that was not dangerous, another involved a man who believed that he was shooting through the ceiling at a policeman located above him, except that the policeman was no longer there when he shot.
You do not “exist” on that park bench at that moment, like the policeman did not “exist” above the ceiling at that moment, but you do, in fact “exist”, just as the policeman did, and the person who seeks to kill you means to kill YOU, who exists, not just anyone. You are the intended victim.
However, if your murderer instead saw the dummy from behind, and decided (bizarrely, but roll with me) that THAT dummy was a horrible person who deserved to die and tried to kill it, I don’t think he would be convicted of attempted murder because the “person” he was trying to kill was imaginary and does not genuinely exist anywhere.
It would be the same as a deranged person trying to kill a Barbie doll because she was a slut… could we then convict him of murder because he’s demonstrated a willingness to kill women he believes are sluts, even though he didn’t actually kill or try to kill a real person? I feel certain that we would not.
So which element of the crime of attempted murder is no longer present, Stoid? Where do you find support for this view you’ve created that the dummy has to represent an actual, named individual before one can attempt murder? Why does an anonymous person seated on a park bench as a target for murder not qualify as an attempt if a dummy is substituted, but an actual person known to the murderer does? Please, point to the law, rule, statute, or footnote that has cemented this conclusion in your mind.
The difference being that he thinks the dummy on the park bench IS a real person, but the Barbie doll he knows isn’t.
Not exactly. His intention is what counts. He intends harm to a specific real person when he attacks it, the dummy just doesn’t happen to be THE specific real person he believes it to be. Whereas he may believe Barbie is real, but she isn’t, so his intentions towards her can never be a crime.
That’s where the insanity defense comes in. There’s potentially a big difference in the mental state of someone who believes a realistic-looking dummy on a park bench (viewed from behind) is a real person, and someone who believes Barbie is a real person.
So in your world, if we had an actual 13 year old in the house, even if it was not the same one he talked to but there was at least the potential for 13 year old victim, would this make a difference?
The whole point it to intercept those willing to make arrangments and follow through on a plan to have sex with an underage victim without putting an actual kid on the firing line…
Also attempts do not have to be specific to a person, firing into a crowd of 100 people could represent 100 counts of attempted murder.
Stoid, this interaction isn’t happening in a vacuum. I’m basing my prediction on your behavior in other threads. Questioning and probing is fine; absolute refusal to actually listen is quite a different kettle of fish. I’m by no means the minority opinion on your behavior, and in fact you yourself expressed frustration that no one “understood” you, without making the somewhat obvious intuitive leap that when a threadful of otherwise reasonable people don’t “understand” you, the problem is not with each of them.
In the ten years I’ve been a member here, I have many many times explained aspects of the law to people. I don’t insist that my explanations are accepted as gospel. And a good thing, because I’ve made some errors in my time. But your behavior is not simply questing for Socratic inquiry; it is intransigent refusal to acknowledge facts when they don’t fit your worldview.
Well first, in order to discuss this, we have to hew to the facts as they’ve been presented already. If you have to change them to argue, you’ve changed the argument.
It was not an “anonymous” person that was the target being discussed, it was aldibornont, and the murdered intend to murder aldiboronti, and no one else. The murderer would believe that the dummy was aldibornonti, and no one else. And that was what I was responding to exactly.
Are you now asking me to give my answer to a question like: “Let’s say a crazy person wants to kill someone, anyone, and they see a person sitting on a park bench. They then make towards them with the intention of killing them, without knowing who they are, and, at the last minute, while the killer isn’t looking, someone replaces the real human with a dummy, and the killer attacks the dummy. Would the killer be liable for attempted murder then?”
I would answer yes, probably, for the same reason he would be liable if his intention was against aldiboronti: he had chosen this person to murder, anonymous or not, and therefore his attempt, while thwarted by the real human’s exit and the dummy’s entrance, was intended to be upon a real human being who genuinely exists, and trying to kill a person is a crime.
Intention is key. A crazy person may absolutely intend to kill Barbie and may believe she is alive. He can’t be convicted for murder, though, because Barbie isn’t real, so no matter what he’s done or tried to do or thought he was doing, there is no crime in killing Barbie. And you can’t convict him for killing Barbie for being a slut because his desire to kill slutty Barbie means he would or will or tried to kill slutty humans. (I’d keep a close eye on him, though, that’s for damn sure.)
In my scenario, what was the intention? Sex with this female, or sex with any 14 year old female of any description? Was he intending sex with her because he desired her and her being 14 was an unfortunate illegality he decided to ignore, or did he desire her only because she was 14? Well, my scenario was pretty thin on detail, so we can’t say for sure, but those are definitely questions and issues that need to be considered in trying to get him for attempting to have sex with an underage female.
And going back to murder… I’m asking questions here, because I’m not sure about the answers and I’ve only made a cursory check: if MurderMan intends to kill BadBob, whom he hates, but accidentally misses and instead kills GorgeousGeorge, whom he loves, is he charged with murder of George, even though murder seems to require malicious intent towards the victim (in this case George, whom he loved and had no malicious intent towards), or is he charged with manslaughter of George, which is the unlawful killing of another under a variety of circumstances, including killing during the commission of a different unlawful act, which in this case was the attempted murder of BadBob?
I ask because the answer bears on the next question: if MurderMan attempts to kill BadBob and accidentally attacks, but does not kill, GorgeousGeorge, is he charged with attempted murder of George, even though he did not attempt to murder George, he just accidentally hurt him while trying to kill Bob, or is he charged with the attempted murder of BadBob and the assault of GorgeousGeorge?
As for how I have arrived at any of my understanding about these issues, I read the links Drachillix gave, then continued to do more research, the most interesting and comprehensive being the article written by the law professor that I linked above. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing and I won’t, it’s 86 pages, but it’s very interesting.
(And I haven’t read your earlier answer, I was working backwards and I will be back later after I’ve had a chance, I’ve been screwing around here for three hours already>)
Sure. And I hope you see the problems with proof in asking for a real-life variant of your scenario. If we could prove that Ed Ephebo thought he was boffing a 14 year old, and intended to boff a 14 year old, but through a mistake of fact boffed an 18-year-old, we’ve got the facts for a conviction on attempt. But what we would virtually never have is a prosecutorial desire to obtain that conviction.
However, the law of attempt is reasonably well-settled.
While the hypotheticals are interesting, they don’t have much chance of have identical fact patterns in the real world. And since you seem to place a huge stock in finding identical fact patterns before conceding a point, if ever you do, I think there’s some value in concentrating on the actual question created by “To Catch a Predator:” is the lack of an actual child victim in these scenarios created by PJ and NBC legally fatal to the cases that arise from the sting operations shown on the show?