# Internet Sting: Is This entrapment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 1, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-sting-is-this-entrapment/346603 "2006-03-01T13:00:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-sting-is-this-entrapment/346603/21 "2006-03-31T22:24:46Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > IANAL, etc. and a lawyer type will undoubtedly be along any moment to fill in my blanks. [QUOTE=Clothahump] No, you got it right. . [/QUOTE] You are a lawyer? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-sting-is-this-entrapment/346603/22 "2006-03-31T22:28:23Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] So, if the pedophile just talked about it and planned it, but never actually drove to a meeting place, then there were be no conviction? It’s that final _act_ that turns it from a fantasy to an attempted crime? If so, then I can buy that. [/quote] Yup. There has to be a substantial step in furtherance of the crime in order to convict on attempt. > [@](#): > > But I know that dudes fantasize with others on-line, and neither is what they say they are, and both know that. So, just the act of IMing back & forth doesn’t make a crime, IMHO. As long as both know they are fantasizing, there’s no crime either. Again, though, the problem is one of proof. A fact-finder (a jury, or a judge in a bench trial) is permitted to infer that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his actions. If you stay in your home and never actually show up at a meeting place to consummate your on-line relationship, then you can very convincingly argue that you knew it was a fantasy all along. But it’s difficult for a guy to claim he knew all along it was a fantasy if he gets in his car and drives to a meeting place. ---
**Author:** ![Accidental\_Yuppie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e56c9b/32.png) [@Accidental\_Yuppie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Accidental_Yuppie)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-sting-is-this-entrapment/346603/23 "2006-03-31T22:40:54Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Well, that’s the point here, and it’s what I am worried about. Was the accused here \*really \* planning on having sex with the boy? Maybe it was to meet him and tell him how dangerous it was.(Ok, I am doubtful here). Maybe it was to see how easy it was to really get a kid to meet you for sex, and thus prove an investigative point. Maybe it was to meet him and fantasize. We’re putting dudes in jail for crimes they _may_ be commiting in the future. Or maybe not. Is this right? [/QUOTE] Well, it seem like whenever they bust these pervs (and, judging by the new reports, it happens a lot) he has in his possession a bag containing lube and dildoes and rubbers and pot and pornography and quaaludes and booze and a videocamera..or some combination of the above. It actually adds a lot of impact to the story when they go through these bags on the videotape. They often have e-mails and recordings of phone conversations where the intent of the encounter is made very specific. I actuall thin they have to have some proof of intent, I saw one bust when the 18 year old police cadet posing as a 14 year old girl was wearing a wire, and the police didn’t hop in and make the arrest until after he asked her if she wanted to go to his house and make love. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-sting-is-this-entrapment/346603.md?page=1)