How is this legal?

[Butter]

I've noticed one law enforcement agency in my area has been hard and long at work arresting guys for internet sex crimes.

Essentially, the cops set up shop on internet chat rooms... then arrest the guys as they drive into town, expecting to meet a 13 year old girl for sex.... but instead of a 13 year old girl, of course, there's a group of police ready to take him down.

Before you get started, NO I'm not for rape or molestation or whatever. But I don't see how it's legal for a guy to get arrested because he talked nasty to someone who is not even actually a 13 year old girl, then drives into town for the INTENT of having sex with that non-existent person.

Isn't this the very definition of the favorite Hollywood cop term "entrapment"?

[albionmoonlight]

I have never really studied entrapment, but it looks like it is entrapment is the government compells you to commit the crime, but not if you were predisposed to commit the crime.

Originally Posted by Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548-49 (1992)

There can be no dispute about the evils of child pornography or the difficulties that laws and law enforcement have encountered in eliminating it. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the Government may use undercover agents to enforce the law. It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises.
In their zeal to enforce the law, however, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Where the Government has induced an individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue, as it was in this case, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.

[jeff061]

The cops pretend to be a child, but do not steer the conversation towards sex and real life meetings. They let the nut do that himself without help.

[Toddzilla]

They cover this legal issue in depth every time they run one of those specials on NBC Dateline.

Basically, if someone *believes* they are talking to a minor and *believes* they are going to meet with a minor, it is against the law. It is the perpetrators *intent* which is the focus.

[Logan]

I'm surprised we haven't seen a defense of "I had no intent on having sex with a 13 year old girl--I wanted to have sex with a 40 year old police officer."

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

They cover this legal issue in depth every time they run one of those specials on NBC Dateline.

Basically, if someone *believes* they are talking to a minor and *believes* they are going to meet with a minor, it is against the law. It is the perpetrators *intent* which is the focus.

Scary to criminally prosecute someone on intent towards a nonexistent person. I would be all for revoking privledges (say, no drivers liscense, try to go after minors without a car) to the creeps though.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm surprised we haven't seen a defense of "I had no intent on having sex with a 13 year old girl--I wanted to have sex with a 40 year old police officer."

I'm, uh, just curious, but, uh, where can a guy, you know, hang out on the internet to get some, um, hot, hot, 40-year-old police officer action?

I'm just asking. For a friend.

A female friend.

Yeah.

[Draft Dodger]

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised these don't get challenged more successfully. Considering there isn't a physical crime being committed (he's NOT coercing a minor, he just thinks he is), I would think a good lawyer would have a field day with that. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see these people off the streets, but it's always struck me like someone breaking into a store, shooting a mannequin they thought was a security guard, and getting charged with murder.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Scary to criminally prosecute someone on intent towards a nonexistent person. I would be all for revoking privledges (say, no drivers liscense, try to go after minors without a car) to the creeps though.

Somehow I don't think someone who would have sex with a 13 year old is going to not drive without a license just because it's illegal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I would be all for revoking privledges (say, no drivers liscense, try to go after minors without a car) to the creeps though.

Let's think for just a second, m'kay?

If somebody isn't deterred from having sex with a minor by the legal, ethical, and moral implications of that, do you really think that they're going to be reluctant to drive without a license?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm surprised we haven't seen a defense of "I had no intent on having sex with a 13 year old girl--I wanted to have sex with a 40 year old police officer."

honestly, me too.

[John Galt]

It isn't entrapment if the police wait for the perp to initiate the illegal conduct. As albionmoonlight has also posted, it isn't entrapment if the government can show a legal predisposition to commit the crime (although that is a murkier area of law).

The perps in these cases are generally charged with inchoate crimes. Inchoate crimes are those that don't have to have been completed (solicitation, conspiracy, attempt, etc.). So, a perp can solicit a minor if he has the mens rea (mental state) that he is really talking to a 13 year old kid even if the person in the chat room is a 40 year old cop. The actus rea (the act) for the crime is the solicitation and not the actual molestation of the kid (since the molestation never occurs).

[JonInMiddleGA]

And how is this scenario different from, say, conspiracy to commit murder charges after you try to hire what you believe is a hitman but is instead an undercover cop?

Or should those people not be charged either?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm surprised we haven't seen a defense of "I had no intent on having sex with a 13 year old girl--I wanted to have sex with a 40 year old police officer."

We have. It has generally tried and failed. It was even a Law and Order:SVU defense a few seasons ago.

edit: except the defendant usually phrases it as "I knew it was a 40 year old in the chat room and I was just play acting. It was all a game so there is no intent to solicit a minor for sex."

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And how is this scenario different from, say, conspiracy to commit murder charges after you try to hire what you believe is a hitman but is instead an undercover cop?

Or should those people not be charged either?

Is the person hiring the hitman(cop) to kill a person that doesn't exist?

[Butter]

I guess the cops have to spend some long hours in front of the computer in order to make sure that the guy's intent is pretty well established. Even so, I have to believe that eventually someone rich and powerful's going to get nabbed, and then this type of enforcement will likely be challenged a bit more vigorously than it already has.

I'm just glad I don't have daughters.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I guess the cops have to spend some long hours in front of the computer in order to make sure that the guy's intent is pretty well established. Even so, I have to believe that eventually someone rich and powerful's going to get nabbed, and then this type of enforcement will likely be challenged a bit more vigorously than it already has.

I'm just glad I don't have daughters.

There were plenty of legal challenges of this sort already. It would be extremely unlikely that they would be more effective in the future. Entrapment law is pretty forgiving to the police and inchoate crimes mean there really isn't a problem with charging criminals with these types of offense. Intent is usually easy to infer from the fact that the guy shows up at a meeting spot (the play acting scenario doesn't make much sense when you actually go to the spot).

[TroyF]

Wow.

The guy thinks he's talking to a 13 year old girl. He hops into his car and drives to the address she gave him with the intent to have sex with her.

Yeah, lets just suspend his license. Then, as he can't drive anymore he'll sit at home on the internet and chat with more girls. And maybe the next time it's my neice or my cousin or someone's younger sister or ya know, some troubled 13 year old girl that he actually does get the chance to meet. . .

Then you tell me if suspending the guys license is enough.

This is a chance to prevent something truly sickening and you are getting caught up into an entrapment defense?

Wow. Just wow.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Is the person hiring the hitman(cop) to kill a person that doesn't exist?

Bad analogy. The underage children certainly do exist. It would be more like, a guy hiring a hitman (cop) to murder, say, a Muslim.

I'm probably one of the more liberal people on this board, but I really don't understand the complaints. Soliciting sex with an underage child is a crime. There doesn't have to be a specific victim for the crime to exist. If it can be proven that the person really was trying to solicit an underage child, then he definitely should be put away.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by John Galt

There were plenty of legal challenges of this sort already. It would be extremely unlikely that they would be more effective in the future.

I guess I'm mixed about whether or not I want them to be more effective though. I understand the desire for this type of enforcement... and have to believe that without the law enforcement agency's action, generally the perpetrator would find an actual pre-teen/teenager to meet. But on some level, this type of law "enforcement" makes me queasy. I'll just stop talking now before I get labeled as the guy who wants to push for lowering the age of consent to 11 or something.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

But on some level, this type of law "enforcement" makes me queasy.

Umm ... time for you to cowboy up.

[albionmoonlight]

A simple analogy. I'm pissed at my neighbor, so I go to my friend's house and ask him for a gun. My friend, unknown to me, gives me a gun with blanks in it. I take the gun which I think is loaded with live bullets, point it at my neighbor with the safety off, and pull the trigger.

I am, at that point, guilty of attempted murder. Just because it didn't work does not mean that I am not guilty of attempt.

Like John G said, you can be guilty of crimes like conspiracy, attempt, solicitation, etc. that don't involve the underlying crime actually happening. And you can still spend a long time in jail for doing these things.

[stevew]

Bengals fans like kiddy porn.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I guess I'm mixed about whether or not I want them to be more effective though. I understand the desire for this type of enforcement... and have to believe that without the law enforcement agency's action, generally the perpetrator would find an actual pre-teen/teenager to meet. But on some level, this type of law "enforcement" makes me queasy. I'll just stop talking now before I get labeled as the guy who wants to push for lowering the age of consent to 11 or something.

It's easy to take the examples out of the child molestor context and have similar fact patterns.

Entrapment defenses are much more common in the drug dealing context. When the cop wants to arrange a sale, there may not be any real drugs and they often push the envelope in terms of getting potential buyers interested. When the cops are purchasers, they sometimes "create" sellers where one didn't clearly exist before. This usually happens when the cops are using confidential informants (CIs). In those cases, a CI (often a junkie) will be sent out to find drugs (sometimes at above street market prices). Because the CI often gets money from the cops (that they will use to get a fix), they can be highly motivated to score some drugs. That means they ask around a lot.

Let's say a CI goes up to Bob and says, "where can I get some drugs" and offers Bob a $20. Bob doesn't sell drugs, but he knows an apartment down the street that does. So, he tells the CI where to go. The cops can easily charge Bob with conspiracy to sell drugs (depending upon what is sold). He can often get the same penalties as the actual dealers especially because he doesn't have any information to cooperate with the police. So, Bob, who was otherwise not inclined to sell drugs can end up in prison for a long time.

There are a lot of areas of criminal law like this, so truthfully, the child molestation cases were just a small evolution from prior law.

[Butter]

Well, anyway thanks for the explanation guys. I knew with all you lawyerly types, someone could give a good explanation.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Is the person hiring the hitman(cop) to kill a person that doesn't exist?

You're looking at it wrong. Whomever the hitman was going to kill is irrelevant. The point Jon was trying to make is that in both situations people are being charged for things that have no way of actually happening....there is no hitman to commit murder, just like there is no underage girl to commit bad deeds with. But in both situations people are jailed for the crimes, as they should be.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Bad analogy. The underage children certainly do exist. It would be more like, a guy hiring a hitman (cop) to murder, say, a Muslim.

Good point there.

[TroyF]

But on some level, this type of law "enforcement" makes me queasy.


What Jon said. I agree, on the surface with this. But. . . I think of the 40 year old guy coming to meet what he thinks is a13 year old girl and I'm much, much more creeped out over the entire thing.

[larrymcg421]

The Jacobson v. United States ruling is pretty interesting because it's one of the rare times where Thomas and Scalia disagree, and Thomas actually voted to overturn the conviction of a child predator.

[panerd]

I say throw all of these pedophiles in jail for life, there are no loopholes or double standards in our criminal justice system! We are getting rid of a criminal element that is after our children. This won't be tolerated, no matter what! If you think otherwise you are against children, these men are sick and don't belong in society!!! Unless of course the person coming to meet to have sex is an attractive women in her 20's or 30's, then will give her probation and make jokes about it.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's think for just a second, m'kay?

If somebody isn't deterred from having sex with a minor by the legal, ethical, and moral implications of that, do you really think that they're going to be reluctant to drive without a license?

How would that person assault a minor after we enact legislation that allows these fuckers to have their arms, legs, and penis chopped off?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

The thing that seems weird to me is that I guess there are all these cops in chat rooms talking dirty to other net denizens. Sure, sometimes they're chatting with a 50 yr old man, which I have no problem with. But I'm sure there are cases where they are talking dirty with underage kids who are pretending to be adults. So in this case, I would find fault with the cops (adults) who are having inappropriate conversations with kids.

I wonder if there has been a case in these stings where it was actually an underage kid coming over to perform the sex act. In this case, I would charge the cop for child endangerment, since it's basically an adult (pretending to be a kid) enticing a kid into a sex act.

And people wonder why this country is so fucked up?
Congratulations, you may have just posted one of the most warped perspectives I've ever seen at FOFC, and that takes some doing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

How would that person assault a minor after we enact legislation that allows these fuckers to have their arms, legs, and penis chopped off?

Chop stuff off? We can't even get the simple notion of "predators should be stopped" across to some people, how in the hell do you think we can get amputation into the system?

Sure as we're sitting here, somebody would complain if we didn't suture their wounds with gold thread and then pay them compensation per limb.

[SFL Cat]

The government is the only place I know about where a "cut" is a decrease in the annual percentage of increase.

If government agencies have anything left in their budgets at the end of the year...WATCH OUT, they will spend like drunken sailors to get rid of any surplus so their budgets aren't downsized the following year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The government is the only place I know about where a "cut" is a decrease in the annual percentage of increase.

If government agencies have anything left in their budgets at the end of the year...WATCH OUT, they will spend like drunken sailors to get rid of any surplus so their budgets aren't downsized the following year.

Wrong thread maybe?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I'm sorry if I'm out in left field on this one. God forbid my daughter decides to log into a chat room pretending to be an adult male (which to me seems reasonable - perhaps she would do it so she won't get bugged as much by people), and then she gets roped into a conversation with some cop typing with one hand.

You're joking, right? You think the cops are getting off on talking to 40 year old males who want to nail 13 year olds? This has to be a sick freakin joke.

Forget the fact for just a minute that the perp has to initiate the contact, has to set up and ask for the meeting and then has to get in the car to drive there. Just forget about that for a second. You seriously think the cops are getting off on this?

I'm just stunned at this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm just stunned at this.

I'm sorry to say that there's just not much that stuns me anymore

It doesn't help with my insomnia nor my stomach troubles, but at least I know why I have them.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

If I was forced to guess, I would say that of 100 cops who volunteer for this type of assignment, 98 or 99 of them would find the whole thing repugnant.

So you are saying 1 or 2 would be thrilled by it?

I'm still stunned.

You have no idea the rules and regulations these guys have to go through to get a conviction like this. I really would have felt better if you'd just said "I was joking, turn on your sarcasm meter"

I'm like Jon now, I don't know if I'm sleeping tonight.

[Grid Iron]

Alright, I prosecute these pervs all the time so here's the scoop (at least as far as California law goes).

First, these guys are only charged with an attempt to commit sex with a child under 14 years old. The penalty is half of what they would get if they actually did commit the act (unless they have prior convictions for child molest).

Most of these guys get put on probation, do no more than a year in jail, and are required to register as a sex offender so cops can keeps tabs on them.

Second, here is the definition of entrapment:

A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

Since a normally law-abiding person would not agree to drive someplace to have sex with a 13 year old girl, entrapment never flies.

Cops typically don't have to try very hard to get potential perps. Just log on in a teen chat room with a sexy name and the peds come at you like a swarm of locusts.

Usually the defense is "I know the person said she was 13, but I thought that was just part of the role-play fantasy. I fully expected to meet an adult."

Remember that 90% of the guys that engage in chats with cops don't have the balls to actually "meet" the girl. It is a small, and dangerous, minority that are brazen enough to take the steps to meet for a sexual encounter with a small child.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Yes I guess it is because I don't know enough about how the procedure works on the cops' end (I've never seen one the those 'catch a perp' shows that were mentioned above). I picture legions of sweaty cops hunched over computers in dimly-lit, windowless police station basements. But I'm sure that's not the case. Could you elaborate on what the rules and regulations are?

For starters, all computer logs have to be kept and the defense gets those logs. If there were any part of the log that showed in anyway the cop was really enjoying himself, it would be seen by multiple parties all with different agendas. That isn't exactly the place or situation I'd want to type one handed, but I guess YMMV. As has already been said here, the perp has to initiate the conversation, the meeting and the acts themselves. The cop can't suggest meeting someone or going into another room to cyber.

1 to 2% of all cops who are into this typing one handed? I'd be big, big money the figure was well under 1/4 of 1 percent.

The idea that you are worried your daughter is going to pose as a man, then initiate a sexual conversation with a 13 year old girl is pretty astounding. If that's the case and is a true worry, maybe it's time to limit the internet time or move the computer into the living room.

The cops are doing everything in their power to make sure your 13 year old girl isn't the next person one of these creeps talks to. They aren't looking for ways to secuce her themselves.

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Do you know what the protocol is when the cops log in to these teen chat rooms and and regular teen wants to chat with them about an innocent subject, such as school or music, etc? Do they just ignore these chat requests? I hope so.

If the person is really a teen, they either don't respond or move on.

Based on my work experience, I would never let my kids access a teen internet chat room.

[Grid Iron]

Yes I guess it is because I don't know enough about how the procedure works on the cops' end (I've never seen one the those 'catch a perp' shows that were mentioned above). I picture legions of sweaty cops hunched over computers in dimly-lit, windowless police station basements. But I'm sure that's not the case. Could you elaborate on what the rules and regulations are?

In my jurisdiction, the computers are in a small conference room next to a room full of cops.

The room is well lit, and they have top-notch computer equipment (seized from arrested pedophiles).

The cops don't get off on it. If anything, they laugh about how pathetic these peds are.

Women police officers are often essential, as the peds sometimes want to talk to the "victim" on the phone to make sure it's a young girl.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised these don't get challenged more successfully. Considering there isn't a physical crime being committed (he's NOT coercing a minor, he just thinks he is), I would think a good lawyer would have a field day with that. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see these people off the streets, but it's always struck me like someone breaking into a store, shooting a mannequin they thought was a security guard, and getting charged with murder.

It's not hard to write a statute that specifically relates the act you want to make illegal. Murder statutes don't cover mannequins. Child enticement statutes DO focus on the INTENT of the perpetrator, as do statutes against prostiution (where police have been using decoys forever) It's as simple as that - this isn't a case of police suddenly deciding that this should be illegal.

Now, these statutes have been challenged quite often on Constitutional grounds. A few of the poorly, hastily drafted statutes WERE held to be unconstitutional in state courts. But they were re-written, and now every state has one - I guarantee the constituionality of every one has been challenged, but once it's upheld, that's it. There's really nothing left to challenge.

And as far as entrapment - the police know exactly how to do this without that becoming an issue. I'm sure there's a specific policy that they follow in every single sting. If they stick to the policy (which has probably been upheld in court), there's no issue.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm surprised we haven't seen a defense of "I had no intent on having sex with a 13 year old girl--I wanted to have sex with a 40 year old police officer."

There was a case like this where they spun it to say that he believed the person he was talking to was an adult and that she was role playing and he was into that.

And he managed not to get convicted.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by TroyF

So you are saying 1 or 2 would be thrilled by it?

I'm still stunned.

You have no idea the rules and regulations these guys have to go through to get a conviction like this. I really would have felt better if you'd just said "I was joking, turn on your sarcasm meter"

I'm like Jon now, I don't know if I'm sleeping tonight.

I'd say you're being naive. I watched the show last night. There are hundreds of men who have this predilection. The fact that some of these men might be on the police force isn't a stunning thing to ponder. It makes sense. It's the safest place to hide.

It's not like cops don't commit crimes. Wearing a badge doesn't make you a saint. Call me what you want but what I am is cynical. That's my only point.