About entrapment angle....
I'm not totally convinced. The problem with pedophilia is that there is no, for a lack of better description, redeeming value out of it. By redeeming value, I mean that a crime could be commited out of necessity.
For example, we are more likely to look favorably upon a guy who stole bread from grocery store for his straving family. What he did was wrong, but he didn't do it out of malice or desire to injure others and it was done to preserve his family's survival. Can you honestly say the same about pedophilia?
The wallet on table example used to illustrate opportunity crime is indeed an entrapment because stealing money may be motivated by some necessities; and this hold true even if it was a crack addict because there is the potential that the crack addict will need to buy a burger to stay alive and sustain his habit.
With pedophilia, there is nothing 'eseential' about it. People can survive and continue to function without engaging in any sexual activity, and there is nothing to obligate anyone to engage in a specific activity beyond one's own decisions. Because that element is absent, I see nothing entrapping about fooling men into hooking up with underage girls.
And I am not convinced that entrapment 'punishes' thoughtcrime because you can still think about it, and even hold a philosophical discussion of whether you can commit it and whys, ins and outs of it. I simply see nothing opportunistic about deciding to hooking up wih underage girls. The only gain is the perp himself, and there is no way that perp's life (and even the reptuation, health and all other aspects of perp's personhood) would depend on engaging in such activity (outside of under the duress, but that's quite unusual).
Therefore, I don't feel at all sorry that they wrecked their lives. They made the choices. They'll have to live with the consequences even if it was only because they were "curious". Court don't let you off the hook for murdering people "just to see what it's like." Why let those "curious" men off the hook?
Edit: One more thing about entrapment; it's a defense, so it can be invoked for a variety of crimes. When it is considered in the court, the question is "Would the defendent have committed the crime absent the activities by police?" and to answer that question, the prosecutor should be able to demonstrate that:
- 1. Police did nothing to encourage, instigate, suggest or otherwise provide an easier opportunity from the start to the end.
- 2. At every crucial step from the initial contact to the moment after the crime was completed or about to be committed, the defendent made the decision to move ahead clearly and repeatedly.
- 3. The defendent was warned in various forms that this was illegal, bad, wrong or something to the effect and was afforded the opportunity to back out, which would have not been prosecuted.
Probably more to it, but that's the gist. So whether it's stealing bread or hooking up with underages, answering affirmative to each point removes the entrapment defense and leaves the defendant totaly exposed to the ful consquence of the crime commited.
I don't know whether this show does follow the general idea, but I hope so, since they're filming the actual police units?