Interestingly enough, the
article doesn't really make a big issue of entrapment but rather the due process (e.g. Miranda rights, unbiased jury, etc.) which are far more reasonable arguments.
intlplby- I'm sorry but insisting on litmus test of whether actual crime is commited by and against an actual victim doesn't really hold up. Narcs regularly pose as drug dealer or junkies in which they offer the opportunity to apprehend actual pushers or junkies for engaging in illict drugs even though the narcs has not actually taken any illict drugs. Furthermore, do not forget that it is crime to *attempt* murder or burglarly, just as much as actually murdering or stealing. Even if it was shown that the murder was attempted under the duress, it does not always let the murderer or the burglar off the hook. Why let perverts off the hook for basically doing same thing?
Furthermore, a police officer substituting for a minor is really all irrevelent if the defendant approached them, asked questions about sexual activities, and made arrangement to hook up. As I explained before, when it's the perp's actions and decisions has made it clear that he'd have commited the crime with an actual girl, the question of whether there was a victim is moot. Asking minor to engage in sexual activity is illegal, and that's what they're getting.
For public embarrassment, that has merits, but very little. Again, if they made the decision to drive long distance, prepared to have sex with minor, they already have sastisfied the guilty intent requirement. They had the opportunity to back out, but failed to take that. So do I really feel sorry for them? Not particularly.
According to Pscates, there were relationships that lasted for quite a while, turned to dirty talk, and was warned that it'd be wrong, but they ultimately made the move to hook up. Busted on the camera? Tough noogies.