[intlplby]

attempted murder and attempted burglary has a victim.... the person that the person tried to murder or tried to steal from

pretending to be an underage girl then there is no victim... unless they use a real girl, there is no victim. and if they did, then the cops and the parents would be just as liable for putting an underage girl in such a position.

if there is no victim then the police fabricated a crime and waited for a person to commit it.


"defending lawyer: did the defendent solicit a minor for sex?"
"prosecutor: yes"
"defending lawyer: Can you please point out that minor in this court room?"
no minor is in the court room, thus no crime was commited regardless of the intent.

another difference between this and drug posession is that drug posession is a victimless crime.... soliciting a minor for sex isn't a victimless crime...

[psmith2.0]

Well, then...beyond this show and its "tactics" (and how law enforcement goes about this stuff in general), what is the best approach or solution?

That's not directed at anyone in particular...I'm asking anyone. Because I don't know. I'm not in law enforcement and I'm certainly no legal scholar (huge shock to everyone, I'm sure ).



Seems lousy that a 13-year-old has to be violated - with or without her "consent" - and therefore "result in a victim" for anyone feels good about acting on anything.



I don't know the answers.

What if these guys got online and ran into real 13-year-olds (not decoys)? And they do all the things (the sex talk, the planning, etc.). And they drive for hours, show up and engage in this. The girl is screwed up (she kinda was to begin with, for even entertaining this sort of thing and inviting the guy over), the guy finally has done something bad (that we can probably all agree on).

But now there's a "victim"...we can do something! Yay! Um, wait a minute...

That's no good.

And we then pursue it from the back-end, after the fact? After people are hurt and they've crossed that line (the punishments have to be harder for actually doing this than simply talking about it, and showing up and getting busted by a TV crew and cops, don't they? Now even the perp's life - for those who care about such things - is going to be even more screwed up. Certainly the victim's is).

I'm not always troubled by the pre-emptive approach in some situations. It depends on lots of things, I realize. But in many cases it might be too late, once the young girl has been through it (physical or emotional anguish after the fact, maybe given an STD or AIDS, maybe the idiot perp realizes what he's done and wigs out and wants to "make it go away"...and now the girl might actually be in some physical danger, etc.).

Is that the trade off? No good angle, either side.

Ugh. A lousy situation, all around. You're damned either way: either the legal scholars and civil rights crusaders are going to be up your ass for any number of reasons (sensible or otherwise). Or you just opt to not do much of anything, don't worry about it and maybe it's open season on "fresh meat" in the minds of some? And word probably gets around.

Very close to that "well, we can't do anything until there's a crime...but be sure to call us when he shoots you in the head and we'll get right on it! Thanks, bye" some people face when it comes to burglars or stalkers in their lives.



There's your "rock and a hard place".

[Banana]

InactionMan, I'm under the impression that US's standard is actually more strict than Canada. Looking at wiki again, it's simply saying that Canadian law is more interested in police's actions while US law is concerned with the defendent's intent.

I know of a drug bust coordinated by FBI and Candian Mounties which ultimately arrested a ring in Vancouver BC. It was then decided that they'd be tried under Canadian law because the manner of their arresting would be inadmissible in US law system because Mounties had a police officer pose as a druglord, and created the setting (fancy car, flashy clothing, etc., etc.) and basically offered the opporuntiy to buy drugs and busted after the exchange. Had it was done on US soil, they'd have asserted entrapment as a defense.

Interestingly, UK doesn't consider entrapment as defense at all, and the best you can hope for is a stay in proceeding.

intplby- You're basically that intent doesn't matter. Precedents would disagree with you. After all, mens rea is a important point in criminal law and is essential in proving guilt of a defendent.

Pscates has made a point; you simply can't put a 13 years old girl in place of crime and hope that they'd actually commit the crime. That would be criminal. Furthermore, doing nothing until the crime is actually commited is just equally as bad. Pre-emptive actions in this context, makes sense and as I already have pointed before, if police are careful to ensure that the criminal-to-be has plenty of opportunity to stop and leave (and thus exempting from prosecution) and does not place the poor sod under duress, then the mens rea has been clearly established.

[intlplby]

prevention and good parenting

apparently not only does the government have to create laws to protect ourselves but also create laws that protect our kids because we aren't doing it ourselves

simple fact is that most parents are totally negligent of their kids activities

my problem with allowing pre-emptive approaches is... where does it end? i know this is a slippery slope argument but it's a very valid one.... once this is okay, then what is next thing we are okay with doing to catch potential sexual violators...

it's the same question we are asking ourselves in the pursuit of a war on terror.... do the ends justify the means? and if they do, then do they invalidate the belief system this country was built on, specifically the bill of rights.

if you made parents equally liable if the kid entered into such a situation you'd see a lot more parents actually doing some parenting..... more often then not we are not holding people who have been neglible responsible for what they should or should not have done.... it's the same with corporations and the public interest.... any time an executive makes a decision for the corporation that comes at the expense of the public, they should be help liable criminally

personally i am in the "protecting civil rights > decreased chance of someone becoming a victim of a crime" camp

these are sexual predators that are soliciting a minor and that minor is being consensual, so it's the parents' respoonsibility to intervene IMHO... this is not some case where the kid is taken against his or her will and forcibly violated

[psmith2.0]

Well that's the thing I do touch on above...the girl needs her head examined for even allowing this to proceed. What was she thinking?

Yeah, it gets messy.

You're totally right: a lot of these situations wouldn't be situations if there weren't two willing, "consenting" parties.

I'm sure most young girls would do the right thing and tell the guy to "bug off" (or outright ignore his online advances).

But there are obviously many out there - lonely, warped, confused, immature, attention-craving, curious, etc. - who'd see some dipshit older guy online as her "white knight". And they act on some bad impulses because of it all.



Yes...unlike outright rape and the like, it does indeed take two to tango in these situations. The victim doesn't see herself that way, and is just "making a friend" or "exploring her sexuality" or whatever. But paired with the kinds of guys lurking around out there, that's just going to be a bad mix, no matter what.

And when there are invites and agreed-upon meetings...someone's not watching over their kids like they should be doing. You're right.

And that's a whole other horrible, messy topic in itself.

[intlplby]

doesn't mens rea require concurrence with actus reus for a crime to be committed.... in this case the external circumstance of the case is there is no victim.... so even though you can prove mens rea, you cannot get actus reus

[Banana]

In most cases, yes, actus reus and mens rea go hand in hand. There, however, are exceptions. I'll have to look it up later.

I do agree that parents should be responsible for their children's activities, and wouldn't really have much of a problem making them liable for negligence, especially during pre-teens years, which is probably the most vulnerable period of anyone's life. Even then, I don't really see any means of letting the pervs off the hook.

[InactionMan]

According to this site, it's entrapment in Canada if:

The authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry; or v Having a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, the police go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.

I don't really think either the U.S. or Canadian definition are more strict, they just focus on different aspects of the act.

As far as preemptive actions go, it would be ideal if police could protect potential victims without infringing on anyone's rights. I don't know how feasible that notion is. I know that notion has come up a lot lately in Canada due to a rash of murders involving spouses. Essentially, a lot of woman are filing complaints with the cops saying that they're afraid their spouse will kill them and the police can't take any actions because no crime has been committed. But once they've been murdered it doesn't really matter what kind of action the cops take. It's generally an impossible situation.

[psmith2.0]

Exactly. Those situations do occur (I mention it above).

You can get your restraining orders and make all the effort in the world to "go by the book" (as a victim of a stalker or repeat break-ins or threatening behavior). But the police really can't do much until a crime has been committed...and in some of these cases, it winds up being the ultimate crime - murder - and suddenly all this theory and adherence to principles seems a bit too little/too late (not that I'm suggesting we toss all that out, mind you...but I do believe behavior, words, previous actions, the willingness shown by some to take their bad behavior to the next level, etc. all need to factor in somehow).

I believe that a lot of bad things that have happened to good people could've - and should've - been prevented. But we tripped over our procedures, principles and paperwork a bit too much (and no, I'm not Dirty Harry either...I'm just saying).



Some sensible middle ground, that takes the real world and how some people act into account, would be nice in some of these cases.

I can't think of a worse situation to be than that of a battered wife or the victim of a crazed, fixated stalker who has repeatedly threatened and taunted you. Does anyone really think a piece of paper from a judge is going to mean much to some deranged whackjob? Probably not in many cases. Especially if they're the type who is planning on "going out in a blaze of glory" when they finally follow through on their threats (kill their victim, and then themselves)...they're harboring a true "nothing to lose" outlook.

It certainly happens.

That would be terrifying..."ma'am, we can't do anything...he's broken no laws. Yet. Call us when you're dead."



Gee, thanks...

This very thing happened to a friend of a friend of a friend (someone I didn't know personally, and was 2-3 circles removed from, but we had some mutual friends) several years ago...late 90's, when I was living in Nashville. About 29 years old and she wound up shot by her ex, after living in fear for just under a year. He told her what he would do to her, she followed the rules and went the "restraining order" route, etc. The guy would apparently do just enough to keep her living scared and uneasy, but never anything he could get in serious trouble for. Struck me as unfair, after the fact. They couldn't touch him, but anyone with a bit of common sense and half a brain knew what was coming, surely.

Yeah, she's still dead.

[Banana]

Inactionman, fair enough. The article about that drug bust left a impression that Canadian can easily entrap where FBI couldn't, but yes you're right- that'd be comparing apples with oranges.

Pscates- Wow, that's quite nasty. I mean, living scared and being told that there's nothing to be done... That's no life, and almost worse than dying itself...

No matter what police does after the fact, it'll be just that; too little, too late.

I can understand intlplby's and InactionMan's issues with preemptive actions which may impact our civil rights; I guess that I do feel that it is an acceptable sacrifice, and I don't feel it's a slippery slope as long that entrapment is defined as police creating an opportunity that doesn't exist in real world and may have coerced the potential victim into it. There's a litmus test for entrapment and it can be measured, so I'm okay with that. After all, it all comes to this: You won't get in trouble if you don't seek it out.

[alcimedes]

It's always interesting for me to read people's suggestions for catching the guilty/bad etc., because in almost every case there's an assumption that the changes would be used for good.

What you really should be asking yourself is "Would I feel comfortable with someone having those powers who is completely morally corrupt and self-centered, and who's on a constant quest for more power and clout?"

Because at the end of the day, even if the person using those powers today is trustworthy, eventually some shit head is going to be in a position of power, and they will use and abuse everything they can get their hands on to protect their position and power.

You want to be sure that the tools you craft today to catch the guilty can't be misused to abuse the innocent.

This is an instance of where asking the question "What's the worst that could happen?" is actually valid.

[kretara]

Something to think on.

For a very long time it was perfectly OK for an older man to have a young (teenage) wife.

Not too long ago here in the US, it was commonplace to find a 20-something man (or even older) marrying a young teen girl. There was no (or at least, little) problem with this in society.

My Great Grandmother was 14 when she married her 22 year old husband back in the late 30's. No one threw a fit about this.

What exactly is wrong with a young to mid teen girl having a relationship with an older man?

Now, I have 2 girls and I would not want them to have such a relationship nor am I interested in bopping a teenager. I am asking these questions as a form of enlightenment.

Why is it now such a horrible offense for an older man to have a relationship with a teenage girl?
Is it because we are now living longer and don't need to have as large of a family to survive?
Is it because we (society) are forcing girls to stay childlike (preteen) for a much longer time (into their late teens)?
Is it the fall of western society?

Finally.
If it was a 15 yo boy who bopped a 35yo woman (all consensual), is there still problem?

[psmith2.0]

I think all those recent "sexy 20/30-something teachers banging young male students" stories answers your last question. Apparently so it's "still a problem"...they're throwing the women in jail (and they're losing their jobs).

As for your other questions, I don't know.

My grandmother was also quite young when she got married. That's how it went back then...1930's Appalachia and all. You got married at six, had 6-12 kids by the time you were 12, worked in the coal mines for 155 years 26 hours a day, played the fiddle or dulcimer when you could, etc.



I guess now more of an importance is placed on growing up, staying in school, continuing in school and then...

I don't know the specific "why" and "why not", but even you yourself say you wouldn't want it for your daughters (nor are you interested in going that route yourself), so there must be something.

Maybe the purely sexual nature of this? Older, creepy man and younger, supposedly "innocent" barely-teen girl...meeting solely for knocking it out. Just rubs people wrong, I guess, in these enlightened, advanced times?

I don't know. But there are laws saying I can't do this or that with someone under a certain age. So guess what? I don't!

Pretty much ensures that I won't get caught up in all this, or that any of you are going to see me on "Dateline NBC" doing the red-faced, "I'm a demented, loser perv who can't get anyone my own age" perp walk.

I'm not looking to become a martyr for this particular cause (not that I'd want to anyway).



Some guys, however, simply can't keep it in their pants and don't think twice about it. Obviously. It's why they're sitting in a cell as we speak. Or why their wives have thrown them and all their belongings into the yard.



"Can't you just have a normal affair like everyone else, and just bang your secretary? Oh no...you gotta go looking for 13-year-old tail AND get nailed doing it on TV for everyone to see. Thanks a lot, ass! The kids and my folks couldn't be more proud! You'll be hearing from my lawyer...".

[kretara]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I don't know the specific "why" and "why not", but even you yourself say you wouldn't want it for your daughters (nor are you interested in going that route yourself), so there must be something.

Yeah, I know that I would not be happy with this but I don't quite know why. Is it because I have been conditioned to think like this? Or what? I don't know.

At the animal level there is nothing wrong with this. At a human survival level there is nothing wrong with it either. Is it over reaction by society that began with the pedophile witch hunts (that still go on to this day) during the Fells Acres case in Mass (which was a complete sham and an excellent example of what a witch hunt mentality can do to the justice system). Is it the purtinatical mindset that has been forcing its way across America.

In high school I knew a girl (14) who started a sexual relationship with a 60yo guy. It was all consensual and to this day the woman has no ill feelings about it and has been in a very stable relationship (different guy) for 15 years.

It would be nice to get a few posts from the women of the forum about stuff like this.

Sorry, just trying to think through my own thoughts and feelings on this issue.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by alcimedes What you really should be asking yourself is "Would I feel comfortable with someone having those powers who is completely morally corrupt and self-centered, and who's on a constant quest for more power and clout?"

Very good question! We indeed have no guarantee at all whether our police is honest, honorable and all that stuff; who will police the police. Now, the thing is, if a police wanted to raise his "quota" for bragging rights or maybe is a bit overzealous in memory of his dear mother who was gangbanged by 1,000 KKK bikers, the basic premise is that he'd have to somehow offer an opportunity that doesn't exist and thus induce false positives. If we required a full record of every contacts between the victim and police, then it'd be hard for the zealous police to entice a victim unwittingly or unwillingly without it being in the transcription. Furthermore, the police can't just send 1,000 nude pics or go trolling (as in fishing, not as in internet trolling, mind you) for a AIM'er who's male and 40 something without this being on the record. It could be circumvented by him doing "extra time" at his home on his ficitious screenname that wasn't created by the department then "referring" to his narcing screenname. But that's probably one time; when victims get arrested and scream that they had conversations with two screennames, Internal Affairs is going to get a bit supicious. All in all, I do think that entrapment is objective and measurable, so even any eager bagder-ery on police's part will inevitably backfire in their face and they'll have to mind their P's and Q's to actually be successful in convicting anyone at all.

Edit: Oh forgot one more thing.

That's why I talked about redeeming value earlier. To me, it is practically impossible to create a situation where someone may steal without any false positive. That is because stealing can be motivated in name of survival, and even in name of power or respect or reputation. Therefore, it would be much more difficult to not entrap a middle level manager into embezzling his company funds with promise of prestige, power, or simply more money *and* knowing that the manager would have had done so without the contact with the police. With pedophilia, that value is absent. The decision to engage or not engage in any kind of sexual activity can very well vary with everyone, ranging from celibate for life to promicious wife swapper, and is made irrespective of power, money or fame that may be gained or lost. The only unifying factor for this kind of behavior is self-gratification, and nothing else. Therefore, there aren't really any obligations on anyone to participate in illict sex in same sense as obligation on anyone to steal to live another day. Therefore, entrapment for pedophilia is much much more difficult when compared with entrapment for casual shoplifting or even grand auto theft.

Originally Posted by kretara Why is it now such a horrible offense for an older man to have a relationship with a teenage girl? Is it because we are now living longer and don't need to have as large of a family to survive? Is it because we (society) are forcing girls to stay childlike (preteen) for a much longer time (into their late teens)? Is it the fall of western society? Finally. If it was a 15 yo boy who bopped a 35yo woman (all consensual), is there still problem?

While I also don't know whys and why nots, I'd point out that if a man in 1800 was fucking a five year old, he'd be just as sick as a man fucking a 14 year old today or worse. The adverse reaction to pedophilia apparently has always been there; it has only moved up from nine years old to sixteen years old, presumably because our standard of living are so that kids are entitled to longer childhood, and I think that is a good thing. Why rush into adulthood? Why rush at all?

As for boy bopping a older woman... Yes, it should be just as bad, but there's this stupid unspoken assumption that the boy must be a stud and is now a 'man' whereas the same girl is now a 'slut.' It's completely artifical, IMO...

[intlplby]

why do people always assume the guy is some creepy old dude... i'm sure it's almost as likely that it's some hotshot 35 year old wall street banker who is good looking and has a bombshell stripper girlfriend......

people assume these people go after younger girls because that's all they can entice... i would say the attraction these people see arises from the fact that it's forbidden.

kids under 12 shouldn't be on the internet without adult supervision anyways. after they have reached 12 years old, it's gonna be a test of how well you raised them for the first 12 years.

alcimedes point about imagine the worst possible person having this power and that is very real.... if you put this power in the hands of the christian coalition you'd probably have them trying to use it get two consenting gay/lesbian adults in jail, swingers, BDSM people what ever.... right now it's only being used to target one form of sexual "deviation", pedophilia, but what if it starts being used to target other sexual activities the christian right doesn't like.......

i bet you more than half the parents who support these kind of tactics are also the same ones letting their kids watch several hours of MTv a day and dress promiscuously.....

when i was a freshman in HS i saw nothing wrong in wanting to boink the late 20-something hot principal's secretary at my school....heck had i'd been given the opportunity I would have done it.

by the time a kid is 13-14 they know all about sex and many are ready to do it if given the right opportunity.

[Schnauzer]

Originally Posted by intlplby when i was a freshman in HS i saw nothing wrong in wanting to boink the late 20-something hot principal's secretary at my school....heck had i'd been given the opportunity I would have done it.

hahahaha very nice

[intlplby]

see there is no repulsion to an underage guy doing an older chick, because guys won't settle for fat ugly girls so they don't qualify as "creepy"

whereas with girls the way to win them over is with talking.... you can still look creepy and be old and know how to win a girl over with words

[InactionMan]

While an older person dating a teen may be labeled creepy in Canada it would be completely legal as our ago of consent is 14. As far as I know it's a relic of an older time when people married much younger and it's never been updated and likely never will. Though there is a need to address the fact that the age of consent for anal sex between unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, is 18. Gay activists argue that this essentially criminalizes their relationships. It doesn't.

Anyway, I still throw the creepy label on any older person that was shacking up with a 14 year old.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by intlplby see there is no repulsion to an underage guy doing an older chick, because guys won't settle for fat ugly girls so they don't qualify as "creepy"

a) I think there was plenty of "repulsion" at some of these teacher/student hookups. "Hot" or not, it was wrong. "Morning zoo" radio DJs, hack standup comics and the like might have a field day with it, but it's still wrong and people got into some big trouble over it. It's an easy joke to make, but it doesn't cancel out what happened.

b) I think you're talking about two different things here: a 21-year-old guy dating a 46-year-old woman is not in the same ballpark as a 38-year-old guy looking to "date" (and God knows what else) a 13-year-old girl.

You can't go around - online or real life - propositioning and seeking to nail underage teens and kids. Sorry. And you don't e-mail them JPEGs of your wang or ask them what their favorite positions are either. These were all things I saw being done the other evening.



Whether we like it or not, there are legal issues involved, based on age. There are cut-offs and limits and thresholds. I didn't write them, but they're there. If some folks find that antiquated and oppressive or whatever...tough. Work to get them changed if you feel strongly about it, but, until then, we work within what we have.

Originally Posted by intlplby whereas with girls the way to win them over is with talking.... you can still look creepy and be old and know how to win a girl over with words

You're assuming quite a bit, and making some blanket statements that might not hold up. I'd be interested in what Carol, Freewell and other 'Nova females think about this.



It's my experience that you're completely wrong and full of shit on that statement. Goodness knows I've tried (not that I'm that old and creepy, mind you)...

[intlplby]

i was trying to put some lighthearted humor in this thread... i see i failed

oh how i wish we had a point d'ironie like in french

[psmith2.0]

No, you didn't. I'm just saying...

My ending was lighthearted.

Relax a bit, won't you?



Can't help you on that French thing. Sorry.



I made my "morning radio" comment because, sure enough, just this morning I was flipping around and these two clowns were talking about that blonde teacher that's been on the news so much. It was just silly, and they weren't even funny or saying anything that hadn't been said or joked about 10,000 times.

I remember being in the car and saying to myself "how do these numbnuts have this job?"

[709]

I can't watch those shows anymore. The first one was kind of interesting, but after there were so many that they started labeling them with roman numerals...well...it was just too much. Chris Hansen has pretty much sealed his fate with this series...I don't think he could ever do any 'real' news reporting again after this.

This is great fun though.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, that's funny. He reads those chat transcripts with such furrowed-brow, Batman-voiced sincerity and intensity (with the creepy, ominous music in the background).

"We can't touch on some of the more explicit passages...", then he'll go right and do it anyway.



"Mmmm, I want to lick your...".



He's kinda got a strange Bob Costas or Greg Kinnear vibe about him, almost as though he's too breezy and light to be doing this (or somehow finds a bit too much enjoyment in it). And he smirks a lot, worse than that other guy on that cop/criminals show. That's very off-putting.

And I gotta be honest here: I simply can't trust, or take very seriously, a man - after a certain age and in certain professions - with frosted/tipped hair. Sorry, I just can't make that leap. Chris Hansen, Chuck Woolery, that guy on CNBC with the flecked pompadour that apparently no one's told him about, etc.



...and don't even get me started on Ryan Seacrest.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by intlplby attempted murder and attempted burglary has a victim.... the person that the person tried to murder or tried to steal from pretending to be an underage girl then there is no victim... unless they use a real girl, there is no victim. and if they did, then the cops and the parents would be just as liable for putting an underage girl in such a position. if there is no victim then the police fabricated a crime and waited for a person to commit it. "defending lawyer: did the defendent solicit a minor for sex?" "prosecutor: yes" "defending lawyer: Can you please point out that minor in this court room?" no minor is in the court room, thus no crime was commited regardless of the intent. another difference between this and drug posession is that drug posession is a victimless crime.... soliciting a minor for sex isn't a victimless crime...

Here is my belated reply. Better late than never, I suppose.

As I said, actus reus and mens rea usually go hand in hand when discussing a criminal law, but there are exceptions. If you look at strict liablity, you can see that mens rea is irrelevent in such situation; a man is still guilty of statutory rape even if his partner had lied about her age. On the other hand, there's mens rea-only situation that can be prosecuted. A example would be calling in a bomb threat and subsequently getting caught. Even though nobody were hurt and there was no actual bomb, the act of reporting a threat is sufficient to get the book thrown at the caller. This remains true even if there is no specific victims.

Therefore, if they can be arrested for simply calling in a bomb threat where there is none, it's not much of a step to say that we can go and arrest those who made a date with police officiers imposing as underage minors.

[intlplby]

so i was watching a BBC documentary about sexual fantasies where a survey was done of 13,000 britons from all walks of life and 6% of those surveyed had fantasied about sex with a minor (under 16)

so if you extrapolate that to represent everyone you come in contact with that means that you are probably going to meet several people per DAY that have the same fantasy as the men who actually act it out and get caught on this program.

it's actually a pretty fascinating documentary

[billybobsky]

those are the ones that admitted it...

[intlplby]

so then the number is higher than 6% which still serves to reinforce the point that this is not a fantasy that is as rare as people would like to believe

[Banana]

Okay.

Let's go and poll everyone if they have fantasized about murdering someone.

Chances are it that you'd get much more higher ayes disapproritate to the actual murder rate.

It's one thing to fantasize in questionable endevaor, entirely another matter to actually engage in it.