To Catch a Predator.. Question.

[hardcandy1911]

Just curious, if the decoy isnt really the age she says she is, why would the chatlog be in concluded of any sort of evidence if its all imaginary anyways.

You got a 24 year old girl posing as a 13 year old girl, says all kinds of things to make herself look vulnerable to the predator. Then you have the predator in most cases pretending to be 25 when in fact he's 49.

So if Chris Hanson does get a hold of him, the predator could easily lie about the entire conversation since the sting operation has no real "13 year old girl" to prove that chat ever existed anyways.

Am i right bout this or not?

[ben_liu]

You gots a point about this...:idea:

[Snicla]

It's a sting operation. They're not going to endanger the life of little kid, so they pretend they're a 13 year old and basically once the predators come around they're nabbed. Perhaps some of them have prior offenses that would make them not pass GO and not collect their $200.

[Dash]

yea, it's more like they get arrested for attempting to seduce a child. I forgot what it was specifically, but I remember them explaining it on the show.

[hardcandy1911]

It's a sting operation. They're not going to endanger the life of little kid, so they pretend they're a 13 year old and basically once the predators come around they're nabbed. Perhaps some of them have prior offenses that would make them not pass GO and not collect their $200.

Thanks for the quick reply but you completely missed my point. You wouldn't be endangering the life of a 13 year old because their is no 13 year old to begin with. If thats the case, why not use a 13 year old to have conversation with the predator online? you cannot endanger a 13 year over the internet.

And secondly, the sting never had any 13 year old ever anyways, so its a moot point since it doesnt exist, its made up.

[hardcandy1911]

yea, it's more like they get arrested for attempting to seduce a child. I forgot what it was specifically, but I remember them explaining it on the show.

Ok I'll play the devils advocate. Your accusing me of seducing a child? Alright well you have my chat logs right? Thats not me typing that, and if you can prove it, you would need to provide the victim in court to testify.

Oooh wait, i forgot theirs no such thing, it was really a 25 year old girl posing as a 13, what good is that.

[3weddings]

Ok I'll play the devils advocate. Your accusing me of seducing a child? Alright well you have my chat logs right? Thats not me typing that, and if you can prove it, you would need to provide the victim in court to testify.

Oooh wait, i forgot theirs no such thing, it was really a 25 year old girl posing as a 13, what good is that.

but the 49 year old thinks it's a 13 year old and doesn't STOP:evil::evil:

[Snicla]

Ok I'll play the devils advocate. Your accusing me of seducing a child? Alright well you have my chat logs right? Thats not me typing that, and if you can prove it, you would need to provide the victim in court to testify.

Oooh wait, i forgot theirs no such thing, it was really a 25 year old girl posing as a 13, what good is that.

Because you were under the impression you were there to make sweet sweet love to a minor. How do they know that? Because she said she was 13 and you were like, hey no prob! I love young chicks! And they know you weren't there to watch a movie with her because you brought a case of beer and box of condoms.

I'm guessing that the law was designed specifically to protect children from you by any means possible, including entrapment which in this case is waived because there are so many god damn perverts out there.

[heat]

Just curious, if the decoy isnt really the age she says she is, why would the chatlog be in concluded of any sort of evidence if its all imaginary anyways.

You got a 24 year old girl posing as a 13 year old girl, says all kinds of things to make herself look vulnerable to the predator. Then you have the predator in most cases pretending to be 25 when in fact he's 49.

So if Chris Hanson does get a hold of him, the predator could easily lie about the entire conversation since the sting operation has no real "13 year old girl" to prove that chat ever existed anyways.

Am i right bout this or not?

Are you trying to get yourself out of a sticky situation????




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/1630170268_f2fe33ba10.jpg

[darius_m5]

http://hobobucket.com/images/hansen.png

[hardcandy1911]

but the 49 year old thinks it's a 13 year old and doesn't STOP:evil::evil:


Well thinking and doing are two different things. If the predator shows up to the house, and ends up being setup then he didnt commit a crime.

You're half right bout it, but fact is he ended up showing up to a place where no one exists. Its like meeting up someone to sell drugs, but unless money is exchanged no crime has been committed. Intent to seduce a child can only happen when their is hard evidence, and in this case the most important evidence is missing and that is the VICTIM!

[heat]

beat you by some seconds darius M5

[hardcandy1911]

I brought this topic up because after watching the Dateline NBC I found it pretty weak to know afterwards most of the cases were dropped.

Even more surprised to encounter the CTV version and have no cops waiting outside, just let them walk away freely. Which makes my defence even more substantial since it played out the way I thought it would.

[heat]

You got a 24 year old girl posing as a 13 year old girl, says all kinds of things to make herself look vulnerable to the predator. Then you have the predator in most cases pretending to be 25 when in fact he's 49.



http://media.newschoolers.com/uploads/cache/images/1166064853-467386-400x320-jbty8.jpg

[CCCC3333]

The predators probably get charged with something similar to conspiracy, so whether or not a victim actually existed really doesn't matter.

[Kasakato]

Thanks for the quick reply but you completely missed my point. You wouldn't be endangering the life of a 13 year old because their is no 13 year old to begin with. If thats the case, why not use a 13 year old to have conversation with the predator online? you cannot endanger a 13 year over the internet.

And secondly, the sting never had any 13 year old ever anyways, so its a moot point since it doesnt exist, its made up.

The conversations with the decoy are allegedly graphic enough that the show does not allow a 13 year old to be involved. The bait also frequently transmit pictures of, lets say themselves, to the decoy, potentially putting the 13 year old in "danger."

Ok I'll play the devils advocate. Your accusing me of seducing a child? Alright well you have my chat logs right? Thats not me typing that, and if you can prove it, you would need to provide the victim in court to testify.

Oooh wait, i forgot theirs no such thing, it was really a 25 year old girl posing as a 13, what good is that.

The very fact that the decoy thought he/she was communicating with a 13 year old, for the purposes of sex, is illegal. Theres your mens rea.

Questioning the decoy in court would prove it was him communicating with the child, theres your actus rea. The Crown would simply have to ask, "do you recall saying xyz to the 13 year old?" Or more simply, "is this your communication?" to prove their case.

[hardcandy1911]

http://media.newschoolers.com/uploads/cache/images/1166064853-467386-400x320-jbty8.jpg

Well, at least intent and rape are actual two different prison sentences apart.

[Snicla]

I brought this topic up because after watching the Dateline NBC I found it pretty weak to know afterwards most of the cases were dropped.

Even more surprised to encounter the CTV version and have no cops waiting outside, just let them walk away freely. Which makes my defence even more substantial since it played out the way I thought it would.

Yeah, but the shame of being a nationally known perv is forever.

[marcroboy]

I brought this topic up because after watching the Dateline NBC I found it pretty weak to know afterwards most of the cases were dropped.

Even more surprised to encounter the CTV version and have no cops waiting outside, just let them walk away freely. Which makes my defence even more substantial since it played out the way I thought it would.

That's the way all reality shows work, things are always different that what you have expected from TV.

That's the reason I never watch any reality shows.,I watch Dateline purely for the lol factors.

[Dash]

Ok I'll play the devils advocate. Your accusing me of seducing a child? Alright well you have my chat logs right? Thats not me typing that, and if you can prove it, you would need to provide the victim in court to testify.

Oooh wait, i forgot theirs no such thing, it was really a 25 year old girl posing as a 13, what good is that.

if your friend was the one chatting why are you the one showing up to the house? And though in reality it's a 25 year old, you were expecting a 13 year old. you would have to provide proof that you knew it was a 25 year old the whole time.

I also noticed that they only do these specials in certain cities, where there are 0 tolerance sort of laws, and even the mere act of trying to arrange a meeting with someone who they think was underage with the act of having a sexual encounter with them was a chargeable offence.

[Kasakato]

Because you were under the impression you were there to make sweet sweet love to a minor. How do they know that? Because she said she was 13 and you were like, hey no prob! I love young chicks! And they know you weren't there to watch a movie with her because you brought a case of beer and box of condoms.

I'm guessing that the law was designed specifically to protect children from you by any means possible, including entrapment which in this case is waived because there are so many god damn perverts out there.

Entrapment would require a police officer to prompt the meeting. NBC and whoever they partner with are civil organizations. The police are only involved after the fact, making a defense of entrapment impossible.

[Snicla]

Entrapment would require a police officer to prompt the meeting. NBC and whoever they partner with are civil organizations. The police are only involved after the fact, making a defense of entrapment impossible.

That makes sense.

[Dash]

some further reading found on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator

During interviews, suspects often claim to not have any idea how old the supposed minor is, even when confronted by Hansen with chat logs showing the decoy clearly identifying him or herself as a minor. In many jurisdictions, online solicitation with the belief that the other person is a minor is a crime, regardless of whether or not the other person actually is a minor.

The March 2007 issue of Law Enforcement magazine, a publication of Officer.com, addressed the entrapment issue from a law enforcement perspective. "Though defendants raised the entrapment issue in Riverside, a judge's ruling later threw it out. The judge ruled it differs from a police officer presenting a handful of drugs to a subject and asking if he wants to buy some. In this scenario, the person's being invited to make a snap decision. In contrast, driving to a meeting location afforded these Internet offenders plenty of time to change their minds."[11] The article continued:

“ Even so, Perverted Justice plunks precautions in place to thwart the entrapment issue. Volunteers never initiate contact with the person; all communication begins with the offender. Later, contributors never instigate lewd conversations or talks of sexual meetings.

[brunes]

Questioning the decoy in court would prove it was him communicating with the child, theres your actus rea. The Crown would simply have to ask, "do you recall saying xyz to the 13 year old?" Or more simply, "is this your communication?" to prove their case.
Actually, to pove mens rea you would have to prove that the person in conversation actually DID BELIEVE the girl is 13, as in, that the person believed that what was being discussed in the chatroom was actual fact.

If this ever were me, that would be my cut and dry defense. "Er, I assumed she was just 21 and putting on a show, like every does in every other internet chat room in existence.". I would then bring forth a whole phone book full of IRC logs of people lying constantly to prove my point. The very idea that anyone takes anything someone writes in an internet chat room at face value is laughable to me.

[Kasakato]

Actually, to pove mens rea you would have to prove that the person in conversation actually DID BELIEVE the girl is 13, as in, that the person believed that what was being discussed in the chatroom was actual fact.

If this ever were me, that would be my cut and dry defense. "Er, I assumed she was just 21 and putting on a show, like every does in every other internet chat room in existence.". I would then bring forth a whole phone book full of IRC logs of people lying constantly to prove my point. The very idea that anyone takes anything someone writes in an internet chat room at face value is laughable to me.
What about the part where they drive to the location? I would venture to say after driving to the location you have the full intent of having sex with a 13 year old, anything else can be dismissed as willful blindness.

[sexpuppet6000]

For every crime, there has to be a victim.

Who is the victim in this show?

[ullyeus]

What about the part where they drive to the location? I would venture to say after driving to the location you have the full intent of having sex with a 13 year old, anything else can be dismissed as willful blindness.

exactly, they also usually get them to bring something to prove this point and intent, condoms or candy or something

[ullyeus]

For every crime, there has to be a victim.


No there doesn't, there are dozens of examples you could use.

[wisdom_kid]

Wasn't Hard Candy a movie about a pedophile? lol

[Kasakato]

For every crime, there has to be a victim.

Who is the victim in this show?

Legally speaking, yes, there is a victim. The victim would be society. The Crown prosecutes on behalf of society, not the victim as they belong to society.

See: Victimless crime. While its not a legal word and is purely political, crimes where a specific person is not hurt do exist.

[Madchester]

20/20 did a reveal about To Catch A Predator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOgsPglrFdc

Good television, but horrible police and legal procedures. Cowboy justice will never put these pedos behind bars.

[brunes]

What about the part where they drive to the location? I would venture to say after driving to the location you have the full intent of having sex with a 13 year old, anything else can be dismissed as willful blindness.

Again, you are assuming the person thinks that the person is actually 13 years old simply because they said so in an internet chat room.

If I was talking withyou on an internet chat room and I said I was a giant bullfrog and wanted you to come and blow me, and you showed up, does that mean you actually THOUGHT I was a bullfrog, or that I was engaging in some kind of role play?

I am not saying that is what these accused were actually thinking, but IMO that is a perfectly valid defense. The crown has to show that the person was acting with INTENT to have sex WITH a 13 year old. If the defense can cast reasonable doubt that the accused actually believed the girl was 13, then the case is thrown out.

EDIT: I am pretty sure that if you actually researched the outcomes of these cases as well youw ould find most of the accused get off without prison time, likely because they make deals since the prosecutors know they would not win in trial due to this.

[Kasakato]

20/20 did a reveal about To Catch A Predator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOgsPglrFdc

Good television, but horrible police and legal procedures. Cowboy justice will never put these pedos behind bars.

+1, Can't say I agree with Dateline, the DA makes some excellent points.

[Kasakato]

Again, you are assuming the person thinks that the person is actually 13 years old simply because they said so in an internet chat room.

If I was talking withyou on an internet chat room and I said I was a giant bullfrog and wanted you to come and blow me, and you showed up, does that mean you actually THOUGHT I was a bullfrog, or that I was engaging in some kind of role play?

I am not saying that is what these accused were actually thinking, but IMO that is a perfectly valid defense. The crown has to show that the person was acting with INTENT to have sex WITH a 13 year old. If the defense can cast reasonable doubt that the accused actually believed the girl was 13, then the case is thrown out.

EDIT: I am pretty sure that if you actually researched the outcomes of these cases as well youw ould find most of the accused get off without prison time, likely because they make deals since the prosecutors know they would not win in trial due to this.

I am aware charges were dropped in TX, for reasons unknown to me. I assume it had something to do with procedural law not being followed, not necessary involving the issue of intent.

If you were to tell me you were a giant bullfrog, I would likely exit on the grounds of stupidity. If your going to use an analogy, at least make it plausible. A 13 year old in a chart room is entirely plausible, and believable. As the Crown Id come prepared with a book full of chat logs from rooms where a 13 year old claimed to be present. After all, the bait sent pictures of themselves to the 13 year old; would they do the same for a 30 year old?

[chrza]

Thanks for the quick reply but you completely missed my point. You wouldn't be endangering the life of a 13 year old because their is no 13 year old to begin with. If thats the case, why not use a 13 year old to have conversation with the predator online? you cannot endanger a 13 year over the internet.

And secondly, the sting never had any 13 year old ever anyways, so its a moot point since it doesnt exist, its made up.

Well, I don't think it would be a good idea to subject an actual 13-year old to some old sicko saying disgusting things to them.

I see your point, but none the less, they still prove that the predator had the full intent of commiting statutory rape, which I think is serious enough to land them SOME sort of charge, eventhough they didn't actually commit the crime.

Kind of like how some people have been busted for hiring someone to murder say their husband. Then they find out the person they were trying to hire was an undercover cop.

[sexpuppet6000]

No there doesn't, there are dozens of examples you could use.

Use one

[spf1971]

What you would be charged with is intent. It's the same as when you buy "drugs" from cops, they're not really drugs but you think they are and therefore you can be charged.

That being said, there was a case recently in which the person was being charged with luring an underage girl on the internet. He claimed that people lie online all of the time and he didn't believe she actually underage. The court ruled in his favour and he was found not guilty.

[Kasakato]

What you would be charged with is intent. It's the same as when you buy "drugs" from cops, they're not really drugs but you think they are and therefore you can be charged.

That being said, there was a case recently in which the person was being charged with luring an underage girl on the internet. He claimed that people lie online all of the time and he didn't believe she actually underage. The court ruled in his favour and he was found not guilty.
Theres no such thing as "intent to lure a child online." In the US it appears the simple act of conspiring to lure a child is illegal. Do you have a citation on the case?

[spf1971]

Here are a few links but not for the case I mentioned. I could be mistaken, but I though someone was recently found not guilty because they claimed they didn't believe the other person was underage. I couldn't find a link for so I may be mistaken.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/10/22/armstrong-not-guilty.html?ref=rss

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=a987490a-1942-4bb5-baa3-0d91be53e728&k=29800

http://www.mississauganews.com/article/21343

I think that this is a case of the laws trying to keep up with technology. You're never certain who is on he other side of the screen.

[brunes]

What you would be charged with is intent. It's the same as when you buy "drugs" from cops, they're not really drugs but you think they are and therefore you can be charged.

That being said, there was a case recently in which the person was being charged with luring an underage girl on the internet. He claimed that people lie online all of the time and he didn't believe she actually underage. The court ruled in his favour and he was found not guilty.

The big difference here is the intent to buy drugs is cut and dry and proveable. The person is sitting there in front of the cop, the cop is offering drugs, the person gives moneyw itht rhe expectation of rtecieveing them.

In the dateline case it is nowhere near as cut and dry, because of the fact that the person *is not there*. They are just talking online. It is a lot harder to prove the actual intent of the person in this case.

For example lets' go back to the drugs. Say the cops met someone online and said "wanna buy some dope" and arranged a meeting place. Do you think that the person showing up there is enough to convict? HELL NO. The person has to actually be caught trying to acquire the drugs. Otherwise there is all kinds of legal loopholes (oh, I was thinking about buying the drugs, but after I got there I changed my mind).

All these loopholes apply in this case as well. The laws are not against "intent to solicit", because that is not provable, or enforceable, or even lawful (if that were a law then the state has effectively become thought police, which runs contrary to the constitution).

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

-
Can you guys imagine how many of these pedophiles actually met real girls and got lucky? Half of them later claimed they had visited and dated other underaged girls before being caught by NBC.

[ullyeus]

Use one

Legally speaking, yes, there is a victim. The victim would be society. The Crown prosecutes on behalf of society, not the victim as they belong to society.

See: Victimless crime. While its not a legal word and is purely political, crimes where a specific person is not hurt do exist.

The above post should really clarify it for you.

Let's say I sell some shrooms that I grew under my bed to my brother, that would be a crime...but I can't find a victim.

[goJays]

OP is a sick sick man and i'm not even joking.

[hardcandy1911]

OP is a sick sick man and i'm not even joking.

Yet another troll!

[goJays]

i got more posts than u. what is your fascination with pedophiles? trying to protect your own ass? no pun intended

[hardcandy1911]

Fascination? lol

[ah_long]

OP is a sick sick man and i'm not even joking.

i disagree.. the OP is just bringing up a valid point.. it is the people like OP that helps mend the holes in our laws..

i did have one question in my head while watching the episodes though...

like most people have probably said 'don't believe everything you read on the internet'.. when the pedos allegedly lie about their age (39 instead of 60).. how do you know the kid on the other side of the screen is not lying..

people use handles online and they fake their identity, age, location, even gender.. the internet provides a safe haven for some people to fulfill their fantasies.. how do you know the 13 years old is not an old cougar trying to lure a guy??

while i don't agree with people messing with underage girls.. i somehow disagree with the methods/tactics that NBC dateline uses.. it somehow encourages some people to step over their line of ethics and commit the crime.. my wild guess is 3/4 of the people were probably sick pedos.. but there could be a possibility where some people just fantasizes, but the provocative conversion that dateline uses attempts to bring their fantasies to real life..

face it.. a lot of people have urges or fantasies.. some people would fantasize about sex with their fd's wives, celebrities, animals, anime characters, people of different race... and in this case, underaged girls..

research shows, if you ask a normal person whether he would commit a crime, he would probably say no.. but if you let that same person know that he could commit a crime and get a jail-free pass or he would never get caught, u know what? they'll probably do it..

dateline does deter some of the potential pedophiles by sending a message thru television; however, it does attempt to create a safe haven to the prospective pedophiles so that they could be trapped.

as opposed to setting up the pedophiles online, wouldn't it be better to educate the underaged kids? or provide proper counseling for for the soon-to-be pedophiles?

again, i'm not siding with the pedophiles, i'm just trying to put everything into perspective...

[brunes]

i disagree.. the OP is just bringing up a valid point.. it is the people like OP that helps mend the holes in our laws..

i did have one question in my head while watching the episodes though...

like most people have probably said 'don't believe everything you read on the internet'.. when the pedos allegedly lie about their age (39 instead of 60).. how do you know the kid on the other side of the screen is not lying..

people use handles online and they fake their identity, age, location, even gender.. the internet provides a safe haven for some people to fulfill their fantasies.. how do you know the 13 years old is not an old cougar trying to lure a guy??

while i don't agree with people messing with underage girls.. i somehow disagree with the methods/tactics that NBC dateline uses.. it somehow encourages some people to step over their line of ethics and commit the crime.. my wild guess is 3/4 of the people were probably sick pedos.. but there could be a possibility where some people just fantasizes, but the provocative conversion that dateline uses attempts to bring their fantasies to real life..

face it.. a lot of people have urges or fantasies.. some people would fantasize about sex with their fd's wives, celebrities, animals, anime characters, people of different race... and in this case, underaged girls..

research shows, if you ask a normal person whether he would commit a crime, he would probably say no.. but if you let that same person know that he could commit a crime and get a jail-free pass or he would never get caught, u know what? they'll probably do it..

dateline does deter some of the potential pedophiles by sending a message thru television; however, it does attempt to create a safe haven to the prospective pedophiles so that they could be trapped.

as opposed to setting up the pedophiles online, wouldn't it be better to educate the underaged kids? or provide proper counseling for for the soon-to-be pedophiles?

again, i'm not siding with the pedophiles, i'm just trying to put everything into perspective...

+1 I agree too. Whole I find pedophilia revolting, I find the methods used by dateline just as revolting. Entrapment is just a hairs width away from thought policing and 1984 style government. World governments are already moving that way fast enough (look at Great Biritian's surveillance cameras, or Australians nationwide internet censorship attempt), there is no need for private enterprise to be encouraging the trend.

People really need to start reading their history books more and seeing what a really dangerously slippery slope it is to fall into facisim. The Nazis in Germany didn't come into power overnight, it was through a large number of gradual innocent steps, all of which on the surface seem at first to be better for society.

[goJays]

yes fascination: your avatar, your signature, this thread. (without digging)

valid thread?! as posted on page 1, the girl is apart of the sting (age does not matter). do u think they use REAL hookers in sting operations as well?

its like you guys are looking into something that isn't there. furthermore, why protect these scum bags.

[KelvinK]

maybe the goal is to give exposure to the individual pedo so that their sick habits are known to the rest of american (or who else is watching)

imaging not being invited to family functions anymore, having all of your relationships with families and friends shattered, and being seen as a deviant in public, everywhere you go.

the thought of that along with just the CHANCE you might end up with jailtime might be enough "scare tactics" to deter people from engaging in this type of behaviour.. even though it's probably not the right way to do so

so it's possible that the point of this show isn't "to catch a predator" but to deter those who are thinking about committing such acts from actually going through with them.. also they might be trying to prevent these habits from forming in the first place in people.. sort of a "this could happen to you" idea

[CanadianMike]

valid thread?! as posted on page 1, the girl is apart of the sting (age does not matter).
"age does not matter"

???...age seems to be the entire focus of this thread. this issues here have to do with age...
its like you guys are looking into something that isn't there.
a group known as 'perverted justice' (a group of adults) goes online and goes around starting convos with people while CLAIMING to be underage, in an attempt to lure people. some of these people lured by this method get arrested.

mmm...no, i think people are looking at something that IS there ;)
furthermore, why protect these scum bags.
why question any law?

so you're a fan of 'by any means necessary' just by mere assumption? ;)

[dgmorr]

I've always wondered if this is considered entrapment....and I don't know if there are any laws governing that anyway.

[4flava]

I think the key here is that in order for the male to be charged the cops have to prove that his INTENT was to go see and have sexual intercourse with a minor that's why you'll always here them talking about whether he brought condoms(intent for sexual act) and also their chat dialog where he blatantly says that he knows the girl/boy is underage but still wants to carry on. Therefore the charge is based on intent.

[Nikita]

Well thinking and doing are two different things. If the predator shows up to the house, and ends up being setup then he didnt commit a crime.

You're half right bout it, but fact is he ended up showing up to a place where no one exists. Its like meeting up someone to sell drugs, but unless money is exchanged no crime has been committed. Intent to seduce a child can only happen when their is hard evidence, and in this case the most important evidence is missing and that is the VICTIM!

The offence is solicitation of a minor over the internet. Yes, the U.S. has such a law. The only intent required is the intent to solicit a minor, not the intent to actually do anything physically sexual.

Again, you are assuming the person thinks that the person is actually 13 years old simply because they said so in an internet chat room.

If I was talking withyou on an internet chat room and I said I was a giant bullfrog and wanted you to come and blow me, and you showed up, does that mean you actually THOUGHT I was a bullfrog, or that I was engaging in some kind of role play?

I am not saying that is what these accused were actually thinking, but IMO that is a perfectly valid defense. The crown has to show that the person was acting with INTENT to have sex WITH a 13 year old. If the defense can cast reasonable doubt that the accused actually believed the girl was 13, then the case is thrown out.

EDIT: I am pretty sure that if you actually researched the outcomes of these cases as well youw ould find most of the accused get off without prison time, likely because they make deals since the prosecutors know they would not win in trial due to this.

I'm pretty sure if one is stupid enough to take the chance that they are not talking to a real minor, they should be arrested anyway...for stupidity. Seriously, someone online says 'Im a 13-year old girl, you just stay away. The logs will be evidence that you were talking to a minor, rather, soliciting a minor, the burden then shifts to you to prove with evidence that you thought she was lying (and of course the court will think the same thing, why on earth would you take such a stupid chance?). You're going to be the one having to prove a negative and all you've got is your self-serving word. Who do you think the court will believe?


Use one

Pot

What you would be charged with is intent. It's the same as when you buy "drugs" from cops, they're not really drugs but you think they are and therefore you can be charged.

That being said, there was a case recently in which the person was being charged with luring an underage girl on the internet. He claimed that people lie online all of the time and he didn't believe she actually underage. The court ruled in his favour and he was found not guilty.

No the charge is not 'intent', that's an element of all offences that has to be proved. As I said, the charge is soliciting a minor over the internet. And the only intent that has to be proved is intent to solicit a minor.

This really isn't rocket science. The U.S. made a law to make this type of activity illegal. It's not a sexual offence or anything else that I've read people try to fit it into. It doesn't matter if the girl was 13 or 23. HE was soliciting a minor the minute he was told how old she was. If he takes it further and is stupid enough to go to some house to meet her, that's just dramatic license, it isn't even necessary for him to show up to make the charge, that's only done for TV and of course it makes it a lot easier to find and arrest the guy.

[hurtstopee]

on a lighter note...

santa = pedophile :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVqkIb4ed_A&feature=channel_page

[ullyeus]

maybe the goal is to give exposure to the individual pedo so that their sick habits are known to the rest of american (or who else is watching)

imaging not being invited to family functions anymore, having all of your relationships with families and friends shattered, and being seen as a deviant in public, everywhere you go.

the thought of that along with just the CHANCE you might end up with jailtime might be enough "scare tactics" to deter people from engaging in this type of behaviour.. even though it's probably not the right way to do so

so it's possible that the point of this show isn't "to catch a predator" but to deter those who are thinking about committing such acts from actually going through with them.. also they might be trying to prevent these habits from forming in the first place in people.. sort of a "this could happen to you" idea

I'd rather work at solving the problem and rehabilitating people than just trying to deter them by using fear, something that has been proven to not work.

[hardcandy1911]

I just finished watching some more on video.google.com and they showed a few just passing by a few times and spedding off, yet they still catch up to them and arrest them.

I thought you had to go on their property or at least inside the house for it to be a valid arrest? Am I missing something here? How can they claim its intent if all it takes is for the car to show up? With that being said, why not just raid the guys house and arrest him with intent.

[Kasakato]

I just finished watching some more on video.google.com and they showed a few just passing by a few times and spedding off, yet they still catch up to them and arrest them.

I thought you had to go on their property or at least inside the house for it to be a valid arrest? Am I missing something here? How can they claim its intent if all it takes is for the car to show up? With that being said, why not just raid the guys house and arrest him with intent.

Theres no such crime as "intent." Intent is a factor within a crime, proven by mens rea. Although I have not read the specific US law these guys are being charged with, I am aware simple solicitation of a minor for the purposes of sex is illegal. In other words, the crime was already committed online, before they left their house.

[hardcandy1911]

Theres no such crime as "intent." Intent is a factor within a crime, proven by mens rea. Although I have not read the specific US law these guys are being charged with, I am aware simple solicitation of a minor for the purposes of sex is illegal. In other words, the crime was already committed online, before they left their house.

It was stated on some occassion that were some were a "no-show", and they never mentioned anything about going to their house and arresting them, so again if the crime is being committed before the guy leaves the house, why are they waiting for the predator to show up, and why dont they arrest the ones that dont show up?

[Nikita]

I just finished watching some more on video.google.com and they showed a few just passing by a few times and spedding off, yet they still catch up to them and arrest them.

I thought you had to go on their property or at least inside the house for it to be a valid arrest? Am I missing something here? How can they claim its intent if all it takes is for the car to show up? With that being said, why not just raid the guys house and arrest him with intent.

Yes, your missing the my earlier post that already answered that:

The offence is solicitation of a minor over the internet. Yes, the U.S. has such a law. The only intent required is the intent to solicit a minor, not the intent to actually do anything physically sexual.

............................

This really isn't rocket science. The U.S. made a law to make this type of activity illegal. It's not a sexual offence or anything else that I've read people try to fit it into. It doesn't matter if the girl was 13 or 23. HE was soliciting a minor the minute he was told how old she was. If he takes it further and is stupid enough to go to some house to meet her, that's just dramatic license, it isn't even necessary for him to show up to make the charge, that's only done for TV and of course it makes it a lot easier to find and arrest the guy.

Theres no such crime as "intent." Intent is a factor within a crime, proven by mens rea. Although I have not read the specific US law these guys are being charged with, I am aware simple solicitation of a minor for the purposes of sex is illegal. In other words, the crime was already committed online, before they left their house.

Exactly, the crime was committed the moment they solicited a minor online. THAT is the offence. The rest is just television drama and is not at all necessary to the charge.

It was stated on some occassion that were some were a "no-show", and they never mentioned anything about going to their house and arresting them, so again if the crime is being committed before the guy leaves the house, why are they waiting for the predator to show up, and why dont they arrest the ones that dont show up?

As I said, it makes for good tv. It also makes it easier to get the guy. But under the law, the arrest would be a good arrest if they did simply go to the guy's house to effect it. And there have been instances where that has been done, in real life, just not on reality tv (that we know of anyway).

[spf1971]

No the charge is not 'intent', that's an element of all offences that has to be proved. As I said, the charge is soliciting a minor over the internet. And the only intent that has to be proved is intent to solicit a minor.



I meant "intent to solicit a minor" I guess I didn't finish my though. The argument that some of these guys use "I didn't think she was really 13", I guess they were only fantasizing about talking sexually to a 13 year old!!

[Nikita]

I meant "intent to solicit a minor" I guess I didn't finish my though. The argument that some of these guys use "I didn't think she was really 13", I guess they were only fantasizing about talking sexually to a 13 year old!!

I think it's more that they were damned well hoping she really was 13 and fantasizing that they could get away with it...'cuz stuff like that only happens on tv'. Well, surprise surpise, reality tv does happen on tv, it also happens in real life.

[spf1971]

They "claim" they didn't believe that they were 13, as if that would make it better. What's worse is that the argument, "It was only talk" has actually worked in some instances.

[brunes]

No the charge is not 'intent', that's an element of all offences that has to be proved. As I said, the charge is soliciting a minor over the internet. And the only intent that has to be proved is intent to solicit a minor.


These two statements contradict each other.

What is the EXACT wording of the law they are using on Dateline? Is it a) "intent to solicit a minor", or b) "solicit a minor" ?

If it is a), it makes no sense (how can you prove what someone intended to do?) and would be unconstitutional, because it would be thought policing.

If it is b), then I don't see how these people could be charged, since the person who was solicited (the undercover cop online), was not actually a minor!

I don't know where to look for the statue as I don't know if this is a state law or federal.

[deltone]

Well, as the mother of 5 kids (pretty much grown-up) and grandmother of four very young kids, I'm sorry but I really don't give a cr*p about the rights of these perverted sick creeps. It's not a game! I get so sick of all of this dotting of i's and crossing of t's when it comes to this sort of thing.

The bottom line is that these sick perverts think they're going to have sex with a 13 year old and in my books that earns them a ticket to the big house. If I met someone who wanted to have sex with my 5 year old granddaughter, the mere fact that he even thought about it is enough for me to want to see him dead in the ground. These sickos don't deserve any rights as far as I'm concerned.

My mother was a rape victim from the time she was aged 7 until an age that I'm not even sure about because I can't even bear discussing it with her as it is too painful to even imagine, but this sick creep of an uncle did this to her so if I sound a little overly sensitive about this subject, I think I have a right.

Any adult who even thinks about having sex with an under aged child deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars, or better yet, death. If we don't protect our children from these animals (sorry to animals for insulting them) then what good are we as a society.

I fully support trampling on these creeps so-called rights if it gets them off the streets. Oh, and somehow I think that maybe we're feeding some twisted fantasy by even answering the OP on this thread from the looks of his avatar and the signature in his threads. He is probably getting some sick kick out of this topic and discussion.

[edgedamage]

I fully support trampling on these creeps so-called rights if it gets them off the streets. Oh, and somehow I think that maybe we're feeding some twisted fantasy by even answering the OP on this thread from the looks of his avatar and the signature in his threads. He is probably getting some sick kick out of this topic and discussion.

Times 10k!! Anyone with any kind of soul would not glorify anything to do with underage sex. Nice avatar HC.

[hardcandy1911]

Well, as the mother of 5 kids (pretty much grown-up) and grandmother of four very young kids, I'm sorry but I really don't give a cr*p about the rights of these perverted sick creeps. It's not a game! I get so sick of all of this dotting of i's and crossing of t's when it comes to this sort of thing.

The bottom line is that these sick perverts think they're going to have sex with a 13 year old and in my books that earns them a ticket to the big house. If I met someone who wanted to have sex with my 5 year old granddaughter, the mere fact that he even thought about it is enough for me to want to see him dead in the ground. These sickos don't deserve any rights as far as I'm concerned.

My mother was a rape victim from the time she was aged 7 until an age that I'm not even sure about because I can't even bear discussing it with her as it is too painful to even imagine, but this sick creep of an uncle did this to her so if I sound a little overly sensitive about this subject, I think I have a right.

Any adult who even thinks about having sex with an under aged child deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars, or better yet, death. If we don't protect our children from these animals (sorry to animals for insulting them) then what good are we as a society.

I fully support trampling on these creeps so-called rights if it gets them off the streets. Oh, and somehow I think that maybe we're feeding some twisted fantasy by even answering the OP on this thread from the looks of his avatar and the signature in his threads. He is probably getting some sick kick out of this topic and discussion.


Let me just start off by saying that these "perverts" aren't rapists, theirs a big difference between someone who rapes and someone who has urges with younger women. These guys are actually decent human beings in most cases some of them are highly trained cops, engineers, pilots, actors etc. A rapists is more like a violent criminal with no intentions of becoming a different person.

And I feel for your mother but I don't feel for you, because you just made a judgment against me due to the simple fact based on my avatar. You don't know me, and surely its best that you don't because I can tolerate a joke here and there and maybe insults, but a mother and grandmother who reaches out to the grieving sorrow of your mother being raped and then turning around and insulting me, just shows how your so simple minded and could care less about anything.

You need to be more open minded, in some countries girls who are 15 its completely legal, no one gets hurt no jail time. Maybe im getting all wound up over nothing, or maybe its because your comparing your mother being raped to this which isn't even relevant.

Any for anyone who's got doubts about me and my avatar, why dont you guys first watch the movie first before making judgements. Its not as if I was the elite script writer who thought about making this movie, or the producer who helped make it. Im to blame for a feature film with a popular canadian actress in it? Jeesus

[Peckerwood]

I was raped at the age of fifteen by a pedophile who raped small boys while he was a Big Brother.

I still will not give up my rights or the rights of the accused just so others can have some kind of ego stroking session at the hands of the tax payer by means of excess government authority or police abuse.

They who would give up essential Liberty for temporary security deserve neither.

(p.s. The pedo was found guilty in a court of law, by a jury, while he still had the presumption of innocence. To wit, I still do not see any reason to remove the rights of any accused)

[Kasakato]

Let me just start off by saying that these "perverts" aren't rapists, theirs a big difference between someone who rapes and someone who has urges with younger women. These guys are actually decent human beings in most cases some of them are highly trained cops, engineers, pilots, actors etc. A rapists is more like a violent criminal with no intentions of becoming a different person.


If they had fully carried out what they said they would, they would be charged with third degree sexual assault, and would therefore be rapists. The use of "decent human beings" in a thread about people committing "solicitation of a minor for sex" is laughable.

[hardcandy1911]

Bottom line is, if your kid gets in touch with an older man (pedo). Then either the parents are at fault for not teaching them properly or the kid is mentally addicted to chat rooms.

[watching]

Let me just start off by saying that these "perverts" aren't rapists, theirs a big difference between someone who rapes and someone who has urges with younger women. These guys are actually decent human beings in most cases some of them are highly trained cops, engineers, pilots, actors etc. A rapists is more like a violent criminal with no intentions of becoming a different person.

Now that's just twisted. Decent? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[watching]

Bottom line is, if your kid gets in touch with an older man (pedo). Then either the parents are at fault for not teaching them properly or the kid is mentally addicted to chat rooms.

I guess in such a situation you think the "older man" was just being decent? This is sickening.

[hardcandy1911]

I guess in such a situation you think the "older man" was just being decent? This is sickening.

If you believe in god then their is a chance for forgiveness.

[deltone]

Let me just start off by saying that these "perverts" aren't rapists, theirs a big difference between someone who rapes and someone who has urges with younger women. These guys are actually decent human beings in most cases some of them are highly trained cops, engineers, pilots, actors etc. A rapists is more like a violent criminal with no intentions of becoming a different person.

And I feel for your mother but I don't feel for you, because you just made a judgment against me due to the simple fact based on my avatar. You don't know me, and surely its best that you don't because I can tolerate a joke here and there and maybe insults, but a mother and grandmother who reaches out to the grieving sorrow of your mother being raped and then turning around and insulting me, just shows how your so simple minded and could care less about anything.

You need to be more open minded, in some countries girls who are 15 its completely legal, no one gets hurt no jail time. Maybe im getting all wound up over nothing, or maybe its because your comparing your mother being raped to this which isn't even relevant.

Any for anyone who's got doubts about me and my avatar, why dont you guys first watch the movie first before making judgements. Its not as if I was the elite script writer who thought about making this movie, or the producer who helped make it. Im to blame for a feature film with a popular canadian actress in it? Jeesus

Oh give me a break. You post on here with that avatar and that signature line, asking a question about that show about catching these perverts, and pretty much defending these sickos and you question why I would judge you in this manner? First of all, someone else even noticed these things so I wasn't the first to make note of these things. Second of all, whether the movie is good or not, or whether I've seen it or not is irrelevant, as is the fact it has a popular Canadian actress in it. So what? What is your point of starting this thread making excuses for sick perverts?

I live in Canada, and here it's illegal for old creeps to have sex with children so don't even talk to me about what is legal in other countries. Some countries allow circumcision of little girls.........does that make it right? If some countries allowed sex with 3 year olds, would that help to support your argument?

Besides, when it comes to this sort of sick crap, I don't give a darn what the law is. If Canada decided to make it legal for sick creeps to have sex with 5 year olds, it would not change the fact that any sicko who wants to have sex with a child deserves the worst of the worst.

I don't care if a guy is the most kind, generous, charitable, fantastic person that you can think of. If that same person also has an interest in having sex with a child, that sick interest wipes out and goodness he may have in him. There is no room in this world for any adult who would even consider harming and using and abusing a child. Plain and simple. That you would even argue this point makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that you feel comfortable enough to make such an argument scares the bejeezus out of me.

[watching]

If you believe in god then their is a chance for forgiveness.

uhhhh.......so you conduct your life following that philosophy? In other words you do whatever you want, and to hell with anyone else, figuring if you believe in god you'll be forgiven in the end anyway? wtf

[hardcandy1911]

Oh give me a break. You post on here with that avatar and that signature line, asking a question about that show about catching these perverts, and pretty much defending these sickos and you question why I would judge you in this manner? First of all, someone else even noticed these things so I wasn't the first to make note of these things. Second of all, whether the movie is good or not, or whether I've seen it or not is irrelevant, as is the fact it has a popular Canadian actress in it. So what? What is your point of starting this thread making excuses for sick perverts?

I live in Canada, and here it's illegal for old creeps to have sex with children so don't even talk to me about what is legal in other countries. Some countries allow circumcision of little girls.........does that make it right? If some countries allowed sex with 3 year olds, would that help to support your argument?

Besides, when it comes to this sort of sick crap, I don't give a darn what the law is. If Canada decided to make it legal for sick creeps to have sex with 5 year olds, it would not change the fact that any sicko who wants to have sex with a child deserves the worst of the worst.

I don't care if a guy is the most kind, generous, charitable, fantastic person that you can think of. If that same person also has an interest in having sex with a child, that sick interest wipes out and goodness he may have in him. There is no room in this world for any adult who would even consider harming and using and abusing a child. Plain and simple. That you would even argue this point makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that you feel comfortable enough to make such an argument scares the bejeezus out of me.

Welcome to the real world lady not everyone thinks the way you do. Call me what you want, its not like it matters to me your just a computer screen away from me and Im not disagreeing with you, but I dont think they should be punished to the extent of a criminal.

[tng11]

Bottom line is, if your kid gets in touch with an older man (pedo). Then either the parents are at fault for not teaching them properly or the kid is mentally addicted to chat rooms.

Now you're blaming the parents? WTF? :mad:

[hardcandy1911]

uhhhh.......so you conduct your life following that philosophy? In other words you do whatever you want, and to hell with anyone else, figuring if you believe in god you'll be forgiven in the end anyway? wtf

If I thought like that I wouldnt be here typing but rather in jail. Im just saying that these guys need some help and they shouldnt be treated as criminals, thats all im saying. They can recover and get help.


Now you're blaming the parents? WTF?

Uhhhh...yah?

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

Welcome to the real world lady not everyone thinks the way you do. Call me what you want, its not like it matters to me your just a computer screen away from me and Im not disagreeing with you, but I dont think they should be punished to the extent of a criminal.

This lady should realize that canadian morals don't apply to humanity like a blanket, it's not illegal for an adult to marry a 14-year-old girl, here in North America it is, but that doesn't mean that anybody in a 3rd-world country is condemned to Hell for doing it.

The same way that two men marrying each other is completely legal and accepted here in Canada, it is a flagrant violation of morals in Iran or Malaysia, should Toronto gay couples be called "creeps" and "sickos"? I don't think so.