[excon]

Hello:

If you made a date online with an adult female who told you that she 13 in order to persuade you to meet her, would you be guilty of a crime?

I don't think you would be.

excon

[Marzapan741]

Technically yea? I mean if your over the age of consent and your making dates with girls you think are 13 then soemthing is wron there. Your not really doing a crime by talking but doing anythign else such as kissing etc, then yea its crime?

Lol. If your over 18 then don't make dates with 13 year old girls.

[Tessy777]

Hello:

If you made a date online with an adult female who told you that she 13 in order to persuade you to meet her, would you be guilty of a crime?

I don't think you would be.

excon

Mr. Excon,

I suppose it would depend on what was discussed online concerning the "date". However, any male or female interested in dating a child, is a pervert and needs serious help.

Tess

[LuvMyMaltipoo]

Are you talking about the group Perverted Justice that works with Dateline on "To Catch a Predator"? I watch that show all the time.

I think it is wrong what they say to these "children" when they arrange this date. I also think its wrong that most of the guys on that show bring condoms, alcohol, etc. to these dates. As for being guilty of a crime, I'm not completely sure. I've never looked into the laws concerning those situations.

I do find myself getting sick to my stomach when I watch that show though.

[excon]

Hello again:

To clarify, I wasn't asking if you thought these were good people, only if you thought they committed a crime.

excon

[Tuscany]

The question is why would adult men want to make a date with a 13 year old child?

Anytime you meet someone online you run the risk of them not being who they say they are.

[Marzapan741]

Listen excon, either way, any male or female over the age of 18(dependign what state you live in) who is willing to date a younger person such as a 13 year odl and do "things" with them does need help.

[Marzapan741]

But this is only my opinion.

[Synnen]

I think excon's point is that LEGALLY, that person did nothing wrong. They were talking to an adult who was pretending to be a child, and was willing to meet that person.

They didn't have sex with a child--the person on the other end of the screen was an adult.

They didn't solicit a child--the person on the other end of the screen was an adult.

Meeting someone in this country is NOT against the law, regardless of age.

Is intent counted? Sure. You can be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder, after all.
Is an attempt to actually seduce an underage child illegal? Sure.

Is meeting an adult who says she's 13 to try to get an adult to meet her okay? I am torn on this. I really think that it's technically entrapment, and these shows should NOT be allowed.

I know we all hate child molesters... but there have to be better ways to catch them.

[Marzapan741]

Haha catch a predetor makes me laugh. But In my first response I kind of said what you said but your right. Only doing soemthing Sexually is considered illegal. And you can't be put in jail if you didn't do anything sexually.

[phillysteakandcheese]

I like watching those "To catch a predator..." shows too, and I think the basis of the arrests are for the "intent" to solicit sex with a minor.

I'm not American, but it seems that in some states that as long as there is evidence of the "intent", the perp can be charged and prosecuted. In other states, it seems like the police are relying on the perp to confess once they are arrested.

[excon]

Hello again, philly:

I agree, intent is an integral part of any crime. However, there was NEVER a child. Therefore, there was never any crime or even the potential for a crime.

Even if one takes into consideration the laws against conspiracy, a crime has to be conspired upon. Since no crime could be committed, conspiring to do it, couldn't also be a crime - at least in my warped sense of the law.

excon

[Lowtax4eva]

Good point, I always wondered what exactly these guys were getting charged with, I think the most they can get them on is sexually explicit chats with minors (or people they thought were minors) other than that I don't see that they have actually committed any crime.

Is the show still on? I heard it was going to get canned after the episode in Texas where one of the suspects committed suicide when the cops tried to grab him.

[phillysteakandcheese]

The perp "believes" the girl is underage, and his intent is to meet that underage girl for sex.

Isn't this the same principle of any sting operation? The perps "believe" the target is what they are portrayed to be?

[excon]

Hello again, Low:

Yeah, I just saw it again last night. It may have been a repeat. I don't know. They are certainly milking it for all its worth.

That is also what prompted my question, because they said that most of these people plead guilty. Of course, that isn't surprising. Most people cop a plea. Plus, you have to consider that these people THINK they committed a crime, just like most everybody else does, so it's not a shock to find out they laid down.

My question, ultimately is for the one guy who asks Chris Hansen on national TV, just exactly how old the girl IS who he WAS talking to. That guy knows he didn't commit a crime, and that guy will win a bundle.

excon

[Emland]

I have heard of this show, but never have never seen it. What are they charged with? I think it is a good idea to flush them out and give the perverts a face, but I don't understand how they are being charged. A similar discussion was made on another show (I think on MSNBC - don't remember!) about alleged pedophiles having "renderings" or drawings of children in sex acts. Their defense was that no real child was used, therefore none were harmed and it didn't technically count as child pornography. I couldn't watch all of it - I started getting nauseated.

[jillianleab]

I remember reading an article about this show a few months back. Apparently they arrest the men, but often are forced to let them go because they have not actually done anything wrong (legally, that is). Sometimes a search of their vehicle will find illegal substances and they are arrested and charged with possession. But from what I recall, the show is a gigantic waste of time because MOST of the men go free. Makes for good ratings though, because people sit at home and say, "Oh good! Got that guy off the street!" Think again...

What I don't get is why the retards allow their face on TV. Seriously, why sign the consent form?

[inthebox]

Hello:

If you made a date online with an adult female who told you that she 13 in order to persuade you to meet her, would you be guilty of a crime?

I don't think you would be.

excon

Agree with Shy's point
Depends on local law {?}

I do not think chatting is illegal [1st amendment] even if the content is detestable.

However, in to "catch a predator", they have transcripts of intent to act illegally, whether the person on the other end is actually a child, and some of these guys drive hours to meet a minor which confirms the intent to do what is on those transcripts.
It is not like they are talking about politics and meet to talk about politics. Right?


What is the alternative? Wait for these guys to actually commit the crime , then arrest them?
Is that even ethical?



Grace and Peace

[Lowtax4eva]

I also wonder how much the person pretending to be underage talks back in these chats and how far they actually go to convince the guys to come to the sting house. I think they should do a Dateline on themselves.

[Lowtax4eva]

Wow, I just spent time reading a message board at some law school, apparently they are being charged with sexual solicitation of a minor and some court has already ruled that it doesn't matter that the actual person they are talking to is an adult.

Below is the post of the outcome of one of the cases

Is there a defense to a charge brought under § 2422(b)?
Yes, but its chance of success is extremely remote given the current state of the law: legal impossibility. This defense is premised on the legal theory that there was no “actual minor” was involved in the indicted offense. This defense has been uniformly rejected by the Federal appellate courts [Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Third circuits]. See, United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The defense has also been rejected in aggravated sexual assault cases brought under Tex.Penal Code § 22.021. See, Chen v. State, 42 S.W.3d 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).
Legal impossibility occurs when the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. See, United States v. Berrigan. 482 F.2d 171, 188 (3d Cir. 1973). The following are examples of legal impossibility recognized by the courts: a person accepts goods he mistakenly believed were stolen; a hunter shoots a stuffed deer believing it to be alive; and a prisoner attempts to smuggle letters out of prison under the mistaken belief the warden has not consented. See, United States v. Tykarsky, supra. 446 F.3d at 465.
A “factual impossibility” is distinguishable from legal impossibility. A classic example of “factual impossibility” occurs “when a person fires a gun at a bed intending to kill another person, but the intended victim is not in the bed; the crime cannot be completed because of extraneous factors beyond the shooter's control.” Id.
Factual impossibility is not a defense, although “the distinction between factual impossibility is elusive at best. Most federal courts have repudiated the distinction or have at least openly questioned its usefulness.” United States v. Farner, supra. 251 F.3d at 512.
A legal impossibility defense under § 2422(b) involving an undercover agent is premised on the theory that there was no “actual minor child” involved in the online conversations with the potential predator. The federal courts have dismissed this theory, pointing to the “attempt” provisions of § 2422(b). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that this “underscore[d] Congress's effort to impose liability regardless of whether the defendant succeeded in the commission of his intended crime.” United States v. Meek, supra, at 718. The Eleventh Circuit said the “attempt” provision indicates the “fact that [the defendant's] crime has not ripened into a completed offense is not obstacle [to a conviction].” United States v. Root, supra, at 1227. The Third Circuit more recently held that “interpreting § 2422(b) to require the involvement of an actual minor would render the attempt provision largely meaningless because, as a practical matter, little exists to differentiate those acts constituting 'enticement' and those constituting 'attempted enticement'. The attempt provision is therefore most naturally read to focus on the subjective intent of the defendant, not the actual age of the victim.” United States v. Tykarsky, supra, at 466-67.


Quote:
The first element of an attempt is the specific intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a child to engage in criminal sexual activity. Id. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed this aspect of the defendant's argument, pointing out:

“ …Nothing in the transcripts support Yost's claim he believed he was communicating with adult women role-playing as minors. Yost repeatedly asked Lyn and Candi to engage in oral sex and sexual intercourse, posted pictures of his genitalia, and made arrangements to meet them. He also arrived at the scheduled time and place to meet Candi. Based on this, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find Yost had the specific intent to persuade, induce, entice or coerce Lynn and Candi to engage in criminal sexual activity.” Id.

The second element of attempt requires that a defendant take a substantial step toward the commission of the underlying offense. The Eleventh Circuit said that “a substantial step can be shown when the defendant's objective acts mark his conduct as criminal and, as a whole, 'strongly corroborate the required culpability' … The evidence at trial shows Yost committed the following objective acts toward Lynn. Yost repeatedly sent sexually-explicit messages and asked if her body was mature, and if she had breasts and a 'nice little bubble butt.' He described how to perform oral sex and asked Lynn to 'suck it.' He posted a picture of his genitalia and asked if she 'wanted it in her mouth,' or 'inside' of her. He called Lynn on the telephone, and, after hearing her voice, made arrangements to meet her so they could engage in sexual activity. These acts, taken as a while, strongly corroborate Yost's culpability and provide clear evidence that his conduct was criminal. Accordingly, we find Yost took a substantial step in an attempt to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce Lynn to engage in criminal sexual activity.” Id. at 819-20 [Internal citation omitted].