On-line predators ....how disturbed are you?- Page 2

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:06pm

So Chita, if someone's 13 year old son or daughter actually was at the keyboard following the instructions of a parent or police, and was physically in the house at the time the man came over you would be OK with it?

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:07pm

Inent can be a criminal action. Get over, or move to another ****ing country where you can sit back and allow all the child rape you want.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:08pm

Out of curiosity, what were these people charged with?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:09pm

I never thought I would say this, but I think zoney is right on this one, chita--it's about intent. It is illegal to meet a kid. It is not illegal to fantasize about anything.

For the record, I'm not a fan of entrapment---especially in terms of things that shouldn't be illegal to begin with (prostitution).

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:09pm

"Inent can be a criminal action. Get over, or move to another ****ing country where you can sit back and allow all the child rape you want."

Now that's a really level headed argument. In order for it to be intent, there would have to BE a 13 year old child.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:10pm

Jerby - I can agree with you on Prostitution.

I say make it legal, tax and regulate it to make sure condoms are used.

Same with Marijuana - make it legal and regulate it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:10pm

I'm sorry, I thought I just read the sentence, "It is illegal to meet a kid."

But there's no way I could have read that.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:12pm

Exactly, you want. And I agree that people shouldn't be having sex in public places, but spending tax dollars to catch them (and only men, one should note--straight public sex is more often given a wrist slap) is a waste of money and discrimination.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:13pm

no namo, there doesn't have to be a kid for there be intent.

intent just has to be there.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:14pm

"In order for it to be intent, there would have to BE a 13 year old child."

mens rea

n : (law) criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal); often at issue in murder trials


Meaning there doesn't HAVE to be a 13-year-old kid. There has to be a belief that there IS a 13-year-old kid and, even believing this, continuing the intention to commit a wrongful act, KNOWING that it's wrong.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 07:14 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:14pm

Namo intent refers to the mental state of the person charged with the crime - the mens rea.

All that matters is that he intended to commit the crime, not whether or not he could have committed the crime.

" EXISTING LAW PROVIDES (1) THAT AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME OCCURS WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME AND TAKES A DIRECT, YET INNEFECTUAL, STEP TOWARD THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, AND, (2) A PERSON WHO IS CONVICTED OF AN ATTEMPTED CRIME GENERALLY RECEIVES ONE-HALF THE PUNISHMENT THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED FOR THE COMPLETED CRIME."


This is California law on intent. I believe this took place in Riverside.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:14pm

I'm so sorry, your highness--It is illegal to meet a kid for sex. I thought given the context of this thread that was implied.

And that's where the question does lie: At what point is the intent established? What distance between the person and the youth establishes intent? What specific action? Can the man meet the kid, but decide not to have sex, and no crime has been committed?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:19pm

You'd sure think so. But at this point the man is going to end up being prosecuted for statutory rape for meeting up with an adult.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:21pm

Is that really what the charge was? Is there any offense in "attempted statutory rape" in the States?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:21pm

Jerby, I think the answer to the last question is the hardest one to answer.

Clearly, at some point, these men could have changed their minds. At what point is it reasonable to believe they cannot or will not, I am not sure. That may be for a jury to decide.


I do not think the charge is the same as if they had actually had sex with the minor.





Updated On: 2/4/06 at 07:21 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:26pm

There's an old expression that has been around forever in the field of social service people who work with ex-offenders. And it is: "Don't start none there won't be none." And what that means is, very often you are working with people who have so many strikes against them because of their records (even though OSTENSIBLY their jail time WAS them paying their debt to society) that they can't find housing or employment or very much of anything to help them get reacclimated to life on the outside.

Don't start none, there won't be none means, it's a really good idea not to leave you wallet open on your desk with your office door unlocked while you go to the rest room.

Now, this is not meant to blame the victim of a crime.

But personally, as a tax paying citizen of the United States, I'd much rather see arrests of people who DO commit crimes than to spend money on setting up elaborate ruses for people who, for all we really know (if we're honest about it in spite of the high emotional stakes this scenario calls up) wouldn't be none if the authorities weren't starting none.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:34pm

from the transcript from the dateline website

"In all, 50 men were booked on a variety of charges involving crimes against children, ranging from felony charges of attempted lewd acts with a child younger than 14 — to sending child pornography."


thats what they were charged with.


ETA "attempting to molest a child,"

there's another crime.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 07:34 PM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:37pm

Thanks, ZONEACE. Well, if the charges were "attempted", jrb's question comes up again - "Can the man meet the kid, but decide not to have sex, and no crime has been committed?" What defines an "attempt"?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:38pm

so this was mainly for some "good" TV and that's it. wow. even more disturbing!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:39pm

It will be for a jury to decide if going to the house, at least one with alchohol in hand, constitutes:

"THAT AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME OCCURS WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME AND TAKES A DIRECT, YET INNEFECTUAL, STEP TOWARD THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME"

And, sorry for the caps, they were in the source document.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:43pm

You know, this coverage is quite popular during Sweeps month.

[KelRel]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:44pm

Namo, I must disagree with you on this one dear. IF the adult initiated the contact with someone with a child's profile online and then suggested and arranged a meeting with the supposed child then they are guilty. When I was younger I would be in chatrooms trying to talk to my friends and I would have people private message me wanted to "cyber" and would try to send nude pictures of themselves and I would not even be talking to them. I have recieved messages via AIM from people that I do not know with the same type solicitations. IF that is what is going on then they ARE predators and they need to be arrested. It might seem unethical, but I really can't be too upset if the predators are contacted by the "child" first. If you say yes then you need help and need to be away from children and not have access to the internet and countless children that are out there without the proper parental observation.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:44pm

Probably not a coincidence that the first Dateline segment was in November.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:45pm

Namo and Chita - I will agree with you on that point.

This is getting sensationalized.

I just cannot figure out why some of these men sit and talk to the reporters after the realize what has happened.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:46pm

YWIW, I was wondering that too! Did you see the Rabbi who got caught in November, sat down to talk with the reporter, and then resigned the day before it aired?

KelRel, I agree - which is why I'm asking again what the M.O. was for this story - who initiated the interaction?