There's something I don't understand about this show. The perpetrator sends pictures of his privates to an undercover police officer he thinks is a minor. Then he arrives at the house, intending to have sex with a minor.
But at no point is there any real minor. So how has any crime been committed?
Is it merely his intention, even if no minor exists?
If this is the case, then imagine this scenario:
A man with poor vision sees an old lady walking down the street. He comes up to her, thinking she is a child, and sexually propositions her.
Is he then guilty of sexual assault on a minor, even if there was no minor because, for whatever reason, the perpetrator was misinformed?
I find this mysterious!
I can understand when there's an actual minor in the mix somewhere. But when it's just a bunch of misled adults, how can they be guilty of child abuse? There was no child!
2007-05-18 07:49:10 · 24 answers · asked by Zowzooma, the Angry Deity 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
They're not charged with child abuse. Basically they are charged with a form of solicitation. And yes if they think they are sending it to a minor, then it doesn't matter if the person who receives the pictures are actually children.
2007-05-18 07:52:54 · answer #1 · answered by rockhoundguide 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The use of undercover and confidential informants has been widely and broadly allowed under the US and State Constitutions, and "To Catch a Predator" works essentially the same way.
The crime these guys are committing is "Solicitation of a Minor for a Sexual Act" (or other state equivalent). That requires you ask, encourage or coerce someone KNOWN TO YOU to be a minor into sexually explicit conversation or behavior. Whether they are actually a minor doesn't matter - you thought they were, intended to have sex with them and took a substantial step toward that end by 1. sexually explicit conversation, photos, etc; 2. planning the meeting; 3. going to their house.
All of those things indicate INTENT to have sex with a minor which would satisfy the charge of attempted ___(child molesting, rape, sexual assault - whatever). Or since most states now have laws making it a crime to even talk about sex on the net w/ a child, your technicality won't fly.
2007-05-18 08:32:54 · answer #2 · answered by Rachel M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's ENTRAPMENT and nothing less than. I wonder what would happen if the "perp" turned out to be another undercover scumbag trying to catch a 13 year old hooker selling her a** over the internet. Yes, there are such liitle nymphets out there. And the cops know this , so why aren't they arresting these little whores and their crackhead mommies and daddies? If a 35 year old man thinks he's talking to an 18 year old who turns out to be 13, where's the crime? This show is all about exposing alleged ( not convicted) child molesters, and not about justice. Criminal intent covers a broad spectrum. How can anyone possibly know what goes through the mind of another? It's just another way for the cops to make people think they are doing the public a service, when the truth is that they are wasting taxpayers' money and ruining innocent lives. But then again, isn't that what being a pig is all about?
2007-05-18 08:36:30 · answer #3 · answered by Arsobia64 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it's a grey area myself. However, the reason is because the it is the intent of the suspect to have realtions with someone they know is a minor. Although there is no minor or even any intercourse, the fact that they pursue a relationship is grounds enough.
I've wondered myself how this doesn't fall under entrapment. I'd be curious to know who actually initated the idea of the two of them meeting. If it were the adult, that's one thing, but how much does the "minor" lead them into making an offer?
2007-05-18 07:55:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
From the Perverted Justice website:
"Let's put it in terms we can all agree with. If I go to what I think is a hitman to order a murder of my wife, I've committed a crime. Even if that "hitman" is an undercover person posing as one for the purposes of catching people conspiring to murder. No one on this planet says "Well hey! How could there be a crime! There was no actual hitman!" If a defense attorney tried that tactic in court to defend someone who solicited for the murder of another person, he would be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone believe there needs to be an "actual minor" when it comes to solicitation? All that needs to exist is the record that the solicitor was informed that the person was a minor. After that, conspiring to have sexual relations with a minor is applicable. Just as the charge is the same for a person conspiring to murder with a "fake" or "real" hitman, the charge is philosophically the same for conspiring to have sex with a "fake" or "real" minor."
Also, EVERY case goes like this:
Perv sees 12 year old online. Perv messages them talking dirty. Perv confirms that the kid is 12. Perv confirms that they are an adult. PERV CONTINUES TALKING DIRTY. Perv grooms the kid for future sex. Perv arranges to visit them for sex. Perv goes to meet them EXPECTING TO HAVE SEX WITH A CHILD.
SOMETIMES there is no kid and they get arrested. ALL THE OTHER TIMES THEY HAVE SEX WITH A CHILD.
2007-05-18 10:13:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The crime is soliciting an underage person for sex-- they are going to the house with the intention of having sex with a minor, and the transcripts are the evidence of their intention.
If I go into a store with the intent of stealing something, but they end up not having whatever it was I wanted to steal, I could still be charged with burglary-- it's all about intent.
2007-05-18 08:00:50 · answer #6 · answered by Bogart 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the only area they decides their fate is they turn on the web cam and show private parts or send XXX photos to whom they think is a minor for that is where their interest are. The show host comes across as acting as if he is the police not telling anyone about their right to remain silent and seems to send them on their way thinking the matter is resolved. Ideally they need a police officer in the house not a host of a tv show acting as if he is a police officer.
2007-05-18 08:03:25 · answer #7 · answered by Zoe 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because that person wants sex with a minor. The person shows intent to have sex with a minor, they want a minor. If the sting people said they were over 18 then the person may not have wanted anything to do with them, but being they said they were underage, the perp was more than happy to try and get to them. Just because you missed the guy with the knife doesnt mean you werent trying to kill them.
2007-05-18 07:54:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The crime they charge these men with is INTENT to commit a sexual act with a minor. There doesn't have to be an actual minor, the criminal only has to think there is and therefore is lured in...
2007-05-18 07:54:01 · answer #9 · answered by arhoden76 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's about intent.
Just like when a police agent poses as a hitman for hire, and the people seeking to kill someone else get arrested for conspiracy to commit murder.
Or when a drug dealer seeks to buy drugs from agents posing as drug sellers. At no time was he going to be sold drugs to distrubute; but he's charge with a crime nevertheless.
The idea here is to get the predator before they mess up a young girl's life, rather than after.
2007-05-18 08:06:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋