The TV show "To catch a predator" isn't this entrapment ? They normally charge them with attempted lude act -

Question

with a minor ; but there is no minor . Is this prosecution for a thought crime ?

But there is no minor ; these are all adults luring someone in .

Answer 1

Surely you do not propose these bird droppings get off on a technicality? Come on. If this is the worst thing to bother you, I have to wonder about your concern.

Answer 2

First, citizen's cannot entrap other citizen's. The set-up is conducted by citizen's though it maybe argued they are acting as government agents. That would be up to a judge or jury to decide.
Second, the key point in entrapment is where did the criminal thought originate. If the "suspect" is 1st to begin the sexual discussion or to suggest a meeting for a sexual purpose, then the thought is believed to have originated in his mind - thus no entrapment. He starts the process.
I understand the program "teens" do not ever start a chat. They simply put on a profile & wait. They place bait but no criminal ideas. They then wait for the "suspect" to take the bait & negotiate the chat conversation onto a sexual nature.
If this is correct then even if acting as government agents, there is no entrapment. If this is incorrect then the transcripts and/or recordings of calls will verify where the criminal idea started - in the suspect's mind or the bait's mind.
As for the charge, the "suspects" cannot be charged with committing a lewd act since they are arrested before any sexual act takes place - except for whatever they do when they think hot nasty sex is going to happen with some willing teen. BUT by the very nature they come to the house after setting up a sexual meeting with who they perceive or believe to be a minor, it is a strong argument they had the intent to commit the act. They often bring condoms. Hard to argue they came to have a good ol heart to heart prayer meeting. Actually taking an action to fulfill the plan, shows they had intent.
Lastly for me, the "suspects" always have the opportunity for a jury trial. If they believe they are not guilty, let them go to trial & argue their defense to a jury. Let them take their chances. [You will note that all or almost all plead guilty.]

DickW - Your thought process on child pornography has a little merit. It does make some sense to give them a lil something to keep them in line so they don't lose control & actually commit the act.

Two issues with that believf.
First, the problem is the pornography has to be produced. For someone to get child pornography, somewhere a child is sexually abused or used or raped or exploited to produce the pornographic photos. You cannot have the end product until someone produces it. Those photos do not just magically appear & they are usually not just child actors posing to make a living. There are victims for every piece of child pornography.
And THAT is the reason mere possession or downloading is illegal.
There is also an FBI behavior theory that used to be known as Progressive Degeneration. The easiest explanation is that a rapist normally does NOT just go out one day & commit rape. Most all rapists start with much smaller things. It used to be thought a peeping Tom was harmless. The FBI theory is that is just one step in becoming a more dangerous criminal. Much like a very high percentage of heroin addicts started with marijuana, an extremely high percentage of rapists were also peepers at some earlier time in their life. [I am not agreeing or disagreeing that marijuana causes people to go on to become heroin or meth addicts. I believe the key is personality - an addictive personality will become addicted to something in their lifetime.] The theory is that eventually the child pornography will not be enough to satisfy - the subject will come to a time where they need a higher high. They will get to a time where they need to live the act - not vicariousy but actually live it.
You are entitled to your opinion but understand there has been some thought process behind the laws.

Answer 3

It's not entrapment because the legal definition of entrapment is forcing someone to do something they wouldn't normally do.

In this case, the people they catch are on line looking for underage girls. The fact that there is no minor present is irrelevant, because they believe they are talking to a minor and making an effort to meet them for sex. So by definition they aren't being forced to do something that is out of character for them, thus negating entrapment.

The reason they are charged with attempted lude act with a minor is because they believe the person they are talking to is a minor and they are pursuing a sexual relationship. By showing up at the house they have shown their intent.

Lastly, its not a thought crime because they have taken measures to make the event actually happen. By engaging in chat and showing up at the house are actions that show more than thought.

Answer 4

No. It's prosecution for attempt, because the person actually attempts to carry out the crime.

Thought crime is when the person simply thinks about doing something illegal, but doesn't act in any way on that thought.

And it's not entrapment because the TV show is not a govt agency.

Answer 5

In some ways, I agree with Texican. As for the other answers.......can someone tell me what a "thought crime" is?

Yes, it's entrapment. Are there predators, yes. Should, as Americans, allow the use of entrapment. No.

I'm also very opposed to arresting people for downloading child pornography. You and others may think I'm crazy or a pedophile but, sorry, I'm neither. Allow me to explain: Different things get different people off. For example, some people are sexually stimulated by the odor of a skunk! Should they be arrested for bestiality?

As long as they're just looking, it keeps them from doing something really bad. I'd much rather them "look" than actually "do".

Pedophile used to mean someone who loves children much like "queer" used to mean odd or different. Both words have taken on different meanings.

Answer 6

Let's see - 10 out of the 11 communities throughout America welcomed the attention from Dateline NBC and Perverted Justice and appreciated the numerous arrests made. In NJ, even a convicted sex offender was caught for a second time seeking sex from a minor.

On the other hand, one Texas county dropped charges against 22 men because they were angry that the neighboring District Attorney committed suicide rather than exposing his secret to the public. Plus, the Texas county has filed many lawsuits against NBC and Perverted Justice to the tune of $135 Million as they scream bloody entrapment. Why does one Texas county view this as entrapment and the rest of America doesn't, I have no idea. I have a theory....

Just as Gary Condit was linked to Satanists in Modesto, CA, the Dateline NBC probe clearly upset some powerful child sex supporters in a Texas county. Sadly, with the power in Texas, 5 conservative members of the US Supreme Court and Dick Cheney will take the necessary revenge to uphold the Texas DA who bravely took his perverted secret to the grave....

Answer 7

Yes, it's a thought crime and probably entrapment.

Look, predators are the lowest of the low, but we do not have to fabricate non-existent crimes to weed people out and send them to prison.

Here is the ranking of lowly things one can do:

Lowest: Predator
Low: Criminal
Bad: Undercover cops in sting operation
Poor: Cops hiding in speed trap

Answer 8

the "predator"(i couldnt think of another name for the person) believes its a minor there going to meat so i guess thats it