In a pedofile sting, how do they prosecute someone for having bad thoughts?

Question

Those pedofile sting operations, like on TV, they usually use a 30 year old woman or even a man to entice someone by pretending to be a pre-teen. Well, then they get them to come to a place, thinking they are meeting a young girl or boy. Well, if they actually had sex with the 30 year old, it wouldn't be illegal. So, what do they prosecute them for? Does the law say that thinking you might do something wrong is punishable? Are bad thoughts illegal?

I saw a book in the bookstore about sting operations where a 30 year old woman, or even a man, pretends to be a child and entices someone to talk to them. Then, they set up a meeting and arrest the guy. Why is this illegal? If he actually had sex with the 30 yo woman, it would be legal if it was consentual. Is it illegal to have bad thoughts? When I was a kid, I went on a police ride along, and they wanted me to buy liquor as I was underage. But I had to be 18 to do it. If I was actually old enough to buy it, it wouldn't be illegal. So, what do they charge these guys with? Even if they think they are meeting a teenager, they actually are not. Are there any lawyers that can answer this for me?

I agree that these people are bad and should be punished, but that's not my question. My question is under what law do we punish them? Thinking you are doing something wrong is not illegal. Doing something wrong is. If I hate my boss and want to kill him, I can't get in trouble, unless I actually do something.

Answer 1

very good question, and this is actually a truly unsettled area of law. eventually a case will make tis way to the Supreme Court, but in the mean time, a lot of lives are being ruined, and not just the ones on TV.

Answer 2

In 'most' of those TV sting cases, no actual charges are ever actually filed.

You're right in that where the person on the line is really an adult, it's very difficult to prove that any actual crime took place. Where charges have been filed, they've been conspiracy or "intent to commit" type charges.

Also, in a few cases, Dateline actually messed up the sting with their camera crews and cost the cops a case that actually could have been prosecuted.

"Perverted Justice" also got caught faking evidence in at least one case. Early on in the conversation the "child" told the person she was chatting with that she was an adult who liked role-playing as a child and pretending to be a minor in sex chats, and when having real sex. When the guy came to meet her in person for sex, the print-outs of the IM chat they gave the cops had that part of the conversation edited out.

edit... on the Alcohol stings, the law requires a store owner to check ID on anyone who looks like they're under 25 or 30 or whatever the local law says. So it's not that you really were, or were not, underage that was the crime - it was the failure to check your ID.

Richard

Answer 3

This is a really interesting question. Sorry I don't know much about this law, but I can tell you the other two answers are wrong. It is an actual offense to set up a meeting for sex with a minor. I think it is attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child, but I'm unsure. I just know that I'm a prosecutor, and our office has an task force that works only on prosecuting these types of cases.

Answer 4

I would think they got charged with something like "attempted statutory rape" or "attempt to contribute to the delinquency of a minor." If the jurisdiction follows the MPC, attempt requires a substantial step that strongly corroborates the intent to commit the crime. On those shows, the chat logs and the fact the suspects showed up at the house would seem to satisfy the above charges. It would arguably be enough to satisfy the common law dangerous proximity test as well.

Answer 5

They can be charged with importuning and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.

Take a look at this case in Ohio:

http://www.twelfth.courts.state.oh.us/Press/But04063.media.doc


In it, it states:
"Writing an opinion for the court, Presiding Judge William W. Young upheld Lobo's convictions. Judge Young first stated that the Ohio law governing importuning was constitutional and did not vio¬late free speech rights because it did not punish mere thoughts; it only prohibited the conduct of an adult soliciting a minor, or a person the adult thought was a minor, to engage in illegal sexual activity with the adult. Judge Young noted that the harm was in the asking, not the discussion of it. "

Answer 6

They don't prosecute someone for thinking.

They prosecute someone for child sexual abuse.

The jerk who goes online and has a sexual conversation with someone he thinks is 13, 14, etc... is breaking the law just by having the conversation. He thinks he is talking to a minor child.

Then, he actually drives to a place where he thinks and believes that a young child is home alone and he will have sex with her.

Whether the chatter is 15 or 50 is irrelevant. HE believes he is talking to a child and will have sex with a child.

That is called a sexual predator. He is fishing for young girls.....

He is slime and deserves to be put away for life....without parole...they all do.

Answer 7

I THINK YOUR RIGHT ABOUT THAT BUT IT WAS THE TALKING TOTHE YOUNG GIRLS THAT THEY GET YOU FOR but that the same thing as before they had to let alot of them louse and they got out of it because it was a tv set up the cop did not do the talking them at first so they let them go