Legally Confused ;-)

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Legally Confused ;-)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Legally Confused ;-)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:09:39 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

I'm sure everyone has considered some of the mysteries of the law as it relates to age ... you can be drafted at 18, but can't drink until you are 21 ... you can be tried as an adult even if you are minor, but there is no provision to extend rights as an adult in such cases.

There is a new one that strikes me as strange. Keep in mind as you read this (and before you flame), that I'm pretty much in favor of what they are doing, I'm just not sure how they are getting there, legally.

Has anyone watched Dateline (I think) where a ninteen year old girl gets online pretending she is 15, and sort of "sets up" a meeting with an adult man? When he shows up, the host comes out from behind the curtain, and interviews him, and when he leaves, the cops take him away. On the surface, I'm for getting these guys exposed (so to speak) but something strikes me as odd.

Suppose an adult has sex with a minor, who tells them they are ninteen. If they get caught, the fact that they thought the minor was nineteen, will not protect them under the law, because the minor is in reality a minor. They will face charges.

How can the reverse not apply? If the girl setting up the meeting is nineteen, how can they then arrest the person for trying to set up a meeting with a minor? They didn't try to set up a meeting with a minor, they tried to set up a meeting with a legal person that was lying.

Surely there can't be a law that accuses someone of attempting to set up a meeting with someone pretending to be a minor.

Probably picking nits, but this just strikes me as the wrong way to enforce a good law.

Post #: 1

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:14:59 AM

gooddogbenji

Posts: 5094
Joined: 11/15/2005
From: Toronto
Status: offline

Not sure how the law works, but with pedophilia at its current popularity (and rightfully so) I doubt you will find many people who will argue your point to defend the guys.

Now, my question is, this 19 year old pretends to be 15, but to get on the adult site, she has to claim to be 18. Now, I would assume that this 19 year old, much like in pornos, is actually 27. So what age applies?

Yours,

benji

< Message edited by gooddogbenji -- 10/2/2006 11:20:18 AM >

_____________________________

Prevent global warming. Stop burning patchouli.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 2

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:16:11 AM

janna30

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/27/2006
Status: offline

Adults pretending to be minors is how FBI stings on the Internet are conducted. It's a well-known and widely used practice.

And to your point, the person setting up a meeting is setting it up with someone he believes to be 15. The "minor's" actual age is irrelevant. What's relevant is the intent and the intent is to have sex with a minor.

-J.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 3

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:17:20 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Is there anything illegal about the intent to have sex with a nigerian? Seems to me that would be the sum of the parts..........only intent.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to janna30)

Post #: 4

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:22:10 AM

gooddogbenji

Posts: 5094
Joined: 11/15/2005
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janna30

Adults pretending to be minors is how FBI stings on the Internet are conducted. It's a well-known and widely used practice.

And to your point, the person setting up a meeting is setting it up with someone he believes to be 15. The "minor's" actual age is irrelevant. What's relevant is the intent and the intent is to have sex with a minor.

-J.

But by that explanantion, if I believe someone is over 19, the intent is not there. Especially if I, for example, show up, realize she looks young, and check her ID or what not.

So that defense should hold up in court, to some extent at least.

Yours,

benji

_____________________________

Prevent global warming. Stop burning patchouli.

(in reply to janna30)

Post #: 5

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:24:40 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

But it's still playing both sides of the card.

If a person can be arrested because they "think" they are soliciting a minor ... how can they also arrest someone that "thinks" they are with an adult, who later turns out to be a minor.

Like I said ... I'm for what they are doing ... I just don't like the way they are getting there.

It also just occured to me, that this entire thread may be a huge TOS violation. If so ... I'm sorry Mods.

(in reply to janna30)

Post #: 6

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:27:17 AM

gooddogbenji

Posts: 5094
Joined: 11/15/2005
From: Toronto
Status: offline

I thought so too.

Yours,

benji

Edited for comments which would have gotten me spanked, and not in the good way.

_____________________________

Prevent global warming. Stop burning patchouli.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 7

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:29:00 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

Where is my engagement ring?

Yes, I'll show you my driver's license first.

(in reply to gooddogbenji)

Post #: 8

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:36:06 AM

janna30

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/27/2006
Status: offline

Sigh... if only law was logical... Unfortunately a lot of it is quite contradictory.

-J.

(in reply to gooddogbenji)

Post #: 9

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:37:29 AM

gooddogbenji

Posts: 5094
Joined: 11/15/2005
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Where is my engagement ring?

Yes, I'll show you my driver's license first.

Probably exactly where you left it. I don't even live near you, how the hell would I have gotten it?

And as to the drivers license, any old pic will do.

Yours,

benji

_____________________________

Prevent global warming. Stop burning patchouli.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 10

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:42:06 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

But it's still playing both sides of the card.

If a person can be arrested because they "think" they are soliciting a minor ... how can they also arrest someone that "thinks" they are with an adult, who later turns out to be a minor.

Like I said ... I'm for what they are doing ... I just don't like the way they are getting there.

It also just occured to me, that this entire thread may be a huge TOS violation. If so ... I'm sorry Mods.

caitlyn,
Compare it to any police "sting" operation. The tactic is used all the time in prosecuting drug dealers, prostitutes, and their 'johns'. It's a standard and accepted police tactic, as it; "tell me the truth and we'll see what we can do for you."

It should be noted that contrary to the "Law & Order" shows, most crime is not solved. Most criminal acts are not prosecuted. Most that are prosecuted do not go to trial. Without a confession or a first hand witness it's rare to see a trial, rarer yet to obtain a guilty verdict. Reason number one is that actual big city CSI departments get to work on more than 100 new cases a day. Most small jurisdictions outsource. The real Grissom and his staff don't get to focus on one case.

Police have that in mind. They know without a confession you don't usually go to jail. If that weren't the case after observing the act via TV, the interrogation you see on the Dateline show would be irrelevant. Note too, that many of the people caught get charged for having child porn on their home computers. Others are charged with possession of narcotics, or confessing that they took alcohol to a person who was under 21. Those crime will stick even if a smart lawyer uses the defense you raise. "Intent" to distribute is a crime.

The best tactic under any circumstance with the legal system is to admit nothing and say nothing until you have representation. The more innocent you are the more you should follow that advise. If you are "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty you still have an option but again you need legal representation to make sure the deal is real. Kill 25 guys as a hit-man and you could get off against the overwhelming evidence against you pretty easily. All you have to do is "confess" about someone higher in the food chain. Then you get government housing in San Diego.

In this instance, under strictly pragmatic terms, the men are being prosecuted for their "thoughts" and "expectations" versus experience. However that is the way the law is written.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 11

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 11:51:09 AM

MrrPete

Posts: 614
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

This may help.

Entrapment defined.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

_____________________________

Awrabest,

Mr. Pete

Boycott Citgo

(in reply to gooddogbenji)

Post #: 12

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:05:59 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I'm not sure that the victims of this sting could be prosecuted in Britain since a crime has not taken place and I'm not even sure that if the girl was actually 15 that a case would go ahead since the case is clearly entrapment and there wasn't an initial crime. If this is law enforcement, it is clearly Soviet Russian in still.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 13

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:11:55 PM

toservez

Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline

I do not think that is a double standard, flip side or any other term. To seek out a minor for sex is wrong. (Duh!) To have sex with a person who lied about their age is also wrong. As an adult we carry common sense and wisdom of knowing what is proper and legal. If you are going after someone that young where it is possible they could be lying about there age then there should be effort on that adult to get some proof before acting. I do not think though the punishment should be the same.

I have seen highlights of the Dateline and others who pull this type of sting. I do not have a problem with it but I am curious as how they find these men. Do the men come looking for them or do they come looking for the men. Are the one's posing as sites/chatrooms that are about sex or are they on normal sites for teenagers and the men go after them there? I am not saying that one is OK and the other is not, both are very bad, but I might treat them a little bit different.

(in reply to MrrPete)

Post #: 14

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:20:29 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

I think Caitlyn is the only one not ignoring the glaring problem here: the whole sting operation is a pretense that shouldn't support a conviction. Not because of entrapment, not because there isn't intent, but because the actual factors necessary to satisfy the crime are not present. You need:

1. person of majority age
2. underage person
3. an overt act on the part of the older person to accomplish the crime

What you don't have here is the underage person, hence there can never have been an actual crime. If these cases are being upheld, it's almost tantamount to conviction for thought crime - the whole case is a hypothetical situation with no reality. The elements of the crime are entirely in the suspect's mind.

This kind of imaginary scenario needs to be distinguished from prostitution and drug stings where they do actually have a person that could have been paid for sex and drugs that could have been actually purchased. I happen not to agree with those kinds of sting operations but that's immaterial to my objection to real punishment for entirely imaginary crimes.

[Edit: Meatcleaver gets it. Took a few minutes for me to actually make the post.]

< Message edited by Chaingang -- 10/2/2006 12:22:29 PM >

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to MrrPete)

Post #: 15

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:26:35 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I'm sure everyone has considered some of the mysteries of the law as it relates to age ... you can be drafted at 18, but can't drink until you are 21 ... you can be tried as an adult even if you are minor, but there is no provision to extend rights as an adult in such cases.

ha ha, a foetus can get a beer in a pub in Britain.

Blame the puritans, they left Britain to get away from the drunken debauchery.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 16

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:30:26 PM

toservez

Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

I think Caitlyn is the only one not ignoring the glaring problem here: the whole sting operation is a pretense that shouldn't support a conviction. Not because of entrapment, not because there isn't intent, but because the actual factors necessary to satisfy the crime are not present. You need:

1. person of majority age
2. underage person
3. an overt act on the part of the older person to accomplish the crime

What you don't have here is the underage person, hence there can never have been an actual crime. If these cases are being upheld, it's almost tantamount to conviction for thought crime - the whole case is a hypothetical situation with no reality. The elements of the crime are entirely in the suspect's mind.

This kind of imaginary scenario needs to be distinguished from prostitution and drug stings where they do actually have a person that could have been paid for sex and drugs that could have been actually purchased. I happen not to agree with those kinds of sting operations but that's immaterial to my objection to real punishment for entirely imaginary crimes.

[Edit: Meatcleaver gets it. Took a few minutes for me to actually make the post.]

I am not saying your point is not without merit or to be dismissed, but to me personally, contacting a person you think is underage, discussing sex and physically going someplace to have expressly implied sex is closer to an overt act then one in the mind.

People are arrested for attempted murder by paying someone to kill a person and we are OK with that. What is the big difference between typing on a keyboard to have sex with a minor and contacting an undercover police officer to take out a hit. Is it really all about the money exchange that makes the difference?

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 17

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:42:38 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

What I am saying is that *ALL* of the elements of the crime must be in place to maintain a conviction. I allowed that the overt act existed - there's no argument there. But you can't convict someone of "sex with a minor" or "statutory rape" unless you have an actual minor as one of the facts supporting the elements of the case.

But I am not looking at codes on the subject right now. Maybe the way the code is worded allows for this kind of bullshit.

And hey, I disagree with sex with minors too but I also think there has to be a reasonableness factor. It can't be a witch hunt.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to toservez)

Post #: 18

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:49:55 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Blame the puritans, they left Britain to get away from the drunken debauchery.

Oh, I do blame them - all the fucking time! Americans don't recognize the harm done to them by their Puritan cultural heritage.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 19

RE: Legally Confused ;-) - 10/2/2006 12:56:47 PM

Kedicat

Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline

It's pretty much like the solicitation law stings for adult prostitution.

A cop with no intention of carrying out a sexual act, gets an offer and the one who offers is charged. It's the solicitation, not the act itself.

Of course that particular crime would not have happened without the cop being there pretending to be a hooker. They just take for granted that the person intended to and would have done it.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Legally Confused ;-)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094