New York Times article re: paedophiles

riffmongous

The picture is clearly not of a 13 year old though, you can see wrinkles on her forehead and everything.. but still if she explicitly said she was 13 then you don't mess around with these things, especially since the guy already said he'd had an experience of a fake photo

Feisar

With no 13 year old girl how is there a crime?

osarusan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But even being on an 18+ website would nullify any court case.

Nullify a count case?? The guy was convicted on two counts: attempted rape of a child in the second degree, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes, and sentenced to 18 months in prison, and will be on the sex offenders registry for 10 years.

Irishman80

riffmongous wrote: »

The picture is clearly not of a 13 year old though, you can see wrinkles on her forehead and everything.. but still if she explicitly said she was 13 then you don't mess around with these things, especially since the guy already said he'd had an experience of a fake photo

I was beginning to change my view slightly after the discussion here. But once I realised the "girl" told him on 2 separate occasions she was only 13, that is enough for me.

I've no doubt if she was a real 13-year old girl, he would have raped her.

Padraig Mor

Sorry, but this whole 'sting' operation stinks. Girl posts on an adult (requiring certification) site looking for a man. Tells guy she's 13 - his immediate response is "you mean 23?" and she doesn't dispute that. Sends him a pic of an adult. Arrives at the door and an adult (same as pic) opens it.

This is being spun as 'catching a predator' etc yet the articles fleshes out that the vast majority of those caught have no indicative history, nor child porn stored on their devices (including this guy) - basically no indication whatsoever that they are the raging pedos they are being made out to be.

Probably the most important part of the story is this paragraph:
"In a December 2015 email to his superiors, a state police captain, Roger Wilbur, wrote why they should do more stings: “Plea bargains start at 10 years in prison. Compared to other criminal cases that can take a year or longer, may result in a few years in prison, costs hundreds of man-hours and still only result in a single arrest, this is a significant return on investment. Mathematically, it only costs $2,500 per arrest during this operation! Considering the high level of potential offense, there is a meager investment that pays huge dividends.”

These stings (or at least some of them) are seen as a cheap way of getting good 'stats' - and if a few losers get their lives ruined in highly suspect circumstances, well who gives a ****? Reminds me of the highly publicised global witch hunt of pedos a decade or so ago which turned out to have had its evidence manipulated by the (American) detectives involved - this admittedly did catch some 'honest to God' pedos in high profile cases (including Ireland IIRC) but also caught up a number of innocent men, some of whom took their own lives.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

Nullify a count case?? The guy was convicted on two counts: attempted rape of a child in the second degree, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes, and sentenced to 18 months in prison, and will be on the sex offenders registry for 10 years.

Thought this only happened recently?

How can someone sending an adult image and being on an 18+ website NOT be entrapment?

osarusan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Thought this only happened recently?

How can someone sending an adult image and being on an 18+ website NOT be entrapment?

That's what I wondered, but according to the article:

Jurors who serve in Net Nanny cases often express surprise that the defense doesn’t argue entrapment. In fact, an entrapment defense is almost never successful in sting cases, according to Jessica Roth, a professor of criminal law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. In most criminal trials, prosecutors present their version of events, and the defense lawyer tries to poke enough holes in their account to produce reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. But entrapment is an affirmative defense that effectively requires the defendant to admit wrongdoing (“Yes, I wrote those texts that talk about having sex with a 13-year-old”) while at the same time arguing that he was manipulated by the police into doing something he wouldn’t normally do (engage in talk about having sex with a 13-year-old). In entrapment cases, the accused often take the stand to give their side of the story, which rarely works in their favor. “Even the most law-abiding person, subject to cross-examination, can look unreliable,” Roth says. Of the nearly 300 Washington State sting arrests, I was able to find only one case in which an appeals court threw out the charges on grounds of entrapment.

suicide_circus

I have grave reservations about these kinds of entrapment operations...

but then I also have grave reservations about the type of nonce who goes to meet kids off the internet.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have grave reservations about these kinds of entrapment operations...

but then I also have grave reservations about the type of nonce who goes to meet kids off the internet.

Basic rule, you would think, is make sure its a pedophile.

Practice seems to be, just get anyone and worry about that later.

Gerry Hatrick

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nothing new here, the left continues it's spiral by normalising peadophilia - it has been doing this for some time now.

Sorry Hector i'd be very much a conservative but this isn't about left or right this is about sick monsters that nobody on either side of the divide should be defending.

Chris_Heilong

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Basic rule, you would think, is make sure its a pedophile.

Practice seems to be, just get anyone and worry about that later.

Well I am sure when they wrote that they were 13 twice and it did not deter him that is enough, Would you prefer a 'potential pedophile' classification? I think it would open a can of worms if suddenly we accept a spectrum in Pedophilia, A strong no compromise approach is the correct approach IMO.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Well I am sure when they wrote that they were 13 twice and it did not deter him that is enough, Would you prefer a 'potential pedophile' classification? I think it would open a can of worms if suddenly we accept a spectrum in Pedophilia, A strong no compromise approach is the correct approach IMO.

But they DID conpromise themselves. Otherwise, we wouldnt be having this conversation!

riffmongous

Irishman80 wrote: »

I was beginning to change my view slightly after the discussion here. But once I realised the "girl" told him on 2 separate occasions she was only 13, that is enough for me.

I've no doubt if she was a real 13-year old girl, he would have raped her.

Yeah the 2nd occasion is key, cause I think the first one as it's reported as a casual mention that isn't clarified isn't really enough, it legit could have been a typo.. but if it comes up twice any right thinking person is going to have alarm bells ringing.

kowloonkev

From what I've read here about their online interaction, you'd think a sexual predator would have the cunningness to smell a sting operation.

BobbyMalone

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

Sorry Hector i'd be very much a conservative but this isn't about left or right this is about sick monsters that nobody on either side of the divide should be defending.

Some people will always try to force something into a left/right prism. They couldn't give a flying fúck about the issue at hand.