To catch a predator

[richalisoviejo]

The practice has become widespread undercover agents pose as children on Internet chat rooms. When adults strike up online relationships and arrange for sexual liaisons, police are waiting at the rendezvous point with handcuffs and arrest warrants.
But a ruling of a federal court judge in Los Angeles is calling the legality of the tactic into question.

The U.S. District Judge acquitted the man today of using the Internet to try to entice a child into sex. The mans attorney had argued that his client didn’t break federal law because the person his client was accused of enticing wasn’t a minor but a L.A. County deputy pretending to be a minor. The ruling came just minutes after a jury returned a guilty verdict. The defendant, 42, of Mission Hills, had faced a sentence of five to 30 years.

Do you believe a judge like this should be removed from his bench? To release a pedophile because the kid wasn't a kid? He thought he was going to see a kid and we all know what he would have done.

BTW this will be appealed to a higher court.

 

[Isa]

Very sad story Rich. What kind of society are we living in?

 

[Laura]

due to the internet.technology. new laws and wording have to be made..
Like the 12 year old who sends a pic of herself on her cell phone.. to a friend.. wrong and she needs couseling, but a registered sex offender? NO!
something needs to change or more of this is going to happen. People getting let go.. I whole new set of laws need to be made i guess.

 

[richalisoviejo]

The only federal law that I'm aware of that makes enticing a minor a crime is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 2251. Sexual exploitation of children.

(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in . . . any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. . . .

(e) Any individual who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years.

The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to federal prosecutions requires the government to prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Enticement of a minor is an essential element of the crime. The defendant did not entice a minor. Therefore, the government was unable to prove an essential element of the crime charged. Even though the jury convicted the defendant, the defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.

I think the language used in this criminal code is troubling.

When examining the elements of the crime, it is essential that the accused person (defendant), a person at least 18 years of age, use a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication (indecent according to standards of ordinary people) with the (specific) intent to "make it easier" to procure the recipient to engage in/submit to sexual activity with the defendant and the recipient is someone who is under the age of 16 or someone the defendant believes to be under the age of 16.

The government is required to prove all essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is essential that the recipient be someone who is under the age of 16 or someone the defendant believes to be under the age of 16 (even if they are not under the age of 16).

Although there are many potential problems with the statute, the one that stands out the most and is relevant to the topic of this thread is the essential element with respect to the victim of the crime: someone the defendant believes to be under the age of 16.

It is difficult to prove what the defendant may have believed beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute attempts to resolve this difficulty in favor of the government. The statute provides that evidence that the recipient was represented to the sender (defendant) as being under or of a particular age is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the sender believed the recipient to be under or of that age.

It appears that the legislature is attempting to blend some of the concepts that evolved in statutory rape cases to the new "grooming" statute when those concepts cannot be applied in a reasonable and logical manner. This is one law that clearly needs to be revoked and re-written.

This was one long day.

 

[Weloveourtortoise]

Yes, the Judge should be removed. That is so disgusting that anyone would let a pedifile off for any reason should be abused themselves. There was a judge in Springfield, MA a few years ago that notoriously gave light sentences to sex offenders- pedofiles, rapists, and was eventually removed after alot of local protest.

 

[Candy]

Yes, the Judge should be removed. That is so disgusting that anyone would let a pedifile off for any reason should be abused themselves. There was a judge in Springfield, MA a few years ago that notoriously gave light sentences to sex offenders- pedofiles, rapists, and was eventually removed after alot of local protest.

Maybe the judge wants it to go to a higher court.

 

[Laura]

Entrapment,, that is what I was thinking of before.. There will need to be laws to deal with that. People who get caught during the stings,,,, Change the wording or make new laws.. Make it so no matter how they are caught its WRONG!

 

[richalisoviejo]

Entrapment,, that is what I was thinking of before.. There will need to be laws to deal with that. People who get caught during the stings,,,, Change the wording or make new laws.. Make it so no matter how they are caught its WRONG!

It does need changed Laura; we can thank our State Legislators for this one.

Criminal Attempt is a specific intent crime. It requires the defendant to specifically intend to commit a particular crime and he must purposefully/intentionally engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime.

A substantial step goes beyond mere preparation and is suitable for the purpose of committing the intended crime, but fails to result in the commission of the intended crime

"Attempted Enticement" is an oxymoron. When you engage in "enticement" you are attempting to tempt. Accordingly, an "attempted enticement" is equal to an attempted attempt to tempt. An attempted attempt in and of itself is absurd and is far too attenuated to constitute a substantial step toward the commission of the specifically intended crime.

The attempt they are seeking to punish is not attempted enticement, but the attempted use some means of interstate commerce for a criminal purpose (such as an incomplete communication to an actual child that was intercepted by law enforcement authorities). And, if you are attempting to solicit a child for a crime, e.g., prostitution, there are court cases that hold that soliciting an adult (even one who is posing as a child) can never be a substantial step towards the commission of soliciting an actual child.