Mushroom mentioned "Perverted Justice" in the "MySpace" thread. I think the issues "Perverted Justice" raises merit their own thread.



http://www.perverted-justice.com/

I know what I am about to say is going to elicit histrionics, but here goes:

Is "perverted justice" thought crime?

That is, is it Constutional to arrest a man for bad intentions?

I have seen the "Perverted Justice" television documentaries. Here's the set up:
Undercover officers pose online as underage boys and girls. They woo "internet prowlers," that is, men looking for sexual encounters with underaged boys and girls, and provoke the prowler into "meeting" for sex, with maybe some booze and pot.  The preceding online chat usually includes the undercover cop answering lewd sex questions in an enticing manner, and the prowler stating his intentions, often accompanied by a photo of his wienie.

The undercover cop, who the prowler thinks is a minor girl or boy, gives the man an address, often with instructions to bring drugs and condoms.  When the prowler arrives at the house, the Perverted Justice crew jumps out and inquires, "So, what are YOU doing here?" The prowler gives any number of shamefaced excuses, and when he tries to leave, the cops arrest him.

Intended crimes: Sexual contact with a minor, perhaps distribution of alcohol or drugs to a minor.
Committed crimes: None.

Every smutty remark and every pornographic picture, every plan for rendezvous and every promise of alcohol or drugs, has been made to an adult police officer.  The potential perpetrator did not know this, of course.  Sounds like entrapment to me.
If the man is in possession of marijuana, I suppose the cops can bust him for that. If he exposes his genitals in a public space, I suppose there's a charge for that.

My gut instinct is "Hey, thank god for undercover stings. Let's get these ephebophiles* out of circulation. No good can come from having these creeps prowl the internet looking for kids to hurt."

I also caution, is this a bad precedent? I don't want law enforcement to be able to round people up for bad intentions.  Use your imagination.  There are all sorts of ways the cops can start entrapping you. Law enforcement always wants broader power than the federal and state codes will allow, that is the nature of law enforcement. Should a law enforcement officer be allowed to entice you, "hey kid, wanna buy some Thai Stick?," and then slap the cuffs on you when you hand him a twenty?  Well, it happens.

The Police State is going to impose itself through your kids.  I have said this before.  Nobody is going to object to entrapping internet sex predators.  Nobody is going to object to the courts forcing child rapists who get out prison to wear ankle bracelets.  Keep our kids safe. This is a social good. However, as vigilant as law enforcement is about pedophiles, we must be equally vigilant about law enforcement. If we begin to view entrapment and constant surveillance asinnate social goods because the media portrays them as heroic efforts to protect society from those who prey on children, we are endanger of accepting the same law enforcement tactics applied to others. Maybe the courts will let law enforcement sentence all felons to wear ankle bracelets. Why not? It has a precedent. Maybe undercover cops start patrolling pro-marijuana messageboards, and invite people to a fake NORML meeting, then frisk everyody who comes through the door.  Why not? It is illegal to possess, consume, or sell marijuana. It is illegal to do all those awful things for which Perverted Justice entrapped those men. So why not do the same for pot?  There's a precedent.

People were OUTRAGED when the courts would not prosecute for "virtual child pornography."  I applauded the ruling. What is "virtual child pornography"?  For instance, you (not you you) use Photoshop to morph the photograph of a child's head onto the naked body of an adult. Hey, isn't that totally creepy? Yes, but it is not a crime. No child has been injured.  If we were to make said artistic pornographing a crime, we would be punishing people for their thoughts. In the cyber age we are increasingly at risk for the establish of thought crimes.



*These internet prowlers are after teens, not children, thus the term "ephebophile" is more appropriate than "pedophile."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophile

Mushroom mentioned "Perverted Justice" in the "MySpace" thread. I think the issues "Perverted Justice" raises merit their own thread.
I know what I am about to say is going to elicit histrionics, but here goes:

Is "perverted justice" thought crime?



Not IMO. I'll elaborate more later.



That is, is it Constutional to arrest a man for bad intentions?



Intentions and thoughts are one thing. Actions are another.



I have seen the "Perverted Justice" television documentaries. Here's the set up:
Undercover officers pose online as underage boys and girls. They woo "internet prowlers," that is, men looking for sexual encounters with underaged boys and girls, and provoke the prowler into "meeting" for sex, with maybe some booze and pot.  The preceding online chat usually includes the undercover cop answering lewd sex questions in an enticing manner, and the prowler stating his intentions, often accompanied by a photo of his wienie.



Yep, that's a pretty accurate description of the few shows I've seen.



The undercover cop, who the prowler thinks is a minor girl or boy, gives the man an address, often with instructions to bring drugs and condoms.  When the prowler arrives at the house, the Perverted Justice crew jumps out and inquires, "So, what are YOU doing here?" The prowler gives any number of shamefaced excuses, and when he tries to leave, the cops arrest him.

Intended crimes: Sexual contact with a minor, perhaps distribution of alcohol or drugs to a minor.
Committed crimes: None.



You're leaving out a whole slew of crimes that, given that setting, could occur, not the least of which are statutory rape and endangering the welfare of a child, both of which are felonies.

Would you be more at ease with this sting if they put an actual child into the scenario and waited for them to start getting busy? You'd have your committed crime then, but for obvious reasons stings are never done in that fashion.


Every smutty remark and every pornographic picture, every plan for rendezvous and every promise of alcohol or drugs, has been made to an adult police officer.  The potential perpetrator did not know this, of course.  Sounds like entrapment to me.


The potential perpetrator did know that if he were to succeed in his 'goal' for the evening (hooking up with an underage kid), that he would be breaking numerous laws.

Though these are all woulds and coulds, as long as there is no force or coercion by the police, IMO these stings are fine. Police use stings all the time (prostitution, buying drugs, etc.) and the main thing to me is that all these people who are caught are caught because they are attempting to do something illegal. Police could send out a female officer posing as a prostitute, but if no one solicited them, no one would go to jail that night.


If the man is in possession of marijuana, I suppose the cops can bust him for that. If he exposes his genitals in a public space, I suppose there's a charge for that.



Yes, they can. Note too that no one will ever be busted for thinking alone, e.g., if someone thinks to themself "Wow, that 14 year old would be a nice lay", but doesn't act on it, no legal repercussions will come from it.


My gut instinct is "Hey, thank god for undercover stings. Let's get these ephebophiles* out of circulation. No good can come from having these creeps prowl the internet looking for kids to hurt."



Ditto.


I also caution, is this a bad precedent? I don't want law enforcement to be able to round people up for bad intentions.  Use your imagination.  There are all sorts of ways the cops can start entrapping you. Law enforcement always wants broader power than the federal and state codes will allow, that is the nature of law enforcement.


I don't honestly know if it is setting a bad precedent. Internet crimes are still very new things for most police.


Should a law enforcement officer be allowed to entice you, "hey kid, wanna buy some Thai Stick?," and then slap the cuffs on you when you hand him a twenty?  Well, it happens.



That I don't agree with at all. If you are looking to buy drugs and happen to buy from an undercover cop, that's one thing. Having an undercover cop actively try to get people to do illegal things is effed up on several levels.

Back to the Internet porn stings, if a cop poses as an underage kid in a chat room, and gets solicited by a pedophile, that's the pedophile's problem. Encouraging the potential perp to bring illegal substances to the meeting place so they can rack up more charges is wrong IMO. That portion IS entrapment.


The Police State is going to impose itself through your kids.  I have said this before.  Nobody is going to object to entrapping internet sex predators.  Nobody is going to object to the courts forcing child rapists who get out prison to wear ankle bracelets.  Keep our kids safe. This is a social good. However, as vigilant as law enforcement is about pedophiles, we must be equally vigilant about law enforcement. If we begin to view entrapment and constant surveillance asinnate social goods because the media portrays them as heroic efforts to protect society from those who prey on children, we are endanger of accepting the same law enforcement tactics applied to others. Maybe the courts will let law enforcement sentence all felons to wear ankle bracelets. Why not? It has a precedent. Maybe undercover cops start patrolling pro-marijuana messageboards, and invite people to a fake NORML meeting, then frisk everyody who comes through the door.  Why not? It is illegal to possess, consume, or sell marijuana. It is illegal to do all those awful things for which Perverted Justice entrapped those men. So why not do the same for pot?  There's a precedent.



You are correct that we must always be vigilant about what law enforcement is doing. However, you're taking things a bit too far with the hypothetical NORML entrapment. The biggest difference between smoking pot and preying on kids is that one almost never has a victim, the other does. Most people I know (including cops) honestly DGAF what you do so long as it isn't hurting anyone else. That's not to say that if a cop catches you with a joint in your pocket he is going to let you slide, but he might.


People were OUTRAGED when the courts would not prosecute for "virtual child pornography."  I applauded the ruling. What is "virtual child pornography"?  For instance, you (not you you) use Photoshop to morph the photograph of a child's head onto the naked body of an adult. Hey, isn't that totally creepy? Yes, but it is not a crime. No child has been injured.  If we were to make said artistic pornographing a crime, we would be punishing people for their thoughts. In the cyber age we are increasingly at risk for the establish of thought crimes.


If the Photoshopped picture has a face of an actual kid, rather than being a complete fabrication, I'd say there is a definite injury to that child. Not that I like either scenario at all, but the latter is, while still creepy and stomach turning to me, not a violation of any law that I can see.

Thanks for your thorough response, Red Ant.  I did not make it clear enough that I don't feel sorry for the azzholes who go out looking to molest a kid and get busted by an undercover cop.  I still say it is entrapment, and I am not sure it is constitutional. Groups such as the ACLU get despised because they defend the creepiest among us (even Rush Limbaugh), however, the ACLU has not gone after "Perverted Justice." Not that I know of.  I don't know if any of these it is so different from a predacious pedophile.  The comparison may seem ridiculous, but you know who else is ridiculous? Law enforcement...and by extension, legislatures.  The Right is entrenched in this country and the ghost J. Edgar Hoover seems omnipresent. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they pulled the same crap with a NORML meeting and cited "PJ" as a precedent.

I remember when I got busted last March, the cop had me face down on the trunk of my car bawling at me about "...a revoked license, and unpaid parking tickets!"  Unpaid parking tickets? GASP! What a menace to decent society am I. That's right "tickets," plural, I had two unpaid parking tickets...I was planning to pay the next day!

So, the cultural conditioning we've all learned over the past decades dictates the sing-song, "Well, it was your resonsibility to do XYZ," no f**k that! That's not my point.  As the handcuffs ground against my wrist bone, I was thinking, "Gosh, I should have stolen a Presidential election, I should stolen all the pensions from the employees of a corporation, I should have made war without consent of Congress! Boy, when you do that, you get accorded a heck of a lot more respect from law enforcement! I mean, I had the temerity to let a speeding ticket lapse!"

The less money and power you have, the deeper in doo-doo you get!

There are several things that makes that PJ does different from what most people would consider "Thought Crimes".

1.  They never instigate communications with the scumbag, they let the scumbags come to them.
2.  They repeatedly repeat the claim that they are minors (most normally under 16).
3.  They do not publish the scumbag unless they go out of their way to attempt to make contact (arrange a meeting).  Simply talking dirty to a child normally does not qualify somebody to being publically humiliated unless they feel that the person is a real danger (brags about doing molestations, violent fantasies, talks about the child running away with them).

In the cases where they set up "stings", you have to realize that in every case, the adult made first contact, and arranged a meeting.  They then went to the effort of driving to what they knew to be the house of a minor who was home alone.  And in every case, they went there for sex.

That is not a thought crime.  That is an actual crime.  A "Thought Crime" would be to arrest somebody who writes pornographic stories, simply because they depicted minors involved in sex.  Now that is a thought crime.  When you have a sexual conversation with a minor and/or send them pornographic pictures, that is a crime.  When you arrange to meet a minor for the purposes of having sex, that is a crime.

In the same reguards, being a member of NAMBLA is not a crime.  But if you traffic in child pornography and attempt to meet minors for the purposes of having sex, then it is a crime.  Your being a member or not being a member of such a group is besides the point.

^ Very good points there. I'm in favor of PJ per se, but I'm always suspicious of the cops.

I sympathise with PJ because I want these scumbags stopped from hurting kids. If it's not the undercover cop, it might be a realy thirteen-year-old and a real crime. Heck, you gotta figure anybody crazy enough to troll for prey the way these bozos are doing it is pretty desperate.  You've got your smart scumbags who know Internet chatrooms are anything but secure, and they can't really know who they are typing to, or to whom they're sending pictures of their l'il peckers!  In a sense, the scarier predators are the ones who know how to go undetected. The scary question is, "How many scumbags are still at large for every one scumbag who gets busted?"

Sort of a comical situation I just thought of: People get off on assumed online identities, so I wonder how often a scumbag is sending lewd remarks and porno pics to a thirteen-year-old hottie, when in fact the thirteen-year-old hottie is yet another scumbag!

I played devil's advocate on this subject back in February under the "Freakin Perverts" Thread.  Here's a link to some of those comments, as they tie into this subject quite well, Max.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php/topic,16676.msg786879.html#msg786879

I played devil's advocate on this subject back in February under the "Freakin Perverts" Thread.  Here's a link to some of those comments, as they tie into this subject quite well, Max.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php/topic,16676.msg786879.html#msg786879

My point was less about this specific case, but about the precedent it sets.  I don't like entrapment as a law enforcement technique--at least most of the time. 

The cops are pretending to be minors, so the "freakin' perverts" are being arrested because the think they are soliciting sex from kids.  I just don't see an actual crime committed...only bad intentions; thought crimes.
There is a solid argument for the subjunctive in these cases...they would, they probably have, and if we let them keep going, they most certainly will!
I would rather see an ephebophile intercepted than wait until he commits the crime.
The kinds of entrapment I don't like are methods, such as---
Undercover cop: Pssst...hey kid, wanna buy some Thai stick?
Stoner: Sure, man!
Undercover cop: You're under arrest!

Any 40-year-old man sending 13-year-olds pictures of his dong is somebody who's got to go!

A lot of contrarians questioned Vincent Bugliosi's methods in prosecuting Charles Manson, such as the use of uncorroborated evidence. As much as a civil liberties guy as I am, I think it was a social good to put Charlie behind bars!  Besides, Charlie says he likes it better in the slammer anyway!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/couto.gif

I think say, drawings of pedophilic acts, as disgusting as they are, are better than the photographs of children and should be allowed. Banning literature and drawings is in essence a thought crime. If people say they're providing "instruction", than paintings of the rape of the Sabines in prestigious museums should be disallowed because they show rape.

Many times, intent is all that is needed to commit a crime. The mere intent is the crime. Intent is also taken into account in other solicitation type offenses such as soliciting another to commit murder, and intent is also important in differentiating between murder/manslaughter.

The following is Texas' penal code statute that would cover Perverted Justice's activities.

^Big Brother is in Texas, with good intentions...
and as they say, "the road to hell is paved wtih good intentions"!
:o

Actually I got my criminal justice background in California. The laws are similar throughout the country. Intent is all that is needed for many crimes, especially crimes against persons.

Soliciting some acts (prostitution, drug sales, murder for hire) is a crime, even if the actual act did not take place. Is this not fair?

  (A) an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age;  or
  (B)  an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.
does this mean we can hit on 17-year-olds now? sweet!

Actually I got my criminal justice background in California. The laws are similar throughout the country. Intent is all that is needed for many crimes, especially crimes against persons.

Soliciting some acts (prostitution, drug sales, murder for hire) is a crime, even if the actual act did not take place. Is this not fair?

A matter of degrees.  A dimebag, no.  Twenty grand to kill my wife, yes!

does this mean we can hit on 17-year-olds now? sweet!

We couldn't before?
Thank god ex post facto is unconstitutional!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/sasmokin.gif

A matter of degrees.  A dimebag, no.  Twenty grand to kill my wife, yes!
prosecuting based on intent is kinda a slippery slope. i think a lot of, if not all of, this drug war stuff is pretty much an alibi to exercise arbitrary government control over the population. if you can bust somebody for waving their arm out their car window in the wrong part of town, you're pretty damn close to being able to round people up just because you feel like it. and that's any government's wet dream.

Actually I got my criminal justice background in California. The laws are similar throughout the country. Intent is all that is needed for many crimes, especially crimes against persons.

Soliciting some acts (prostitution, drug sales, murder for hire) is a crime, even if the actual act did not take place. Is this not fair?


  "Intent" is something that will be sorted out in court...

  "Probable Cause" to justify a sting is what the police must spell-out to a magistrate in order to obtain a warrant.  Such stings may include possible cases of an entrapment claim by a defendant.  But entrapment is not a sustainable defense in the U.S. go ;)...

Intent is as much a part of the crime as any other element of the crime, such as malice. All the elements are sorted out in court.

Regardless, the laws (in some places) make it quite clear that intent is all that is required, so yes an actual crime has been committed although the guys didn't actually touch a minor. It isn't just a "thought crime" just because it didn't happen, because there are specific laws against what these guys are doing. They aren't vague "guidelines".

I don't have a problem with intent-based prosecutions, regardless of severity of the crime.

does this mean we can hit on 17-year-olds now? sweet!


You may hit on 17 year olds in Texas, provided you are not over 19 years of age. Last I heard anyway.

Texas has some strange laws. Don't get me started on the convoluted liquor laws.

You may hit on 17 year olds in Texas, provided you are not over 19 years of age. Last I heard anyway.

if i lived on pluto, i'd still be zero years old. oo! loophole!

i thought there was a four-year buffer in most states, but i might be wrong. 19 year olds hitting on 17 year olds strikes me as completely 100% fine. any attempt to make that illegal is just the government getting in the people's business if you ask me.

Intent is as much a part of the crime as any other element of the crime, such as malice. All the elements are sorted out in court.

Regardless, the laws (in some places) make it quite clear that intent is all that is required, so yes an actual crime has been committed although the guys didn't actually touch a minor. It isn't just a "thought crime" just because it didn't happen, because there are specific laws against what these guys are doing. They aren't vague "guidelines".

I don't have a problem with intent-based prosecutions, regardless of severity of the crime.


  Yeah, I think the child protection laws loosen the traditional idea of entrapment though, by making things like "attempting to seduce a minor" illegal.

  I do think that the laws, and this particular type of enforcement in particular, are questionable, and are influenced by the emotion surrounding any possible threat to children.  I don't like the idea that someone is going to be sent to jail for having a sexually explicit online conversation with an adult pretending to be a child.  What exactly is the crime that occurred there..?

  I'd require an overt act, like showing up to meet the supposed child, and proof that the accused REALLY believed he or she was going to actually have sexual contact with the child, i.e. predisposition shown via subpoenaed records of the conversation, history of the accused, etc...

  Otherwise, I fear we're punishing people just for being tasteless perverts, in which case no one is safe groove ;) on...

Have you looked at the perverted justice website and read some of the transcripts? The people who run that are very "emotional" about it... I am thinking that there is a better word than emotional but not sure what it is at the moment. But the attitude is definitely hang 'em first, ask questions later.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the site, as if you read the transcripts the people are not entrapment victims.

What bothers me is some of these guys will ask a "kid" if they have had sex, and the adult posing as kid will say, "Yeah, my dad/stepdad/whatever has molested me" and the perv continues on trying to get with who he thinks is a child victim of abuse! Sick.

It does bother me that we have some people who have been convicted, have done their time, and when they go back into the community the vigilante parents decide the guy hasn't had enough. Change the system, change the penalties, but vigilante justice is inappropriate. We have these sex offender databases and some people look up their neighborhood, find Joe Schmoe who was convicted of sex with someone aged 16 when he was 21, and make his life a living hell.

According to anything I've ever read on Age of Consent laws, a 17 year old dating a 19 year old or a 19 year old hitting on a 17 year old is perfectly legal. 

According to anything I've ever read on Age of Consent laws, a 17 year old dating a 19 year old or a 19 year old hitting on a 17 year old is perfectly legal. 
that was my impression too. hope we're not wrong cuz anything else is pretty much persecuting youngsters who just wanna drool on each other in the time-honored fashion.

What bothers me is some of these guys will ask a "kid" if they have had sex, and the adult posing as kid will say, "Yeah, my dad/stepdad/whatever has molested me" and the perv continues on trying to get with who he thinks is a child victim of abuse! Sick.


Said perv was probably once a victim himself.  Doesn't excuse victimizing others, but you see the cycle.  That's part of why I like the idea of stopping these guys before they hurt a kid like they were hurt themselves.  That hurt kid just might do the same thing a decade or two later.  

I might have said before...the worst abuse of children is intrafamilial.  It's not some perv trolling Myspace.  It's dear old dad!  

Some of those dopes on "Perverted Justice" couldn't think straight.  You know the old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it is."  OK, so you're a 52-year-old accountant with a comb-over, a huge gut, and a tiny ****, as evidenced by the photo you uploaded.  Do you really think there's blonde 13-year-old waif who wants you to come over with a bottle of liquor and deflower her?  Do you really, really think that?  I dunno pal, sounds pretty dubious to me!  
It's the same thing on those vice squad episodes of "Cops" with the hottie undercover officer posing as a streetwalker.  There she is, great complexion, a full set of teeth, no track marks or pipe burns, and she says, "You wanna party?  You do? Fifteen for everything, you wanna do that?" So the idiot says, "Yeah, let's go!"  $15.00?  Come on, bud, use your brains!  That red light should flash in your frontal lobes: "Warning: Something not right here!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif