1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chris Hanson weeps: Appeals court rules "no actual victim, no actual crime"

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    Indiana Court of Appeals rules that Internet chat stings must have an actual victim.

  2. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I agree with the ruling. Whether or not they're pedophiles, it's my opinion that an actual crime must occur in the real world in order for someone to go to jail. You can't victimize a fictional character.
  3. JakeandElwood

    JakeandElwood Well-Known Member

    What if a cop is in a store when someone is about to rob it, but he stops it. No robbery happened, but that person can still be charged with a crime, right?
  4. Thank. Fucking. God.
  5. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    With a crime, perhaps. But not robbery.

    And the more correct analogy would be if someone threatened to rob a store that doesn't exist.
  6. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    By that standard all Abscam defendants should be pardoned.
  7. As it happens, 'yab, I had my doubts about Abscam, too.
    But they actually took the money.
  8. MCbamr

    MCbamr Member

    Looks like they can still serve 2-8 years. Those people need help, not jail time.
  9. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Looks like a promising career awaits some fast-typing 14-year-old.
  10. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Lets be clear on one aspect of the case. It was "no victim, no crime' in relation to the particular charge of attempted sexual misconduct with a minor. That does not mean that you are suddenly free to show your penis to an undercover cop posing as a 15-year old from Indianapolis.

    I also suspect that the Indiana Supreme Court will take this case and will agree with the dissent.
  11. Grimace

    Grimace Guest

    Now you tell me.
  12. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I don't disagree with that.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page