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

I don't think there's a way to give those people "help." How do you reform a pedophile?

 

Depends in your definition of re-form, I reckon.

 

Not by putting them in jail through entrapment.

 

It's about bleepin time.

I have thought for years those so-called "stings" were bogus because the "victim" wasn't who they claimed to be. You can't have a crime against a minor if there IS no minor.

 

I understand that, but the person getting caught thought he was tricking/convincing a minor to have sex with him and thought he was going to wherever he was caught to do that. Doesn't that count for something?

 

Not for that.

If I go to a store with the intention of stealing a loaf of bread and they are all out of bread, have I committed a crime?

If I go to your house with the intention of killing you and your wife tells me you're not home, so I chat with her for a while and turn around and leave, have I committed a crime?

 

Interesting case. It sounds so obvious to declare that a crime must have a victim, but it's not that simple.

What other sting operations would be threatened if this ruling were to stand and be held applicable?

 

Mark,

If you break into your neighbor's home to steal his stereo, only he took it with him on his vacation, you have committed attempted larceny (and the actual crime of burglary). When you pay an undercover cop to kill the guy who is diddling your wife, you are guilty of attempted murder even though your "hitman" had no intention of carrying out the crime. Impossibility is generally not a defense to a crime. This case is thornier because of the specific crime charged, namely attempted sexual misconduct with a minor. If the statute was more broadly written to include sexual misconduct with someone the man believes to be a minor, this case comes out differently.

 

Here's my problem with this. Usually, one these stings, a web site like pervertedjustice has documented proof of said person's intentions and it's documented that said person intends to do these things with someone he/she thinks is a minor.

I'd see it more like calling in a bomb threat to somewhere. Even though there's no actual bomb, your intent is to do something against the law--namely, insight panic. In this case, your intent is to diddle a kiddy. You may not actually diddle said kid, but you're putting the pieces in motion to try to.

 

The difference in abscam, of course, that the targets are just random folks walking down the street with corruption in their hearts. The FBI doesn't head over to a restaurant and say "that guy looks ripe; let's go after him."

Don't get me wrong - this is a big problem. Just not sure Dateline helping solve it.

 

Arranging a private meeting with a minor through the internet should be a crime.