Entrapment?

[wvjules]

And my point is we, as a society, have hamstrung our law enforcement personnel's ability to effectively do their jobs; more concerned about the rights of offenders. However, in this particular case, the offender's initiated contact through the ad, which negates the first element of entrapment.



See above.....

Actually, as a citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the rights of offenders. That doesn't mean that I condone what they have done, or don't find their actions disgusting, it just means that we, as a society, have to respect their rights. If we don't follows these most basic set of rules and rights then we are no better than the criminals themselves.

ETA: I'm prepared for the consequences of my post. lol Flame suit on!

 

[LisaR]

Yes, they would have. They would have answered another ad. A person that found and responded to that ad had to LOOK for it willingly, as another person said. They had to make a conscious decision to sit down on the computer, get onto Craigs List, and search ads for underage girls. So, if this ad wasn't there, they would have searched for another.

And even if they stumbled upon the ad truly by accident, a man that doesn't have those desires isn't going to act upon them. If a guy was looking through all the ads and happened upon that one, never having given thought to sex with someone so young, he wouldn't just run out our door and show up at that house on a whim (likely with condoms and booze). Most guys would be truly appalled by the thought even if they "accidentally" found the ad.

 

[Acklander]

Actually, as a citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the rights of offenders. That doesn't mean that I condone what they have done, or don't find their actions disgusting, it just means that we, as a society, have to respect their rights. If we don't follows these most basic set of rules and rights then we are no better than the criminals themselves.

ETA: I'm prepared for the consequences of my post. lol Flame suit on!

No flames from me, I agree.

 

[Acklander]

And even if they stumbled upon the ad truly by accident, a man that doesn't have those desires isn't going to act upon them. If a guy was looking through all the ads and happened upon that one, never having given thought to sex with someone so young, he wouldn't just run out our door and show up at that house on a whim (likely with condoms and booze). Most guys would be truly appalled by the thought even if they "accidentally" found the ad.

Exactly. They have to actively seek out the criminal behavior. I was watching a special once where a woman wanted to hire a hit man to kill her husband, and they sent an undercover cop to act as the hit man while they recorded her. They could send the undercover cop there, but he couldn't go up and say "I hear you want to have your husband killed" - that would be entrapment. He just introduces him self and she HAD to ask him to kill her husband. Even when she stated she wanted him "taken out' the cop made her clarify that, she was paying to have him killed.

 

[plutotek]

Actually, as a citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the rights of offenders. That doesn't mean that I condone what they have done, or don't find their actions disgusting, it just means that we, as a society, have to respect their rights. If we don't follows these most basic set of rules and rights then we are no better than the criminals themselves.

ETA: I'm prepared for the consequences of my post. lol Flame suit on!

No serious flames here; I respect your right to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be. The US justice system is just too convoluted and slanted towards the rights of criminals, even in the most blatant of cases. I recall reading a stat in college that the overall conviction rate in Japan is 97%, resulting in a lower crime rate because criminals can pretty much rely on the fact that they will be caught and convicted. I sometimes think that countries we view as less civilized in some respects may have the upper hand when it comes to criminal matters.

 

[rie'smom]

Actually, as a citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the rights of offenders. That doesn't mean that I condone what they have done, or don't find their actions disgusting, it just means that we, as a society, have to respect their rights. If we don't follows these most basic set of rules and rights then we are no better than the criminals themselves.

ETA: I'm prepared for the consequences of my post. lol Flame suit on!

I don't know if your post means in general with which I would agree or this case in particular. In cases like the one in the OP, police set up a sting which is different than entrapment. As others have stated, the information is out there and only those with deviant proclivities would use the information to contact what they thought were underage girls.

 

[rie'smom]

No I wasn't saying that, but they did not have sex with a minor, they were soliciting sex.

They were soliciting sex towards what end? Were they just going to do nothing if this had not been a sting? Doubtful

 

[stashbin]

I look at it this way. If you see rat poop, you put out traps. Then you go back and see them dead in the trap.

You know the pervs are out there, so you set a trap and let them come to you. Real pervs are looking for adds like that. If you wait until they actually find a real child, does that make it easier to arrest them?

IMO...I think they should get them any way they can.

 

[Acklander]

No serious flames here; I respect your right to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be. The US justice system is just too convoluted and slanted towards the rights of criminals, even in the most blatant of cases. I recall reading a stat in college that the overall conviction rate in Japan is 97%, resulting in a lower crime rate because criminals can pretty much rely on the fact that they will be caught and convicted. I sometimes think that countries we view as less civilized in some respects may have the upper hand when it comes to criminal matters.

It's slanted towards the criminals because we, as a country, believe that it's better to let a guilty man go, than to lock up an innocent man - yes, the old "Innocent until proven guilty". I think I'd prefer to live in a "misguided" country.

 

[IdesOmarch]

I look at it this way. If you see rat poop, you put out traps. Then you go back and see them dead in the trap.

You know the pervs are out there, so you set a trap and let them come to you. Real pervs are looking for adds like that. If you wait until they actually find a real child, does that make it easier to arrest them?

IMO...I think they should get them any way they can.

I can also agree with this, as a father, I see both sides, I think there should be some balancing act. I agree we should do a lot to protect our children, but some of the police tactics I question. Is this particular tactic justified by the goal, yes possibly, but I certainly don't want to see it escalate to other crimes that are non-violent (drug possession etc.).

 

[sbell111]

It's unfortunate that our society is more concerned about how a criminal is caught committing a criminal act than the fact they were committing a criminal act.

I agree. Something needs to be done about those gosh darn civil rights.

 

[FireDancer]

While I think there are times when law enforcement over-steps the bounds when it comes to stings and entrapment I don't think this is an example.

In the case in the OP the police didn't approach anyone, they placed an ad. Anyone who isn't interested in sex with under-aged girls wouldn't have responded to the ad. Since the offenders solicited the minor I don't think it is entrapment.

I do think that it is important to protect the rights of offenders not so much to protect them but to protect the non-offender that could be mistakenly arrested or prosecuted. That being said sometimes they throw out common sense in the name of procedure.

I had a professor in college who summed it up pretty neatly. He said there is a difference between truth and justice. If all we were after was truth it wouldn't matter how we got it as long as it wasn't manipulated. Because we do care about things like warrants and procedure sometimes truth discovered incorrectly doesn't matter and it is thrown out in the name of justice.

It is a pretty delicate balancing act and the balance does need to be looked at from time to time and re-thought if needed. This often is forced by technological issues like what kind of warrant is needed for cellular records or location data.

 

[stashbin]

I can also agree with this, as a father, I see both sides, I think there should be some balancing act. I agree we should do a lot to protect our children, but some of the police tactics I question. Is this particular tactic justified by the goal, yes possibly, but I certainly don't want to see it escalate to other crimes that are non-violent (drug possession etc.).

But I think it already has. Police set up drug stings all of the time to catch drug dealers, prostitutes, jons, etc. in the act. They go under cover, posing as a drug dealer or prostitute to get the people who are seeking their services. To me, this is no different. They are posing undercover as a underaged girl to lure the pervs that are seeking that kind of satisfaction.

 

[stashbin]

I agree. Something needs to be done about those gosh darn civil rights.

IMO you lose those civil rights when you choose to break the law...especially a law that protects children. What happens if we wait until these pervs actually committ a crime against a child? The child has to live with that for the rest of their lives because some people felt it was unconstitutional to stop him before he actually did it? No thanks! I for one feel better knowing the police are trying to get these pervs off the streets and off of the internet before they could possibly victimize a child!

 

[wvjules]

No serious flames here; I respect your right to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be. The US justice system is just too convoluted and slanted towards the rights of criminals, even in the most blatant of cases. I recall reading a stat in college that the overall conviction rate in Japan is 97%, resulting in a lower crime rate because criminals can pretty much rely on the fact that they will be caught and convicted. I sometimes think that countries we view as less civilized in some respects may have the upper hand when it comes to criminal matters.

Nice. I see nothing misguided about preserving the rights of ours citizens. All of them. Like it or not, even the worst of our society is entitled to their rights.

rie's mom. I'm talking in general not about this particular case.

IMO you lose those civil rights when you choose to break the law

I disagree. No one in this country should lose their civil rights.

 

[Acklander]

IMO you lose those civil rights when you choose to break the law...especially a law that protects children. What happens if we wait until these pervs actually committ a crime against a child? The child has to live with that for the rest of their lives because some people felt it was unconstitutional to stop him before he actually did it? No thanks! I for one feel better knowing the police are trying to get these pervs off the streets and off of the internet before they could possibly victimize a child!

I don't think anyone here is defending the suspects in this case. What the OP was questioning is why wasn't this considered entrapment - and people were giving their opinions on that. No one is saying they want a child to be molested but that we want the police to do it properly so that they aren't set free.
You can't just say - you lose those rights once you break the law - those rights are there to protect those who haven't broken the law from being sent to prison for things they didn't do. Mistakes are made - you can't pick and choose who you give those rights to - they are for everyone.

 

[sbell111]

IMO you lose those civil rights when you choose to break the law...especially a law that protects children.

Your opinion is legally incorrect. In this country, people do not lose their civil rights simply because they break the law (with the exception of the right to vote, in some cases). That being said, how would you determine that a person who has yet to be convicted of anything should no longer be afforded these Constitutional protections?

 

[cabanafrau]

Somehow I think the forensic investigations of the computers used by these sick lowlifes will demonstrate plenty of trolling history by these scum. Having had a front row seat for too many of these cases than I care to remember, I can do nothing but cheer the efforts of law enforcement to arrest & prosecute these pedophiles.

Entrapment? Not when it comes to these sickos, not a bit.

 

[dismom2]

So, if your husband answered that ad, you wouldn't be upset because it was "entrapment"? Even if he had never done anything like that before?

I think it's a great way to catch pervs, and I have no problem with it. Doesn't matter if they don't have a prior record--maybe they just haven't been caught yet--has that crossed your mind?

If they hadn't of answered that ad, it would have been another (possibly legit ad). Doesn't matter to me, and it doesn't matter if they've been caught before, or if they have a great or important job. Pervs come from all backgrounds and should be caught.

I also think throwing out the word entrapment is a poor excuse for being caught.

Just like those 'bait' cars--- I love that they use that tactic to catch car thieves.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm not claiming this sting was entrapment, but the fact that someone answers an ad doesn't automatically make it not entrapment. Here's what I think would be a counter-example:
1) The police take out an ad claiming that they are a 14 year-old female looking for "friendship". Since the police need to be able to show that the idea for the criminal act originated with the perp, they aren't likely to take out an ad that explicitly states that a minor is looking for a romantic relationship with an adult.
2) A 25 year-old man answers the ad saying he'd like to be her "friend".
3) The police officer posing as the minor then has a series of e-mail exchanges with the man that ends with the officer aggressively suggesting that the man come see "her" for a night of romance. After expressing reluctance, the man agrees in the end.
4) The man shows up and is arrested.
I think a lawyer could claim entrapment as a defense if this set of events happened.

However, the article states that the police vetted their approach with the State AG. Therefore, it's likely that they took out a vague ad that would get the attention of pedophiles, engaged in non-specific "flirting" with the men (including sending them a photo that would clearly show they are under age) that answered the ad, waited for them to suggest an illegal encounter, agreed to the encounter once suggested by providing a time and place, and then arrested them with they walked through the door. That scenario would be pretty iron-clad against charges of entrapment.

When law enforcement participates in online communication in these cases there is a protocol they follow. Rest assured, at least in Michigan, the example you outlined above would not occur.

I would bet good money law enforcement has had plenty of previous contact w/ each & every suspect arrested, even if the suspects have no idea.