Indecent Solicitation on the Internet

[JanetRose]

Below is a case from Kansas: I've heard people say that this guy will probably get off since he was actually not talking to a 13 year old and it is entrapment - what do you think?

The jury deliberated for less than 20 minutes before finding 24 year old XXXXX guilty of indecent solicitation of a child younger than 14.

In January last year Binns went into an online chatroom and spoke with someone who claimed to be a 13 year old girl several times.

XXXXX asked the girl if she was a virgin, if she wanted to have sex, and material too graphic to mention, but the girl wasn't 13.

XXXXX was really talking to a 37 year old woman, we'll call "Nikki" to protect her identity.

She's the founder of U.S. Cyberwatch, an organization aimed to catch sex offenders who solicit kids online.

Nikki was the key witness in the case and was pleased with the verdict.

However, the defense argued the case should be dismissed because Binns never actually talked to a 13 year old.

 

[vivilasvegas]

Can someone be found guilty for intent to commit a crime? I think it's the same as if someone is hiring a hit-man to kill their spouse, they can be arrested if it turns out the hit-man they were talking to was actually an undercover cop. I would think the same rules apply here.

 

[kapeedmaro]

I don't see enough details or know the law of the state to really comment.

Did you see Dateline NBC last Friday?

It was the third sting NBC had done with the assitance of perverted justice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11152602/

The sergeant and his men, staked out in a mobile home parked in the driveway next door, are ready and waiting for suspects to show up at the house in an attempt to molest a child.

The detectives will watch as men enter our house and then wait for Frag’s signal. The cuffs will go on potential predators because Perverted-Justice has already turned over important evidence to detectives—chat logs filled with sexually graphic material, men planning sex acts with a 12 or 13-year-old.

Sending those messages alone may only be a misdemeanor in California. But if the men show up at the house, there’s no mistaking their intent to have sex with someone under the age of 14— and that’s a felony says Deputy District Attorney Michelle Paradise.

 

[diswedwish]

I know what I think... My soon to be ex-husband emailed someone that he thought to be a 13-year-old and asked for pictures. In the emails I found he wasn't too sexually explicit aside from asking for pictures and nothing was said about meeting her. I went to the cops, and they went through the hard-drive of the computer. Not enough... Apparently, they needed to prove that the girl was 13. They said they were unable to do so, so all that will happen to him is that they file a report - "inappropriate contact with a minor" was their terminology. I don't even know where they file it - for all I know it could go in the circular can.... And he has no idea that I even went to the cops, so I guess he'll never find out unless he's caught in the future.

To me it's amazing that nothing will happen to him. I teach some 13 year old girls and it seems bad enough to me, but to the cops who see this kind of crap all the time, his case was simply not bad enough. Yet at the same time, if he were caught later and I did not report anything and it was found that I knew, I would be liable.

I don't quite understand it all, but I did what I felt was right. I'm out of a bad situation (less than 24 hours after finding the emails in fact), and I went to the cops. I saw the Dateline special and it was just amazing - some of the excuses those guys spouted were similar. I'm just thankful that I found out before I had children, and early in the marriage (still in my 20s).

On the other hand, it would be funny in a way if he was emailing some 50 year old guy pretending to be a 13 year old girl... Okay, incredibly sad, but still funny...

 

[TDC Nala]

It is not necessary that they be talking to an actual 13 year old. It is enough in some states to show that the accused THOUGHT he was talking to a 13 year old. Usually he would have to take some overt step, such as setting up a meeting and then showing up for it.

There was a case in Maryland in which a judge dismissed charges against a 44 year old man who drove to Maryland from New Jersey in 1999 to meet what he thought was a 15 year old girl he had been talking to online (the guy actually checked into a hotel and supplied condoms and a teddy bear), but turned out to be a state trooper posing as one.

He was charged with soliciting a minor over the internet and a third degree sex offense involving a person under 16 years of age. The judge dismissed the first charge because there was no actual minor involved, and the second charge because 1) he hadn't actually had sex with anyone, and 2) there was no underage person involved.

I don't know if this is precedent in the state of Maryland or if that state has changed its laws. The Justice Department picked up the case.

Entrapment would probably occur if the undercover operatives were the ones to make the initial contact with the accused, but the stings are done so that the perpetrators are the ones to make initial contact. Entering a chatroom and saying "hi I am 13" wouldn't be entrapment unless the perpetrator was coerced into contact.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

well if they THINK they are talking to a 13 year old and they are talking about sex and other graphinc stuff then yes i think they should be found guilty
its only a matter of time before they do something stupid

 

[Shutterbug]

From what I have seen before they have only arrested the guy when the guy actually shows up. Not just from chatting.