Was This Man Arrested For A Thought Crime?
April 8, 2008
I was listening to a local radio talk show the other day. The topic of discussion was about a man who had solicited sex online to who he thought was a 14-year-old girl. When he arranged to meet with this girl, it turned out that the “girl” was really an undercover cop. Yikes!
The talk show host had an approach on this story that I wasn’t expecting. Read on and tell me what you think.
His position was that the man was being arrested for what amounted to a “thought crime”. Of course, it’s against the law to solicit sex with a minor, no argument there. But the host contested the man didn’t really go through with it. He (the offender) was soliciting sex with someone he thought was a minor (yuck!), but in reality it was an adult.
Let me just tell you that this whole thing disgusts me, but the host’s angle on this subject did intrigue me enough to think he actually had a point. The man was clearly intending to do a bad thing, but he ended up not doing it because there was no real minor involved. So when you add it all up, it amounted to someone getting arrested for thinking of doing a crime rather than actually committing one.
Law enforcement has been doing sting operations like this and others like it for years. It’s also known as entrapment, which has been the recipient of much heated debate.
What do you think? Are we now to the point of arresting people for what they’re thinking?
| 2.8 |
Written by 
Mark · Filed Under Newsworthy
Comments
24 Responses to “Was This Man Arrested For A Thought Crime?”
Please comment responsibly.
First-time commenters will be moderated and will display if I approve.
I have seen these stings on TV. MSNBC broadcasts them all the time. But I think I see what you’re saying. In the MSNBC hosted sting operations hosted by Chris Hansen, an actual minor aged individual is used in the sting operation. What you’re saying is that in the situation you’re referencing to the person feels he should be let off on charges because the decoy was in fact an adult and not a minor?
I don’t know… I’d like for you to provide references to the story if possible. I’d say it shouldn’t matter. If the police was successful in luring an Internet predator into a trap with the intention to have sex with a minor, charges should be placed and that individual should go to prison.
But again, with more clarification of the story by providing references, I’ll know more about the situation you’re bringing to the table.
In the mean time, I will submit this post into Digg, Propeller and I’ll even Stumble it and see if we can get some more people to chime in here.
Garry Conn’s last blog post..Why Is It Always Google’s Fault?
Even thought that sounds like entrapment, the intent is what makes the crime. if someone thinks they are hiring a hitman to kill someone else, but the hitman is actually just a regular guy who turns him in to the police, it is still a crime even though the perpetrator never actually hired a hitman.
There was a similar but more interesting case in Australia where the guy chickened out after traveling to Sydney to meet the under aged girl (who was in fact an undercover cop) they still arrested him. Sparked some controversy, at least in the case you are talking about it sounds like he had intended to go through with it, in which case it is far better off to arrest the guy before he has the chance to terrorize a miner although still the question of penalizing the lack of an act is an interesting one. He might after all have chickened out at the last minute and never hurt any child. In my opinion the error is in the question if rather then asking whether these people should be punished we changed the way “punishment” was served to focus purely on undoing the damage done, ensuring there were to be no future offenses and providing deterrent for others then then in this case the only action would be to ensure the man was treated or otherwise monitored to ensure no future sex with children which is merely prudent. As it stands though these people really can’t be punished, or at least should be punished only with great care.
No, your talk show host is wrong.
To commit a crime in western terms, you must both have a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act (actus rea).
While your talk show host is correct is stating that this man is not guilty just for thinking of having sex with a minor, he or she is ignoring the fact that the man acted upon it as well.
Smarten up.
No, I think that by showing up to meet his minor sex partner, it went beyond thinking about committing a crime to intent to commit a crime which is a whole other ball game. He should be put UNDER the jail.
ê¿ê
Margaret’s last blog post..Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On at EntreCard
I don’t think so. Thought crimes are what happen if Big Brother peers into your mind, or notice the slight reactions that betray your doubt of his regime. If there was some way of figuring out a man is sexually thinking of a fourteen-year-old, then yes, that would be a thought crime, and I would be worried. However, the man’s actually asked to have sex with what he thought was a fourteen-year-old girl. However, this reminds me of a riddle: if Romulus goes in the middle of the night to kill Remus, and shoots him, and the M.E. determines that Remus was long dead before Romulus shot him, did Romulus commit a crime?
@Garry
I’ll try to find more details about the story online. I’ve seen those TV shows as well. Very scary. I even heard that one man killed himself as they were taping the show because he had been caught — in his own home with his family there. I don’t know if they aired it, but man, that’s such a tragic ending for the family. And thanks for the stumble, digg, and propeller!
@nwankwo
Welcome to MeAndMyDrum! It’s interesting that you say that because someone called into the show with a similar response, asking what about people who are charged with conspiring to kill someone. I wasn’t able to get the whole conversation, but in my mind it sounds like the same thing where someone has thought of doing something bad, but maybe didn’t go through with it.
@Tort
Welcome to MeAndMyDrum! You bring up a good point, but aren’t we all capable of doing something wrong? Today, any one of us could have a car wreck and end up killing someone. The intent isn’t there, so is that enough to say to the judge, “I didn’t mean to do it. It was an accident.” Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying the guy is innocent as I, too, would like to prevent as many sex offenses as possible especially when children are involved. But I just find it interesting that on the one hand, a person can be charged with conspiring to kill someone whether or not that someone is killed, but on the other hand, a person can arrange to have sex with a minor, and could either change his mind on the way to her house or end up finding she’s an undercover cop and be charged with a crime when, in fact, no minor was involved in the latter case. Again, that whole thing sickens me, so I’m thankful the end result is that he won’t be hurting anyone. Great points, Tort!
@Itdoesntmatter
Welcome to MeAndMyDrum! But did he really act on it? As I said above, I’m not defending this guy in the least, so I’m glad a minor was not harmed, but while he did engage in actions that would have led up to the sex act, he didn’t have the sex. So he had a guilty mind, but not (necessarily) a guilty act. Now, if a minor had truly been involved, and he would have been caught in the act, then I think that makes things a little more clear. But since an undercover cop was involved, there was no chance of the sex act being committed. You make great points as well!
@Margaret
Hehe…I like your suggestion about putting the guy UNDER the jail. And welcome to MeAndMyDrum too!
@Tonya
Thanks for taking the time to comment on MeAndMyDrum! WOW! Interesting riddle you have there. I think by today’s standards, yes, he would have been arrested anyway.
Great discussion, everybody!
While your talk show host is correct is stating that this man is not guilty just for thinking of having sex with a minor, he or she is ignoring the fact that the man acted upon it as well.
The problem is that there never was a minor so there could never have been a guilty act. The minor was a fictitious person and not protected by laws designed for real people.
if someone thinks they are hiring a hitman to kill someone else, but the hitman is actually just a regular guy who turns him in to the police, it is still a crime even though the perpetrator never actually hired a hitman.
Hiring a hitman is conspiring to commit murder. The guy isn’t getting charged on a conspiracy to commit charge that would fit he is actually being charged with the crime itself. This is akin to a person hiring a hitman to kill his wife and the hitman goes to the police and the police charging him with murder despite the wife being alive.
I really don’t think that there’s much of a case here because it’s pretty cut and dry. The exact moment it changed from “thought crime” to breaking the law was when he arranged to meet. Whether he went through with the act or not, the act of arranging the meeting was “intent”, and intending to have sex with minor is as bad “intent to murder”. Your posts didn’t say, but if like most of the TV shows he actually got in his car and went somewhere to meet, that just clinches it.
JTPratt’s Blogging Mistakes’s last blog post..How to Create Your Own Wordpress Theme
Another example:
A town is having problems with burglaries. So they set up a sting by feeding information about a truckload of plasma TVs worth tens of thousands being held at a warehouse with lax security. Criminal falls for it an breaks into the building to steal the TVs but instead finds cops who arrest him. Ignoring the lesser charge of breaking and entering that he clearly could be arrested for. He could never be charged for grand larceny despite his intention of committing the crime as the property was fictitious and was never there to be stolen let alone for him to have stole them despite the fact it’s obvious that is his intention.
I think that it’s always good to analyze something from all perspectives, regardless of how reprehensible or offensive to our good tastes it might be. That being said, I still don’t consider this entrapment, and I think that the man should be arrested. If the crime that he was arrested for were “Sex with a minor,” then I agree, he should not have been arrested, because he just thought about it and did not actually commit the crime. However, because the crime is “Soliciting sex from a minor,” he actually did do the crime (or so he thought).
Regarding the fact that no minor was actually involved, I think that it is irrelevant. To put it in terms of another crime, if a criminal intentionally shoots someone, they should be arrested for attempted murder, even if the victim was wearing a bullet-proof vest, and was never actually in any danger. Similarly, even if no minor was ever in danger, the man in the story still attempted to jeopardize a minor.
Attempted murder is a punishable crime. If you are caught before you steal anything in a store, but evidence points to you attempting to steal, you are arrested for that particular crime. It is a crime of intent I guess. Thankfully some murders and crimes are thwarted by proactive police work.
I think that certainly there are some situations where people are baited. since I know very little of this story here, it’s really hard to say, but If I was the judge, going on what I know, I could probably make a couple decisions.
1. If this is a first-time arrest, I’d feel appropriate that the “thought crime” will certainly have a reduced punishment than for a person who would have actually did the crime.
2. The guy should receive medical help (pedophilia has been known to turn off and on with a the removal of a brain tumor and it’s subsequent regrowth) Not that he has a tumor, but he needs an evaluation and it might be helpful. Not sure what the research says, but I do know that our fear of pedophiles is out of hand and instead of helping people like that we look the other way and give them as harsh sentences as possible. It’s probably not a good solution.
@Tonya
He committed abuse and desecration of a corpse. The prosecutor would also have a good case for attempted murder because, by the Model Penal Code section 5.01, someone is guilty of attempted *insert crime* if he or she “purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be.”
Interesting point.
Legally, the man cannot be guilty of the crime of soliciting sex from an underage person, as he didn’t- (the cop wasn’t underage).
What he IS guilty of is attempting to solicit sex from an underage person. The common law recognizes that where there is intent to commit a crime that is acted on, but due to a fluke no Actus Reus (the act itself that can be a crime) exists, the defendant is guilty of attempting to commit the original crime, and is usually sentenced almost as severely.
The crime he violated is not a “thought crime.” It’s a “real” crime. For example, see:
§33.021 of the Texas Penal Code
(http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/33.021.00.html)
See subsection (c) (A person commits an offense if the person, over the
Internet or by electronic mail or a commercial online service,
knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the
actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact,
sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or
another person.)
The crime itself is (1) knowingly soliciting a minor (2) with intent to engage is sexual contact.
The statute even defines “minor” as an “individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age.” You don’t even have to be a minor.
It’s not a crime to think about engaging in this act. It’s a crime to set up a meeting with a minor with the intent to have sexual conduct.
It’s like prostitution. It’s a crime to solicit a prostitute (even if you don’t have sex, and even if they’re not a real prostitute). It’s a crime to solicit child (even if they’re not a child, even if you never go through with it).
As stated above, actus rea and mens rea are required for a criminal act to “take place”. Just as if someone were to attempt murder and fail. The plan and act were there but the intended outcome didn’t happen. Same with this case; the guy made plans to meet with the minor and carried them out, but the outcome wasn’t quite what he had planned.
And I wouldn’t consider it entrapment unless the undercover officer asked the man to come over. Either way, people willing to solicit sex from minors should be put away for a long time.
That talk show host is clueless. It’s a thought crime if your arrested for fantasizing about sexual relations with a minor but this guy was definitely going to commit a crime. What, are the cops supposed to stop interfering with crime until it happens so that there can be no doubt?
[…] According to a recent post by Mark Sierra of MeAndMyDrum.com, yes you can. A man got arrested for soliciting sex from a minor, or at least, someone who he thought was a minor. As it turns out, it was a sting operation and the […]
Dear Mark,
Having considered your question carefully, I will attempt to give a calm and rational answer. No, the host is incorrect. Yes, the man should be arrested and CASTRATED, if not physically, than permanently, pharmacologically. Pedophiles do not get CURED and deterrents DO NOT WORK. In fact, the more they indulge their fantasies, usually only younger and younger ages attract them.
I have worked with the survivors of assaults as young as 4 years old, though the perp “started out” with 14 years old girls. Just recently, I interviewed a man who had degenerated to molesting babies, and had the pictures to prove it! DISGUSTING!
He spent some time in jail, was released after time served, is now a Registered sex offender but has skipped the state to who knows where. The system lost track of him. Where ever he went to, I hope there are no baby girls or toddlers there. Sadly, that is highly unlikely.
This man expressed no guilt or remorse for his actions. Society is in the wrong in his opinion. Well, I think society is wrong too, but for different reasons.. He should never have been allowed to go free without AT LEAST a lobotomy.
There are widespread groups of pedophiles preying on children around the globe. This disgusting practice is centuries old, but now victims are as near as your local computer. And pedophile groups are in touch with their counterparts around the globe. Finally, you should know that pedophiles as a group are adament that there is nothing wrong or abnormal with their behavior.
The man you referred to in your post may not have actually placed his hands, or anything else, on a REAL 14 year old girl. But you can bet your “Boopy” that he woulda’ if he coulda’.
Brennan
Brennan Kingsland’s last blog post..25th Education Report Anniversary?
Mark,
I forgot to mention that it is generally considered to be a philisophical and psychological truth that “the thought precedes the thing”. Without precognition and minimal planning, very little takes place other than bodily functions, usually the autonomic ones.
Our society has a lot of people who are out for whatever they can grasp. I would like to ask you to take a look at a post I wrote about the recent governmental federal employee credit card scandal. Should the rest of the perps be charged? Should the government take-away the credit cards, even though the cards were NOTabused by LESS THAN HALF the card holders? I’d appreciate your opinion.
LINK: http://www.nonpartypolitics.com/i-wanna-work-for-the-government/
Hope you get a laugh!
Brennan Kingsland’s last blog post..I Wanna Work for the Government
Courts can concentrate not on how close a person comes to success, but on whether their conduct unequivocally manifested his criminal intent.
Under this “equivocality” approach, if a person’s conduct could indicate either a non-criminal intent OR a criminal one… the evidence is not sufficient. But, if the conduct could indicate unequivocally manifest criminal intent, it suffices even though completion of the plan does not succeed.
@Everyone
A lot of great replies and insight! Thanks so much for your input!
It sounds like the movie Minority Report. It gets into a gray area for me, cause on one hand we have a man of law lying about his age to arrest someone or we have a pedophile out on the loose. The questions is whether the pedo would act on his impulses any other time, or was it just this cop? This one is to muddy to get me interested.
@Chicago REMAX
That’s the movie I was thinking about, too, when I heard of this story. Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment here and I hope you decide to return and become a regular reader.