So...it's a crime to think about something? Is it a crime to think about murdering someone? Or about stealing a purse, but without actually doing any of these things?
The crime isn't thinking about abusing a child, it's intending to abuse a child. It's still somewhat in a grey area since they haven't actually harmed anyone, but it's a lot darker grey than just the having the idea to do it.
No, you are twisting the accusation. It is not a crime to think, it is a crime to act. The law here is about the act of proposing sexual actions to a child over the internet, which has been made illegal by the UN.
Under debate is whether it is still illegal when the victim of your action does not actually exist as a person.
It's certainly a crime to plan to murder someone. These guys have gone beyond thinking about it; they have actually planned and tried to execute on the idea. What about that is different than conspiracy to murder?
Now,if these people are being accused of anything more than intent I think it is going too far.
Of course it's not a crime to think about something. But that's not what happened here. The alleged perps propositioned a child for sexual acts. That it happened not to have been an actual, breathing child in the specific instance involving Sweetie is incidental; I'll bet you real money it was every other time...
EDIT: Or do you somehow actually think that for all 1000 people found via this "honeypot", it was the first time they ever thought, "I know what I'll do today! I'll pay a naked 8-year-old to touch herself over the internet!" and that they were just "lucky" enough to get a fake kid their first time out?
Meta: What's with the tendency on HN to downvote people saying demonstrably true things? Do you somehow think that your downvote will alter the parts of reality you don't like or something?
Yes,but based on that one act,not on the "assumption" that you do it regularly and have done it a thousand times before,as the previous commenter was suggesting.
You seem to think we're advocating arresting and prosecuting people based solely on their interactions with Sweetie. That's patently untrue, and (in my case, at least) easily refuted by my reply to you else-thread, where I said:
If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.
That he interacts with a virtual child in an inappropriate way is strongly suggestive that has engaged in that behavior at other times, with other, real children. The issues that cause people to act on their pedophilia tend not to result in isolated incidents, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated by years and years of study of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals.
If the police find no evidence that he's done this before — whether because he actually hasn't (vanishingly unlikely), or because he's too good at hiding his aberrance — then we may or may not be able to prosecute him, depending on the jurisdiction.
But, for my money, Sweetie isn't per se about prosecution. It's about helping surface individuals that warrant further scrutiny, subject to due process, and then quite possibly prosecution.
I think it turns on the fact that Sweetie was being run by an NGO; I would not expect prosecutions solely on the basis of their evidence. If "she" were being run by the police directly, on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the people they caught were prosecuted solely on the basis of this one act.
Then they should be tried for intent. And it is my understanding,that they are being accused of actually molesting a child,even though there was no child present on the other side.
Right, but it's a separate crime than actually doing it, and from what I understand, the law does not separate these two in this case. The law treats it as if they were chatting to an actual child, which they weren't.
If they thought they were selling illegal drugs but they were just selling sugar they would be convicted. (In England if you sell sugar as illegal drugs you will be convicted of a drugs offence even if you know you are selling pure sugar).
IANAL, and this depends on jurisdiction, but it generally requires planning plus an overt act towards the plan.
If I plan to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces in triple-mylar garbage bags, when I go to the store to buy garbage bags I've crossed the legal threshold.
In many states, if the prosecutor can prove to the jury 1) I planned to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces into garbage bags, and 2) bought garbage bags, I'm toast and will go away for several years. NB there is nothing wrong with just buying the garbage bags.
OK, but if the "offender" in this case a) spoke inappropriately to someone they believed was underage and then b) arranged a time and place to meet them, that would count, no?
