30 Pedophiles Arrested in Virginia

[mike81]

What's unbecoming is someone who thinks its OK for perverts to surf the internet looking those kinds of opportunities and not come under scrutiny.

What's unbecoming is the fact that you refuse to accept that these men may not be the perverts they are made out to be. In at least some of the cases, the decoy claims to be at least 18 to lure more men in. Men who were looking for an adult. Sure at least one was looking for a prostitute, but there is a huge difference in someone looking for an adult and being tricked and someone who is looking for an actual child.

 

[mumblethrax]

What's unbecoming is someone who thinks its OK for perverts to surf the internet looking those kinds of opportunities and not come under scrutiny.

This was a predictable outcome, I suppose, but I'd like to point out that I have not once suggested anything remotely like this.

If you have been on the internet for as long as you claim, you must surely know that there are groups of actual scumbags who DO traffic REAL 10 year old children for precisely the target market that the string operators are trying to catch. They are not a "different set of scumbags" they are the exact same set of scumbags.

Yes, I know that. They don't need to be lured into doing so.

 

[Checkmite]

What's unbecoming is the fact that you refuse to accept that these men may not be the perverts they are made out to be. In at least some of the cases, the decoy claims to be at least 18 to lure more men in.

But then they say "I'm actually 13" or "I'm actually 14", and the men who are not perverts are weeded out because as soon as they see that they say "nope" and log out.

 

[mike81]

But then they say "I'm actually 13" or "I'm actually 14", and the men who are not perverts are weeded out because as soon as they see that they say "nope" and log out.

They are not perverts when they know good and well the person is not 13 or whatever. Yes, they made a stupid mistake by continuing on after she claims to be 13, but that does not mean they deserve the label that is being placed on them.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, I know that. They don't need to be lured into doing so.

Which would you rather have happen

a. Scumbags being lured by a REAL 10 year or who is then forced to perform lude and vile sex acts for that scumbag, or

b. Scumbags being lured by a fake 10 year old and who are then caught and punished


HINT: This is a choice between the two answers presented. There is no third option, and you don't get to cop-out and say neither. Doing so will be treated as if you refused to answer

 

[smartcooky]

But then they say "I'm actually 13" or "I'm actually 14", and the men who are not perverts are weeded out because as soon as they see that they say "nope" and log out.

THIS!

Its a point that mike81 et al refuse to get.

Bait Girl says: "I'm 13"

Target says: "I'm out"

It's cut and dried, and it's that simple. Do anything other than walk away and whatever happens after that is the target's fault.

 

[mike81]

THIS!

Its a point that mike81 et al refuse to get.

Bait Girl says: "I'm 13"

Target says: "I'm out"

It's cut and dried, and it's that simple. Do anything other than walk away and whatever happens after that is the target's fault.

The point you refuse to get is that you were wrong when you said that these stings do not use the tactics that I described.

 

[mumblethrax]

Which would you rather have happen

a. Scumbags being lured by a REAL 10 year or who is is forces to perform lude and vile sex acts for that scumbag, or

b. Scumbags being lured by a fake 10 year old and who are then caught and punished

B.

What I've said is that I object to random virtue testing as a policy, because it creates the illusion of addressing some underlying harm while generating no real confidence that it actually addresses that harm.

This, for some reason, has led you to the belief that I would find this bizarre what-about-the-victims dilemma at all difficult to answer.

I have no issue with people being investigated for this stuff--I object to investigation without reasonable suspicion. That is to say, random virtue testing.

But this is one of those topics, like terrorism or drugs, that causes people to lose all perspective. Every attempt to catch a predator is good, even if it doesn't work or is actively counterproductive. You're either with us or against us.

 

[smartcooky]

B.

I'm relieved

What I've said is that I object to random virtue testing as a policy, because it creates the illusion of addressing some underlying harm while generating no real confidence that it actually addresses that harm.

This, for some reason, has led you to the belief that I would find this bizarre what-about-the-victims dilemma at all difficult to answer.

I have no issue with people being investigated for this stuff--I object to investigation without reasonable suspicion. That is to say, random virtue testing.

All very interesting but your failure here is characterising these sting operations as "random". They are no such thing. In the linked example I gave you, the bait was a 10 year old offering online sex favours. The target group for this sting would have to be actively looking for that type of interaction. You are extremely unlikely to come across this kind of stuff accidentally.... these scumbags are targeted based on what they are searching for, and that act of searching removes any randomness - the sting targets specific people; the type of people who search for this kind of interaction.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'm relieved

Whereas I found the accusation to be baseless and unseemly.

All very interesting but your failure here is characterising the sting operation as "random".

No, I characterized it as "random virtue testing", because that's what it is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here is an example of the disconnect between theory and reality. You're making an argument using a certain kind of logic here, and declaring that is the way things are, even though it is painfully clear that is not the case.

There is no "legal obligation to believe" false information; but if you decide to act on information, the fact that it later turns out to have been false is not a defense. If someone "says" they are 13 and after that point you decide to arrange a meeting with them for sex, in reality "I did not believe them when they said they were 13, I decided they were probably an adult therefore meeting them was acceptable" simply is not going to keep you out of jail no matter how much you believe it should.

A necessary element of the crime is that the john believes that they are meeting an underage girl for sex.

If an actual underage girl tells a man she is an adult and he believes her, and he goes to meet her for sex, that's not illegal (we're only at the going to stage, no actual sex). If an actual adult woman tells a man she is underage but the man knows she isn't, and he goes to meet her for sex, that's not illegal either. Saying you are underage doesn't automatically make it a crime to meet the person for sex. The person has to have reason to believe that they are meeting someone underage for sex. Saying you are underage often constitutes reason to believe that they are underage, but not always.

As to whether or not that keeps you out of jail, that depends on the jury. Sometimes juries convict when they shouldn't, and sometimes they don't convict when they should. Prudence would lead a wise man to never meet someone for sex if they ever said they were underage whether or not they believed the age claim, precisely because you don't want to depend upon a jury's sympathy if you can avoid it. But the law itself doesn't criminalize stupidity.

There is no scenario under US law where an individual has latitude to make an arbitrary guess

Who said anything about arbitrary guesses? People inadvertently drop clues about their age all the time, picking up on those clues isn't arbitrary.

and if you guess right you get to have sex with a 13-year-old girl while if you guess wrong a magical legal incantation protects you from any consequences.

In these stings, nobody ever actually had any sex. So we don't know what any of these johns would have done when confronted with an actual 13 year old. I'm sure some of them would have proceeded to sex if allowed to, but others may well have balked at that stage. Those people aren't a threat to society. We don't need to spend resources tracking them down and punishing them.

 

[Ziggurat]

All very interesting but your failure here is characterising these sting operations as "random". They are no such thing. In the linked example I gave you, the bait was a 10 year old offering online sex favours.

The fact that some sting operations are done in a way which makes it clear the john wasn't entrapped doesn't mean they are all done that way.

 

[Venom]

Alleged pedophile?

Maybe a doctor or psychiatrist could allege someone is a pedophile, but it's not a legal term. Legally, someone is an adult at 12:01 A.M after their 18 birthday in most of the U.S. for most things.

Anyway, I don't feel sorry for the people caught, but I don't feel good about luring people this way. People call bait cars entrapment. This is way above and beyond that; posing as a child to lure someone into decades in prison at worst. There are a number of shocking things people would do if they were enticed into it and thought they could get away. I don't think that justifies opening the door for them to do it so you can lock em up for 10 years.

 

[Checkmite]

They are not perverts when they know good and well the person is not 13 or whatever. Yes, they made a stupid mistake by continuing on after she claims to be 13, but that does not mean they deserve the label that is being placed on them.

They do not "know good and well the person is not 13 or whatever", that is a completely arbitrary and self-serving decision on their part. They only have a positive claim to a good-faith belief that a person is an adult when they are given an adult age (or no age at all is given but the profile is on a site typically used by adults, etc) as long as that age does not change. The moment there is an inconsistency, there is no longer any excuse for continuing to believe the original assumption. The good-faith is lost. Especially if the person giving the conflicting information gives a child's age, but even if they haven't, at that point there is only one thing you know "good and well", and that is that you have no idea what the person's age is, including whether or not they are an adult. You may be personally incredulous that they are a child and that's fine, but the moment you continue to press for an in-person sex visit after being told they're a child, that demonstrates at the very least a depraved indifference to the objective fact of whether they are or not, which means - yeah, you're a pervert.

 

[mike81]

They do not "know good and well the person is not 13 or whatever", that is a completely arbitrary and self-serving decision on their part. They only have a positive claim to a good-faith belief that a person is an adult when they are given an adult age (or no age at all is given but the profile is on a site typically used by adults, etc) as long as that age does not change. The moment there is an inconsistency, there is no longer any excuse for continuing to believe the original assumption. The good-faith is lost. Especially if the person giving the conflicting information gives a child's age, but even if they haven't, at that point there is only one thing you know "good and well", and that is that you have no idea what the person's age is, including whether or not they are an adult. You may be personally incredulous that they are a child and that's fine, but the moment you continue to press for an in-person sex visit after being told they're a child, that demonstrates at the very least a depraved indifference to the objective fact of whether they are or not, which means - yeah, you're a pervert.

I will agree that they may not have known good and well but the fact is they turned out right in the cases we are talking about. So how in the world does that make them a pervert? They were not wanting to be with somebody under 18 and the person was not under 18. They may have terrible judgment but having terrible judgment is way different than being a pervert out to get kids.

 

[Ziggurat]

They do not "know good and well the person is not 13 or whatever", that is a completely arbitrary and self-serving decision on their part. They only have a positive claim to a good-faith belief that a person is an adult when they are given an adult age (or no age at all is given but the profile is on a site typically used by adults, etc) as long as that age does not change. The moment there is an inconsistency, there is no longer any excuse for continuing to believe the original assumption. The good-faith is lost.

The fact that the belief is self-serving isn't disqualifying from a legal perspective. And while the standard you lay out for how to evaluate age is eminently sensible, the law doesn't establish any such standard.

You may be personally incredulous that they are a child and that's fine, but the moment you continue to press for an in-person sex visit after being told they're a child, that demonstrates at the very least a depraved indifference to the objective fact of whether they are or not, which means - yeah, you're a pervert.

Prisons will be overflowing if we try to lock up every pervert in the world.

 

[William Parcher]

Alleged pedophile?

Maybe a doctor or psychiatrist could allege someone is a pedophile, but it's not a legal term.

The press is legally forced to use the term alleged.

 

[Checkmite]

I will agree that they may not have known good and well but the fact is they turned out right in the cases we are talking about. So how in the world does that make them a pervert? They were not wanting to be with somebody under 18 and the person was not under 18.

No, it doesn't work that way. If they proceed to arrange the sex-visit with the person who claims to be a child, they don't get to frame that choice as proving that "they were not wanting to be with somebody under 18" just because after they got caught they claimed to not believe it was a child. That's some kind of weird Mobius-band of dependency.

 

[Checkmite]

Prisons will be overflowing if we try to lock up every pervert in the world.

True...I'm satisfied with being extremely selective; for instance, locking up perverts who physically travel to an intended sexual liaison with someone they've been told is a kid.

 

[mike81]

No, it doesn't work that way. If they proceed to arrange the sex-visit with the person who claims to be a child, they don't get to frame that choice as proving that "they were not wanting to be with somebody under 18" just because after they got caught they claimed to not believe it was a child. That's some kind of weird Mobius-band of dependency.

Apparently it does work that way considering one of the guys accused got found not guilty because the jury believed him when he said he knew she was not a child. Let's not forget the fact that she was not a child. Let's also not forget that there is a recording where the guy says he knows she is not a child before they ever meet and he gets caught. He is not making the claim after getting caught.

We are also not talking about a case where it is a child and he just claims he thought she was an adult.