Rulings target Internet sex stings

[Are_grits_groceries]

The Internet stings police consider key to protecting minors from sexual predators may lose some of their power after two recent Court of Appeals rulings.

The use of undercover investigators as bait in Internet chats has become routine in Central Indiana. But the attraction for law enforcement -- the lack of an actual victim -- also became the basis for the reversal of two convictions against a Shelbyville man Wednesday by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That leaves in place a third related conviction.

The reversal could mean new cases lead to lighter sentences. The decision and a similar ruling in July targeted the most serious charge usually leveled against suspects nabbed in online stings.

The court ruled 2-1 that attempted sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class B felony, requires that the victim be a minor; an undercover officer doesn't count. It also used the same reasoning to reverse Randy Gibbs' conviction of dissemination of matter harmful to a minor, leaving only a child solicitation conviction intact.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090104/NEWS02/901040362

[izquierdista]

1. How will the state punish thought crimes....

When they are restricted as to the thoughts they can plant?

[customerserviceguy]

3. Its not merely a thought crime to pursue sex with an underage person

Any normal person encountering a minor online who started suggesting sex (and it's always the pervs who bring that up, anyway) would quickly terminate the conversation.

Maybe this ruling means we can't stick them in jail and throw away the key, but we can expose them and get them out of positions of authority over children.

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. I dunno about that, I assume everyone online is FAKE

Few put the correct and accurate info online, in my experience. From dating sites to networking sites, everyone lies all over the place.

[MajorChode]

7. It's no different than a prostitution sting

A vice cop that puts on a tube top and a miniskirt to bust Johns isn't a whore either. That doesn't mean the John isn't guilty of solicitation.

So should there be solicitation laws against those who prey on children. While it might be hard to prove intent against someone who reserves all of his or her activities online, I'm pretty sure that when a 48yr old man shows up with rubbers and rope in his pocket at the house of what he thinks is a 15 yr old, there's some pretty compelling specific intent going on. Sometimes merely the intent of an immoral act is all it takes to convict someone. If you conspire to murder someone, you may go to prison even if the actual act of murder isn't carried out.

I happen to agree with the judges' decision in this instance, but that doesn't mean the 48yr old pervert doesn't deserve to go to prison on other charges.

[DJ13]

2. There goes half of NBC's spring time programing down the tubes

Now what will they do for (cheap) shows?

[LisaL]

5. Gee NBC can still do the program.

But whoever shows up might end up not being convicted.

[bertman]

8. DJ13, I'm thinking: "Fourteen-Year Olds and The Mothers Who Breast-Feed Them"

[NightWatcher]

4. brb, I gotta go check craigslist

[aikoaiko]

9. If we can convict people who buy fake drugs from undercover cops posing as drug dealers,

or solict sex from undercover cops posing as prostitutes when there is no sex,

or solict a murder from an undercover cop posing as a hitman when they is no chance of violence,

etc.,

etc.,

etc.,

then we should be able to bust the perverts who solicit underage sex on the internet when there isn't actually a kid.