[Saddam Hussein]

You might recall that last year Chris made a thread on the old website about this subject:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60377.0

I know, it's mostly quibbling about what "entrapment" really is.  Blame Thork.  Anyway, it turns out now that someone has gone to jail over it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29688996

I feel rather uneasy about this.  Like Chris said in the previous thread, "Sweetie" here does not look real at all.  Sure, it's decent CGI as far as CGI goes, but it's not realistic.  I can't imagine anyone - least of all a pedophile - seriously thinking that that's a real person.  And yet thinking it was a real person seems to be key to the prosecution.

Discuss.

[spoon]

I think it's bullshit.

The fact the girl was not real was irrelevant, she said. "If you believe that's a nine-year-old girl, then that's the law, that's good enough."

Apply this logic to any other criminal activity.

A seventeen-year-old finds a baggy full of oregano, and takes it, thinking it's weed. Should he be charged with possession of marijuana?

Give the pedo a warning and put him on some kind of watch list, but don't charge him with a crime he did not commit.

[Rushy]

A seventeen-year-old finds a baggy full of oregano, and takes it, thinking it's weed. Should he be charged with possession of marijuana?

I think that case would be justified. I mean, I don't think the action itself is (I would rather drugs be legalized). But the legal logic is sound. If you're willing to do a certain action, then you've violated the law. Ostensibly, there is no difference between the real thing and the fake thing if you didn't know it was a setup. The problem here would be proving that the person was not aware it was fake.

If you attempted to assassinate a VIP, but instead killed their double, you would still be charged with an assassination attempt (e.g. treason) alongside the murder charges. It isn't a legal defense to say "well, I didn't actually assassinate a VIP, therefore the treason charge is not justifiable." All that matters is that you tried to do something of which you were unaware it was fake.

[Vindictus]

A seventeen-year-old finds a baggy full of oregano, and takes it, thinking it's weed. Should he be charged with possession of marijuana?

I think that case would be justified. I mean, I don't think the action itself is (I would rather drugs be legalized). But the legal logic is sound. If you're willing to do a certain action, then you've violated the law. Ostensibly, there is no difference between the real thing and the fake thing if you didn't know it was a setup. The problem here would be proving that the person was not aware it was fake.

If you attempted to assassinate a VIP, but instead killed their double, you would still be charged with an assassination attempt (e.g. treason) alongside the murder charges. It isn't a legal defense to say "well, I didn't actually assassinate a VIP, therefore the treason charge is not justifiable." All that matters is that you tried to do something of which you were unaware it was fake.

But the difference here is clearly that there was no victim.

[Rushy]

But the difference here is clearly that there was no victim.

I was focusing on the treason charge itself, not the murder charge. It doesn't matter whether there was a victim or not. There are plenty of criminals in jail that performed non-violent victimless crimes.

[beardo]

So why are they considered criminals?

[Particle Person]

So why are they considered criminals?

They committed crimes.

I think it's bullshit.

The fact the girl was not real was irrelevant, she said. "If you believe that's a nine-year-old girl, then that's the law, that's good enough."

Apply this logic to any other criminal activity.

A seventeen-year-old finds a baggy full of oregano, and takes it, thinking it's weed. Should he be charged with possession of marijuana?

Give the pedo a warning and put him on some kind of watch list, but don't charge him with a crime he did not commit.

People are punished for "impossible attempts" of crimes regularly. Unknowingly selling fake drugs or unknowingly threatening somebody with an unloaded gun, for example. They are being punished for their intent rather than their specific actions, and the sentence is almost always less severe than it would be had there been a concurrence of guilty mind and guilty action.

[Lord Dave]

I think it's bullshit.

The fact the girl was not real was irrelevant, she said. "If you believe that's a nine-year-old girl, then that's the law, that's good enough."

Apply this logic to any other criminal activity.

A seventeen-year-old finds a baggy full of oregano, and takes it, thinking it's weed. Should he be charged with possession of marijuana?

Give the pedo a warning and put him on some kind of watch list, but don't charge him with a crime he did not commit.

This only works if the kid says "Hey man, I got me some weed!" in a very serious manner.

The idea of attempted is just that: attempted.  The kid didn't attempt to have a bag of weed he found.  And he certainly won't turn it in.  However if a guy sells him a bag of oregano and claims it's weed, the kid is charged with attempt to purchase a controlled substance.

[Saddam Hussein]

The BBC article is a little vague on what he was charged with, but according to this one, the charges include "using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a person aged under 16."  Not attempting to do it, but actually doing it.

[jroa]

I feel rather uneasy about this.  Like Chris said in the previous thread, "Sweetie" here does not look real at all.  Sure, it's decent CGI as far as CGI goes, but it's not realistic.  I can't imagine anyone - least of all a pedophile - seriously thinking that that's a real person.  And yet thinking it was a real person seems to be key to the prosecution.

Perhaps you missed the part of the article where they said, "Sometimes they even used a computerised avatar, which they would show men via web cam."  Apparently, the guys knew that the face was CGI. 

[Ghost Spaghetti]

I expect everybody who's ever shot somebody in a video game with a light gun is going to be arrested? After all, they intended to shoot somebody, apparently it doesn't matter whether the individuals were real or if there was an actual victim, but whether you INTENDED to shoot somebody.

[Saddam Hussein]

I feel rather uneasy about this.  Like Chris said in the previous thread, "Sweetie" here does not look real at all.  Sure, it's decent CGI as far as CGI goes, but it's not realistic.  I can't imagine anyone - least of all a pedophile - seriously thinking that that's a real person.  And yet thinking it was a real person seems to be key to the prosecution.

Perhaps you missed the part of the article where they said, "Sometimes they even used a computerised avatar, which they would show men via web cam."  Apparently, the guys knew that the face was CGI.

I don't believe that your conclusion follows from the premises.  All it says is that they used a computerized avatar, not that the men knew it was CGI.  And the article makes it very clear that seriously thinking that the CGI was real was critical to the prosecution.

[Rama Set]

I expect everybody who's ever shot somebody in a video game with a light gun is going to be arrested? After all, they intended to shoot somebody, apparently it doesn't matter whether the individuals were real or if there was an actual victim, but whether you INTENDED to shoot somebody.

Not exactly.  For an attempted crime you need Mens Rea which you would not have for someone playing a video game.  It is pretty ridiculous that this man would be convicted of anything other than an attempted crime though. 

[Rushy]

I expect everybody who's ever shot somebody in a video game with a light gun is going to be arrested? After all, they intended to shoot somebody, apparently it doesn't matter whether the individuals were real or if there was an actual victim, but whether you INTENDED to shoot somebody.

This is irrelevant. No one plays video games thinking they're killing actual people. Some people want to kill actual people but play video games. There is distinct difference between the two ideas.

As Rama Set said, and as I said before, the difficulty here is proving that the person was unaware he was faking the act. The point of the discussion is showing that the person didn't know the crime he was committing is fake.

Do not confuse this with "thought crime" or the idea that you can think to do something illegal and are therefore a criminal. A person who actively seeks illegal activities but performs a fake one can be presumed to have done an actual illegal activity had they discovered the real deal before the setup sting.

[spoon]

A person who actively seeks illegal activities but performs a fake one can be presumed to have done an actual illegal activity had they discovered the real deal before the setup sting.

That's not how the justice system works.

[Rama Set]

A person who actively seeks illegal activities but performs a fake one can be presumed to have done an actual illegal activity had they discovered the real deal before the setup sting.

That's not how the justice system works.

There is an "attempt to xxxx" and a "conspiracy to commit xxxx" for every charge "xxxx" in most legal systems. Criminality is not completely tied to successfully committing a crime. If someone plans to rob a bank, goes to the bank with an Uzi, puts a mask on and as he is running in to the bank he trips, drops his gun and is subdued, he would be charged with attempted armed robbery and rightfully so I think. I don't see why attempted sexual assault should be different.

[Rushy]

That's not how the justice system works.

That is exactly how the justice system works. If you mean to say it shouldn't, then that is an opinion and a completely different discussion.

[Tom Bishop]

What if some of those people saw the child and recognized it as CGI, assumed that someone was playing a joke and decided to play along to scar the operator?

[Rama Set]

What if some of those people saw the child and recognized it as CGI, assumed that someone was playing a joke and decided to play along to scar the operator?

That of course is a different issue, since there is no Mens Rea in that case.  It might still warrant an arrest, preliminary hearing and/or trial depending on how convincing the defense is.  If it can be shown that a joke was being played then there should be no conviction.

[xasop]

If it can be shown that a joke was being played then there should be no conviction.

There's nothing quite like being guilty until proven innocent.

That being said, this part of the article looks pretty incriminating to me, provided it doesn't have removed significant context (and really, that assessment is best left to the courts and not the journalists):

Hansen started by asking: "hi u really 9yo"

The operator replied: "Yes," to which he wrote: "wanna chat or cam with older?"

He went on: "I like asian chicks, are you... for action"

His comments became more explicit: "i'm naked, ever seen a guy naked?"

He then turned on his webcam and performed a sex act in front of what he believed was a nine-year-old girl.