dateline-to catch a predator

[Sub-Zero]

As long as he is saving kids from this fate, I don't mind that he makes money while doing it.

whats the greatest punishment someone can get for something like that? doesnt it qualify as entrapment of some sort, if the "kid" solicits him first

 

[PICK3]

whats the greatest punishment someone can get for something like that? doesnt it qualify as entrapment of some sort, if the "kid" solicits him first

you're obviously not studying law at your Junior College

 

[Sub-Zero]

you're obviously not studying law at your Junior College

i was visiting a friend in austin and everyone there did xannie bars all the time and were always fucked up on xannies, i missed u

 

[PICK3]

i was visiting a friend in austin and everyone there did xannie bars all the time and were always fucked up on xannies, i missed u

cool

but this doesn't mean we'll be playing "slap ass" in the locker room

 

[heatherrae]

whats the greatest punishment someone can get for something like that? doesnt it qualify as entrapment of some sort, if the "kid" solicits him first

Lots of them make the argument of entrapment. However, in order to have entrapment you have to prove (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.

Here, the government isn't acting. However, if I were hired to defend the men, I would try to say that the government is working so closely with these groups, that they are essentially the actors inducing the crime.

The problem here is predisposition to commit the crime. Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to the defense of entrapment. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent to commit the crime. The guy can have the intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement. A seminal case on the issue states that "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may in and of itself establish the predisposition of the defendant.

So, what I'm saying is that I would try to make that argument if I were the defense attorney, but it is about 95% likely to fail unless the judge was buying that the government was really just acting by and through third parties and the transcripts of the conversation really showed the guy saying that he didn't want to do it and basically taking no part of it. If you had a guy like that, he probably wouldn't show up at the house with rubbers and beer in the first place...lol.

 

[puddlemonkey]

Lots of them make the argument of entrapment. However, in order to have entrapment you have to prove (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.

Here, the government isn't acting. However, if I were hired to defend the men, I would try to say that the government is working so closely with these groups, that they are essentially the actors inducing the crime.

The problem here is predisposition to commit the crime. Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to the defense of entrapment. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent to commit the crime. The guy can have the intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement. A seminal case on the issue states that "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may in and of itself establish the predisposition of the defendant.

So, what I'm saying is that I would try to make that argument if I were the defense attorney, but it is about 95% likely to fail unless the judge was buying that the government was really just acting by and through third parties and the transcripts of the conversation really showed the guy saying that he didn't want to do it and basically taking no part of it. If you had a guy like that, he probably wouldn't show up at the house with rubbers and beer in the first place...lol.

Way to go Heather, get all technical.


[/End Thread]

 

[Sexy-boy]

Reading this thread is making me horny

 

[Sub-Zero]

Lots of them make the argument of entrapment. However, in order to have entrapment you have to prove (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.

Here, the government isn't acting. However, if I were hired to defend the men, I would try to say that the government is working so closely with these groups, that they are essentially the actors inducing the crime.

The problem here is predisposition to commit the crime. Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to the defense of entrapment. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent to commit the crime. The guy can have the intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement. A seminal case on the issue states that "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may in and of itself establish the predisposition of the defendant.

So, what I'm saying is that I would try to make that argument if I were the defense attorney, but it is about 95% likely to fail unless the judge was buying that the government was really just acting by and through third parties and the transcripts of the conversation really showed the guy saying that he didn't want to do it and basically taking no part of it. If you had a guy like that, he probably wouldn't show up at the house with rubbers and beer in the first place...lol.

i see good informative post.

fuck off pick3

 

[heatherrae]

Way to go Heather, get all technical.


[/End Thread]

Sorry, these are the sorts of debates that make me enjoy law. Sub raised a good question.

 

[biteme]

If my daughter's 15 year old gf's came onto me real strong, (some of them look like women) I wouldnt fuck them (although I know they've probably been fucking for some time), but if some man does, I don't think it should be illegal at that age... It depends on the circumstances.... In Canada, they think 14 should be the age of consent, Spain 12 , here it's between 16 and 18.... I would go with the old sayin' "old enough to bleed, old enough to breathe" (j/k). I think 14 is about right, but then again it depends on the circumstances.... I wouldn't do a girl that young (If I were single), but that is just me.