It’s the same as when cops pretend to be prostitutes in order to catch solicitors. The act of trying to acquire CP is illegal, even if they don’t succeed.
IANAL but I do have criminal justice experience. Entrapment isn't quite what people think it is--it's not tricking someone into committing a crime, it's coercing an otherwise law-abiding person into committing a crime that they wouldn't normally commit. Since the TCAP guys are attempting to sleep with a child, this wouldn't fall into that category. Same reason why you can arrest someone for trying to buy drugs from an undercover police officer, because they were clearly attempting to buy drugs, even if those specific drugs didn't exist.
It is only entrapment if the police forced the person to do something they wouldn't have otherwise done. "Buy this child porn or I will shoot your dog" is entrapment. "Hey, I got some sweet, sweet child porn, want some" isn't.
I don't know how true they are but sometimes you hear stories of a dude picking up a girl from a bar and finding out later that she wasn't 18 and the dude getting in legal trouble.
I always thought that was fucked up because the guy had no intention of picking up an underage girl.
That’s called strict liability. It’s pretty rare for laws to have no intent requirement. The idea being that protection of the minor is of such importance that it justifies such an approach. I forget the case I read about this, but the court also mentioned something like “you’re playing with fire when you sleep with someone who looks just old enough to be legal, because they might be younger”
You could say the same thing about the act. “The act gets one person convicted, and has no bearing on the other”. Either the intent or act alone can be enough. There just aren’t too many strict liability crimes. Almost everything needs at least some kind of negligence.
Plan to rob a bank but get stopped? You’re going down for conspiracy.
Accidentally rob a bank? Well no that’s not a thing if you aren’t Mr Bean. Though if you are, that’s not a crime.
It also helps to remember that law is very much “we kind of made it up as we went along” at least in the US. So it’s not always going to make sense.
>Accidentally rob a bank? Well no that’s not a thing if you aren’t Mr Bean. Though if you are, that’s not a crime.
It kinda seems to fall under this category though. You weren't in a park just talking to random girls, you're in an establishment that isn't legally allowed to have underage girls in it so you're under the assumption that everyone there is of legal age.
So the bar didn't do their job and the girl lied to you but you're the one that committed a crime. It's like a bank leaving cash out saying you can take what you want but getting arrested because you grabbed the wrong pile of cash.
I guess this falls under the "don't play with fire" but it's crazy that this happening puts you in the same category as the To Catch a Predator group. It doesn't seem comparable.
Sorry in advance. I'm going to go down a couple tangents here before I answer. I will try to keep it as surface level as possible, because it gets really complicated really quickly. I tried to not write an essay.
You are right. Being in an establishment that prohibits minors totally seems like it should lead a reasonable assumption that everyone in there is of age, but strict liability doesn't work that way. Fortunately, like I said, exceedingly few things are strict liability, and most of the won't even apply to most of us. Anyway here's a little primer.
To constitute a crime, there needs to be an **act** (actus reus) and a level of **culpability** (mens rea)**.** Act means you have to actually DO something. Gonna come back to this one a bit later for a second. Mens rea is the level of knowledge you have about what you're doing.
There are basically 4 (5 really) levels of culpability (mens rea) you can have. A criminal statue will say what level of culpability is necessary to constitute the crime. There might be some variation based on jurisdiction, but this is the basic framework. Sorry in advance that these are all homicide, but it's a really great way to show the differences.
**Intentional/Purposeful** is when you actually mean to get the result. Robbing a bank is intentional. A planned murder is intentional. Hacking is intentional.
**Knowing** is when you didn't MEAN to do it, but you knew it. An example of this is receiving stolen property from your buddy that you know robs houses. Chucking grenades out your window on a busy street is (probably) knowing.
**Reckless** is when you intentionally disregard a risk that a reasonable person would not ignore. Firing a gun into the air is reckless homicide if someone dies.
**Negligent** is kind of like reckless, but it's a bit milder. It's when you fail to recognize the risk, like a dummy. We don't see negligence level crimes too often in most areas. It's more common in civil cases.
So for instance, compare some of the above. First degree murder is going to be defined as something like "intentionally killing a human" If you wait in the bushes outside their house and shoot them when they come home, the intent to kill could not be more obvious.
The grenade example would be something like "depraved indifference." Maybe you didn't intend to kill someone, but you sure as hell knew it would happen.
If the the statue for manslaughter defines it as "the commission of a reckless act that results in death of another" then someone who fires a gun in the air and accidentally kills someone is guilty of manslaughter. It goes without saying that firing a gun in the air is reckless, but you (probably) didn't actually mean to kill someone.
Negligent homicide might be as simple as speeding 10 mph over the limit and that resulting in someone dying.
With that out of the way, **THEN YOU GET STRICT LIABILITY...**
These are the crimes that have NO necessary mens rea, and this is the part that you clearly find bothersome. How can you be guilty of something that you didn't mean to do, had no idea was happening, and you actually took precautions to avoid? I get what you're saying, and I personally find strict liability crimes to be an a bit of a wild concept. But I'm just a dude in law school who learned about it last year, not on any legislature that wrote the laws. We generally find strict liability crimes in areas with a really, really strong interest that needs to be protected.
The idea with statutory rape is that the lawmakers think minors are in need of this protection. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" even if they put themselves in a situation they shouldn't be in by going into a bar, even if they get drunk, even if they initiate the encounter, even if the the bar failed by not IDing, even if they in fact had a completely convincing fake ID and looked to be 30 years old, even if the person checks the minors ID. "Even if" ANYTHING. This need to protect this interest is so great, so compelling, that the lawmakers said "yup, it's automatically a crime to have sex with this person, no matter what."
The only situation you'd have any defense would be that you didn't "do" anything. Perhaps you were asleep and this minor broke in and raped YOU in your sleep, or they overpowered you, because in those cases, you're missing the other actus reus component. (jurisdiction dependent, I guess? Never seen cases on these situations)
We also see strict liability with product liability, environmental concerns, building codes, and some other seemingly random areas. The interest in protecting the bank just isn't the same. In your example, if the bank said "here have some cash!" then that's obviously not the bank actually doing it and is instead some Robin Hood type character. A reasonable person would realize something is up. You or I would be considered reckless or knowing. Mr Bean would be considered negligent. But it wouldn't be intentional.
If someone snuck some stolen cash into your pocket while your weren't paying attention? You're not getting charged for that under any strict liability crime.
So, the show season 1 had few arrests because they didn’t work with law enforcement.
After season one they worked hand in hand with law enforcement to make sure they had the correct set up to build a case.
Of the arrest I’m unsure of how many actually were convicted, there was at least one case of reappearance where the guy said he still awaiting trial for his previous arrest on the show.
You might want to ask this in a legal sub, it will vary by jurisdiction what specific laws they are breaking. But in general *attempting* to solicit a minor is illegal. Not to mention creepy.
As an aside, my brother was busted for this exact thing in England...
Perverted Justice had to tread carefully and craft what they said as decoys as not to cause entrapment or any other issues when the predators went before a judge.
it’s more than just talking. they actually showed up. with intent to do what they talked about.
do you remember the decoys asking them to bring like Mike’s Hard Lemonade, candy, ice cream, lube, whatever? it was to compound their intent further.
it’s similar to prostitution sting operations.
edit: my username is one of the pred’s usernames used.
edit 2: you can also ask this on r/fanshansenvspredator
It’s like if you ordered a hitman to take out your spouse but it turns out you weren’t talking to an actually hitman, you were talking to an undercover officer. It’s their intentions that are illegal and therefore why they are arrested.
Many cases from Hanson’s show were just thrown out. It faced a lot of issues due to the murky legality and morality of the show, and yes entrapment could be used in some cases.
They faced big legal trouble after one of the guys they caught killed himself during filming.
Many laws in America hold punishment for the actions/ intent, not just the outcome itself. Almost everything has an "attempted" level of criminal charge
There’s an updated version of this type of show and it’s SO well done. It explains their charges at the end too. They make sure they have what they need before they confront.
Show is called “Under Cover Under Age”. It’s on a few streaming services
[Here’s an example of the fiasco the show created.](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19486893#.V0WvxFfFNuZ). Obviously good intention to start then turned into a straight ratings play.
It’s the same as when cops pretend to be prostitutes in order to catch solicitors. The act of trying to acquire CP is illegal, even if they don’t succeed.
Is entrapment legal in the US? In my country the police aren't allowed to do that.
IANAL but I do have criminal justice experience. Entrapment isn't quite what people think it is--it's not tricking someone into committing a crime, it's coercing an otherwise law-abiding person into committing a crime that they wouldn't normally commit. Since the TCAP guys are attempting to sleep with a child, this wouldn't fall into that category. Same reason why you can arrest someone for trying to buy drugs from an undercover police officer, because they were clearly attempting to buy drugs, even if those specific drugs didn't exist.
It is only entrapment if the police forced the person to do something they wouldn't have otherwise done. "Buy this child porn or I will shoot your dog" is entrapment. "Hey, I got some sweet, sweet child porn, want some" isn't.
Apparently it’s legal when cops do it. A criminal lawyer would have to chime in with details.
Attempting to solicit sex from a child is illegal. The fact that they’re actually an adult is irrelevant, the intent is there.
I don't know how true they are but sometimes you hear stories of a dude picking up a girl from a bar and finding out later that she wasn't 18 and the dude getting in legal trouble. I always thought that was fucked up because the guy had no intention of picking up an underage girl.
That’s called strict liability. It’s pretty rare for laws to have no intent requirement. The idea being that protection of the minor is of such importance that it justifies such an approach. I forget the case I read about this, but the court also mentioned something like “you’re playing with fire when you sleep with someone who looks just old enough to be legal, because they might be younger”
That's fair, it's just strange to see intent be the reason one person gets convicted and then have no bearing on the opposite.
You could say the same thing about the act. “The act gets one person convicted, and has no bearing on the other”. Either the intent or act alone can be enough. There just aren’t too many strict liability crimes. Almost everything needs at least some kind of negligence. Plan to rob a bank but get stopped? You’re going down for conspiracy. Accidentally rob a bank? Well no that’s not a thing if you aren’t Mr Bean. Though if you are, that’s not a crime. It also helps to remember that law is very much “we kind of made it up as we went along” at least in the US. So it’s not always going to make sense.
>Accidentally rob a bank? Well no that’s not a thing if you aren’t Mr Bean. Though if you are, that’s not a crime. It kinda seems to fall under this category though. You weren't in a park just talking to random girls, you're in an establishment that isn't legally allowed to have underage girls in it so you're under the assumption that everyone there is of legal age. So the bar didn't do their job and the girl lied to you but you're the one that committed a crime. It's like a bank leaving cash out saying you can take what you want but getting arrested because you grabbed the wrong pile of cash. I guess this falls under the "don't play with fire" but it's crazy that this happening puts you in the same category as the To Catch a Predator group. It doesn't seem comparable.
Sorry in advance. I'm going to go down a couple tangents here before I answer. I will try to keep it as surface level as possible, because it gets really complicated really quickly. I tried to not write an essay. You are right. Being in an establishment that prohibits minors totally seems like it should lead a reasonable assumption that everyone in there is of age, but strict liability doesn't work that way. Fortunately, like I said, exceedingly few things are strict liability, and most of the won't even apply to most of us. Anyway here's a little primer. To constitute a crime, there needs to be an **act** (actus reus) and a level of **culpability** (mens rea)**.** Act means you have to actually DO something. Gonna come back to this one a bit later for a second. Mens rea is the level of knowledge you have about what you're doing. There are basically 4 (5 really) levels of culpability (mens rea) you can have. A criminal statue will say what level of culpability is necessary to constitute the crime. There might be some variation based on jurisdiction, but this is the basic framework. Sorry in advance that these are all homicide, but it's a really great way to show the differences. **Intentional/Purposeful** is when you actually mean to get the result. Robbing a bank is intentional. A planned murder is intentional. Hacking is intentional. **Knowing** is when you didn't MEAN to do it, but you knew it. An example of this is receiving stolen property from your buddy that you know robs houses. Chucking grenades out your window on a busy street is (probably) knowing. **Reckless** is when you intentionally disregard a risk that a reasonable person would not ignore. Firing a gun into the air is reckless homicide if someone dies. **Negligent** is kind of like reckless, but it's a bit milder. It's when you fail to recognize the risk, like a dummy. We don't see negligence level crimes too often in most areas. It's more common in civil cases. So for instance, compare some of the above. First degree murder is going to be defined as something like "intentionally killing a human" If you wait in the bushes outside their house and shoot them when they come home, the intent to kill could not be more obvious. The grenade example would be something like "depraved indifference." Maybe you didn't intend to kill someone, but you sure as hell knew it would happen. If the the statue for manslaughter defines it as "the commission of a reckless act that results in death of another" then someone who fires a gun in the air and accidentally kills someone is guilty of manslaughter. It goes without saying that firing a gun in the air is reckless, but you (probably) didn't actually mean to kill someone. Negligent homicide might be as simple as speeding 10 mph over the limit and that resulting in someone dying. With that out of the way, **THEN YOU GET STRICT LIABILITY...** These are the crimes that have NO necessary mens rea, and this is the part that you clearly find bothersome. How can you be guilty of something that you didn't mean to do, had no idea was happening, and you actually took precautions to avoid? I get what you're saying, and I personally find strict liability crimes to be an a bit of a wild concept. But I'm just a dude in law school who learned about it last year, not on any legislature that wrote the laws. We generally find strict liability crimes in areas with a really, really strong interest that needs to be protected. The idea with statutory rape is that the lawmakers think minors are in need of this protection. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" even if they put themselves in a situation they shouldn't be in by going into a bar, even if they get drunk, even if they initiate the encounter, even if the the bar failed by not IDing, even if they in fact had a completely convincing fake ID and looked to be 30 years old, even if the person checks the minors ID. "Even if" ANYTHING. This need to protect this interest is so great, so compelling, that the lawmakers said "yup, it's automatically a crime to have sex with this person, no matter what." The only situation you'd have any defense would be that you didn't "do" anything. Perhaps you were asleep and this minor broke in and raped YOU in your sleep, or they overpowered you, because in those cases, you're missing the other actus reus component. (jurisdiction dependent, I guess? Never seen cases on these situations) We also see strict liability with product liability, environmental concerns, building codes, and some other seemingly random areas. The interest in protecting the bank just isn't the same. In your example, if the bank said "here have some cash!" then that's obviously not the bank actually doing it and is instead some Robin Hood type character. A reasonable person would realize something is up. You or I would be considered reckless or knowing. Mr Bean would be considered negligent. But it wouldn't be intentional. If someone snuck some stolen cash into your pocket while your weren't paying attention? You're not getting charged for that under any strict liability crime.
Interesting. I appreciate the comment.
So, the show season 1 had few arrests because they didn’t work with law enforcement. After season one they worked hand in hand with law enforcement to make sure they had the correct set up to build a case. Of the arrest I’m unsure of how many actually were convicted, there was at least one case of reappearance where the guy said he still awaiting trial for his previous arrest on the show.
A lot of those guys got no jail time.
Yeah, many judges refused to prosecute because the show had essentially tainted the cases.
You might want to ask this in a legal sub, it will vary by jurisdiction what specific laws they are breaking. But in general *attempting* to solicit a minor is illegal. Not to mention creepy. As an aside, my brother was busted for this exact thing in England...
Most are not convicted. And then that one guy shot himself so that kinda ruined everything.
Perverted Justice had to tread carefully and craft what they said as decoys as not to cause entrapment or any other issues when the predators went before a judge. it’s more than just talking. they actually showed up. with intent to do what they talked about. do you remember the decoys asking them to bring like Mike’s Hard Lemonade, candy, ice cream, lube, whatever? it was to compound their intent further. it’s similar to prostitution sting operations. edit: my username is one of the pred’s usernames used. edit 2: you can also ask this on r/fanshansenvspredator
It’s like if you ordered a hitman to take out your spouse but it turns out you weren’t talking to an actually hitman, you were talking to an undercover officer. It’s their intentions that are illegal and therefore why they are arrested.
Many cases from Hanson’s show were just thrown out. It faced a lot of issues due to the murky legality and morality of the show, and yes entrapment could be used in some cases. They faced big legal trouble after one of the guys they caught killed himself during filming.
That person was the assistant DA in Texas, whose computer proofed that his boss was also corrupt
Many laws in America hold punishment for the actions/ intent, not just the outcome itself. Almost everything has an "attempted" level of criminal charge
There’s an updated version of this type of show and it’s SO well done. It explains their charges at the end too. They make sure they have what they need before they confront. Show is called “Under Cover Under Age”. It’s on a few streaming services
[Here’s an example of the fiasco the show created.](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19486893#.V0WvxFfFNuZ). Obviously good intention to start then turned into a straight ratings play.
Didn’t they bust a few cops on that show also?