Suppose you just finished working out in the gym, you’re in the locker room getting dressed, and you see a wallet and decide to steal it. Much to your dismay, when you get back to your car and look through the wallet you find your own ID and realize it’s your own wallet that you took. Well, despite your intention to commit a crime no crime has in fact taken place. You’re perfectly within your rights to take your own wallet home with you from the gym, even if you think you’re being sneaky about it.
This concept has a proper name in the law: actus reus [1]. Along with mens rea, it forms a two-part test to determine whether a crime has been committed in common law.
In Australia, it's illegal (and someone was convicted) for downloading a drawing of child-like cartoon character (Simpsons) performing a sexual act [1]. The rationale is explicitly that although nobody was harmed in the specific instance, the act normalizes and encourages harm to real victims.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-08/fake-simpsons-cartoon...
Where do we draw the line though? If you're about to shoot someone and get stopped last second, should you just walk away free to try once more?
Should we be sending the signal to possible future criminals that "you either succeed in your crime, or you get as many chances to try again as it takes"?
I think intentions, to the extent that we can be reasonably sure of what they are, should be taken into consideration more than the actual outcome of an action.
The article presents a very one-sided story of some guy who didn't mean any harm to anybody and didn't believe the person he was talking to was really only 13. Assuming that that's really what happened, the poor guy probably learned a lesson and won't be as careless again (asking for some form of ID could have prevented this whole situation).
The whole point of a trial is to determine an appropriate punishment for a crime that serves to deter others from repeating it. Anything beyond that is just barbarism.
If you were stopped before even trying to shoot someone though what have you really done? You approached someone empty handed?
What's more, if people weren't so damn emotional about everything, since it's very hard to prove someones intention, cases like the one in the article should be thrown out before ever reaching a judge.
The real evil in this story, I would say, is the typical "innocent until suspected guilty" approach people tend to have for certain crimes, specially when children are involved.
Let's be honest, the scenario of the article didn't prove anything. It gave some indication that maybe the guy was attempting to commit a crime, so he should never have been convicted of anything.
Yes, it’s really not helpful.
> Where do we draw the line though? If you're about to shoot someone and get stopped last second, should you just walk away free to try once more?
Being caught in the act is different. I guess the equivalent would be to catch them with their pants down with a minor.
> Should we be sending the signal to possible future criminals that "you either succeed in your crime, or you get as many chances to try again as it takes"?
These people, having committed no crime, are not criminals. Putting the basement nerd with socialisation issues in the same bag as actual rapists is about as helpful as saying that a grandad who smoked weed once is like a cartel boss.
> I think intentions, to the extent that we can be reasonably sure of what they are, should be taken into consideration more than the actual outcome of an action.
The main question is “would they have raped a child had they not come across a sting operation”. You can’t punish someone for thinking something.
> The article presents a very one-sided story of some guy who didn't mean any harm to anybody and didn't believe the person he was talking to was really only 13. Assuming that that's really what happened, the poor guy probably learned a lesson and won't be as careless again (asking for some form of ID could have prevented this whole situation).
I thought the article was fairly balanced. It explained why the law came to be written and how traumatic some of the actual assaults are. It also shows how the law is abused to punish people who haven’t done any harm.
The poor guy, as you say, won’t have a second chance, and just had his prospects of doing anything useful in life slashed, and went to serve as profit generator for a prison-operating company. He’s also now much more likely to turn to crime because he can’t have a normal life anymore. He’s also not alone.
There was obviously conflicting information between what the “girl” pretended and what she showed, which is not particularly unexpected if you’ve had any kind of relationship over the internet.
They also arrested him on the doorstep before he had any chance of actually checking, which he claim he was going to do (remember, it’s the Internet, a picture of an id is no more proof than a photo or a profile text).
> The whole point of a trial is to determine an appropriate punishment for a crime that serves to deter others from repeating it. Anything beyond that is just barbarism.
Beating some people into the ground to make an example is barbarism. Particularly if these people are not particularly likely to do what you accuse them of doing. How would it square with the fact that they get harsher sentences than some people who’ve actually harmed genuine children?
This is without even considering that harsher sentences are not much of a deterrent, because the people doing this sort of thing do not expect to get caught, so don’t factor punishment in their risk analysis, if they do any.
Yes, I agree with that 100%; I was referring specifically to the one statement I quoted about anybody being convicted without having caused any harm. I understood that statement to be absolute, regardless of how close someone might have been to actually causing real harm and how much they might have intended to do so.
In this case, considering none of these people have actually seen the “children” with whom they were supposed to have sex, I find it hard to justify that a crime was about to be done. More than that, the crime was physically impossible, because there was no actual children. It’s particularly bad when following a 24 years old lady is taken as implying that you want to rape a 13 years old girl.
Sentencing generally has three primary factors:
- Deterrence: The harsher the sentence, the stronger a signal we send to people who might commit similar crimes in the future.
- Rehabilitation: How do we help the criminal so that they don't commit crimes again in the future?
- Retribution: Eye for an eye.
Since there's no victim and no real harm in a sting like this, I don't think retribution should be a factor at all.
Since the "crime" was a construction by the police rather than a real-life situation, I don't think deterrence really makes much sense here. That can be left for the real-life instances of the crime.
So I think the overriding factor in sentencing should be rehabilitation. Getting people like this help so that they can control themselves. I'd say even prison is too much. Ideally, they should be released on parole while they're being treated and not added to any sex offender lists.
Were this to be the end-result of the sting, I think this practice would be totally fine, comparable to (forgive the comparison) animal control neutering strays. Better to get people help before they commit a real crime than after.
I guess if the consequence was that these people had to undergo some psychological tests it would have been better. And even so, I doubt most of them would do anything in the real life, i.e. without some convenient honey trap.
But then, it would be all cost and no reward for the police, so they probably would not bother.
In this case, the age thing is about like asking a prostitute if she's a cop and complaining that she lied when getting arrested.
I will also say that what you do in your life, what you say, read and reply to can be highly illuminating for some academics especially psychologists and the god like security services, but as always there is not always consensus, think Freud and his Oedipus complex etc. Another example is the Hare psychopathic test. https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_... Now it should be noted that Jon is not qualified, but bad science exists in all areas, very few subjects are pure like maths. Some theory's gain popularity over time and others fall into disrepute. I'm also reminded of the fact we are a complex real-time (electro) chemical reaction and this also shapes our conscious and unconscious decisions.
Also I wouldnt under estimate the security services, who in my opinion carry out operations that would never get past the ethics board of a Uni and also engage in phishing attempts amongst many other things; Bitcoins is in my opinion a security services invention for reasons I wont go into here. Tor is also an obvious US Navy example although the popular reasons for existence may not be true, I guess we will never know the truth either! The Military with the police have engaged in many undercover operations for scientific discovery, because firstly if the subjects knew what was going on, you cant be sure the subjects would be acting up for the experiment or not. For a decent scientific study to take place, subjects can not be aware of the real experiment. Some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhqnUTOkpuQ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicals... And it goes on elsewhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
I wonder how many academics will pour over these posts and others for their own research?
The Tea Room Trade also known as the Tea Room Study is an interesting book to read on the subject of human sexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tearoom_Trade and also an unethical study.
But before you get up in arms about unethical studies remember this, criminals and war are unethical so you need to prepare for the worst, but its also why you should let the police handle it first and not go all vigilante.
Cognitive Dissonance is also a powerful force sometimes controllable sometimes not which can literally destroy people in variety of ways and arguably something the religions learnt thousands of years ago by putting the fear of god into people in order to maintain some semblance of law and order when oral tradition was the main form of education. Technological surveillance like we have today didnt exist so other methods had to be developed with the knowledge and toolset of the day and whilst mainly forgotten in the mists of time are still relevant today as part of the toolset.
Manipulation of an individual can take place in many shapes and forms. Derren Brown's recent C4 program 20 years of Mind Control showed some, not all of the methods used to control peoples decision making. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-20-years-of...
When watching this TV program I was reminded of some of Boris Johnsons strange interviews, initially thought to be search engine manipulation, but may have been more involved with the UK Nudge unit than we will ever find out about because unless you were in London, you wont know what else was going on in the area regarding advertising, search engine results and news stories appearing in your news feed if you lived or commuted into London. Yes its more big brother than you think in my opinion.
The biggest issue with kids and sex is its a highly volatile and emotive subject just like Religion, most people want the best for them like they do most people but our society is also setup to make us compete which means some people will stop at nothing to get one over some other people and how exactly do you interpret words written or spoken? There is an element of projection of our own desires in all communication imo. And as others have said here, where do you draw the line? Is someone like this person safer in prison or in the community. I dont think Julian Assange feels safe in Prison, but I would considering his circumstances, never underestimate the innovation of some prisoners. In many ways we are still living the failings of Religion seen as the olde worlde law and order using oral tradition because they probably never envisaged our technological developments today and acquisition of knowledge.
Every country shows the lack of foresight and influence of power throughout time, for example, many roads in the UK follow land owners boundary's unlike the US where you have blocks (avenues and streets) like in New York. Obviously geographical and economical constraints also influence decision making purposes in this road example, but the point is still relevant in all walks of life, including how best to send a message to the wider public about the rights and wrongs of life. Sting/entrap a few people and get the message out via the media perhaps?
Considering what is known today about sexual abuse with minors, education is also a massively controversial subject, do you educate primary school kids or not. The UK Stranger Danger in the 70's & 80's didnt really alert kids to family abuse, so a failing in the state, but kids are also alot like AI, in that they learn from data, which in the case of kids, is from activities going on around them, but manipulation of their curiosity, the omission to present all the facts to educate kids can also lead kids (and people) in general into drawing the wrong conclusion, reminding me of the saying curiosity killed the cat. I'm also reminded that despite being educated in something, we do sometimes forget to remember when we need it most, and its this bit which also intrigues me. The Govt knows the virtue of training, especially the security services like SAS, SBS, Navy seal, yet seeks to punish the public when they forget? Seem hypocritical to me, but lifes lessons can be harsh. The reactions of people is also illuminating, do strong views in situations like this actually give more of an insight into the authors psyche, level of education, and/or emotional stability? Its hard to quantify the level of influence beliefs and age of exposure and repeated exposure have over someone's views and decision making processes, but I whether we like it or not, our parents should take some of the blame something the legal system fails to address considering its virtue signalling and supposed adherence to following the science.
Let's put that differently. If your speed meeter is broken and you believe that you are not speeding, but in fact are still speeding, then the situation is clear. Here the other person was really 20+, so his judgment was actually correct.
The article makes it sound like this person didn't really believe that the person he was talking to was only 13 years old and, given some of the messages mentioned in the article, that sounds reasonable.
He was talking to a bunch of adult using the photo of an adult woman. People on the internet are not exactly known for never bullshitting people just for the lulz.
Apart from the paedophile angle, there is an interesting philosophical question of whether something is a crime if there is no victim, and whether you should go to jail for something you hypothetically might have done at some point in the future.
Personally, I think of Minority Report the same way as 1984: both are magnifying glasses showing how dangerous some of our tendencies are. Definitely not manuals of how things ought to be done. Being convicted without having harmed anyone is a travesty of justice.