• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Everything Is Fake - Is It A Crime???

What do you think about this?

  • I support anything that gets these sick guys behind bars.

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • This is going too far. I don't like it.

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • I don't know what to think about all this just yet.

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Dragonfly

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
31,228
Reaction score
19,713
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
BBC News - Webcam sex with fake girl Sweetie leads to sentence

A man in Australia is believed to be the first to have been convicted as the result of an undercover sting in which charity workers posed online as a 10-year-old Filipina.

Details of 1,000 men who contacted the fake child, nicknamed Sweetie, were sent to police around the world
The men had requested Sweetie perform sex acts in front of a webcam for cash.
Click to expand...

So this is taking the "To Catch A Predator" thing to the next level.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. Obviously there's a lot that's wrong and punishable, but at what point is all this a crime and at what point is it entrapment?

Everything is done online. There's no child. It's all fake.

The flip side is obviously some of these guys are truly sick.

Do you support this kind of police activity and prosecution?

I know some people thought the "To Catch A Predator" show was going too far.

Is this going too far?
 
Dragonfly said:
BBC News - Webcam sex with fake girl Sweetie leads to sentence



So this is taking the "To Catch A Predator" thing to the next level.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. Obviously there's a lot that's wrong and punishable, but at what point is all this a crime and at what point is it entrapment?

Everything is done online. There's no child. It's all fake.

The flip side is obviously some of these guys are truly sick.

Do you support this kind of police activity and prosecution?

I know some people thought the "To Catch A Predator" show was going too far.

Is this going too far?
Click to expand...

I don't think that soliciting sex (or sending explicit photos or whatever else these guys did) from a fake child should itself be a crime. But it should certainly be enough to get a search warrant to check out the guy's computer, and I'm guessing you'd find plenty of evidence of real crimes on there.
 
Dragonfly said:
BBC News - Webcam sex with fake girl Sweetie leads to sentence



So this is taking the "To Catch A Predator" thing to the next level.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. Obviously there's a lot that's wrong and punishable, but at what point is all this a crime and at what point is it entrapment?

Everything is done online. There's no child. It's all fake.

The flip side is obviously some of these guys are truly sick.

Do you support this kind of police activity and prosecution?

I know some people thought the "To Catch A Predator" show was going too far.

Is this going too far?
Click to expand...
This ties in with the 'sex offence' thread regarding the celeb nudes, but... the phrase "everything is done online" is not an excuse.
 
iangb said:
This ties in with the 'sex offence' thread regarding the celeb nudes, but... the phrase "everything is done online" is not an excuse.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a better question is: What is entrapment?
 
Dragonfly said:
BBC News - Webcam sex with fake girl Sweetie leads to sentence



So this is taking the "To Catch A Predator" thing to the next level.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. Obviously there's a lot that's wrong and punishable, but at what point is all this a crime and at what point is it entrapment?

Everything is done online. There's no child. It's all fake.

The flip side is obviously some of these guys are truly sick.

Do you support this kind of police activity and prosecution?

I know some people thought the "To Catch A Predator" show was going too far.

Is this going too far?
Click to expand...

I am quite sure that I know, what I think about this. It is as embarrassing and should be as punishable as having sex with a ten year old plastic doll.
 
Dragonfly said:
Perhaps a better question is: What is entrapment?
Click to expand...

I do not believe that we should allow the government to punish imagined crimes. That is ridiculous. The guy is maybe a little batty. But sex with an animation picture is hardly something that our government should be forbidding.
 
joG said:
I do not believe that we should allow the government to punish imagined crimes. That is ridiculous. The guy is maybe a little batty. But sex with an animation picture is hardly something that our government should be forbidding.
Click to expand...

Victimless crime?
Thought crime?

Not a whole lot different than a guy writing a fictional book about horrendous sex crimes with children? Lolita?
 
Dragonfly said:
Victimless crime?
Thought crime?

Not a whole lot different than a guy writing a fictional book about horrendous sex crimes with children? Lolita?
Click to expand...

American Psycho in Aussiland?
 
Dragonfly said:
Perhaps a better question is: What is entrapment?
Click to expand...
Entrapment would be if the police established and encouraged contact with the offender, especially if they initiated the illegal acts. I suspect that's not the case here, but obviously neither of us know the full details.
 
molten_dragon said:
I don't think that soliciting sex (or sending explicit photos or whatever else these guys did) from a fake child should itself be a crime. But it should certainly be enough to get a search warrant to check out the guy's computer, and I'm guessing you'd find plenty of evidence of real crimes on there.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

No human was actually hurt in any way (emotionally or physically)...so I do not think a crime was committed.

However, I think I would be okay with using this as a possible justification for checking out the perp's home/computers to check for real adult 'entertainment' illegalities.
 
Dragonfly said:
But if it leads to the below scenario??? Then what?
Click to expand...

I think that that power should not be granted the state. I would want good evidence of a real crime.

Though, of course, total transparency is an interesting concept for another discussion.
 
YES, it may well be , not today of course. as new laws must be written , wisely , I hope .
Messing with someone's brain, with "evil" intent can be a crime .
 
iangb said:
Entrapment would be if the police established and encouraged contact with the offender, especially if they initiated the illegal acts. I suspect that's not the case here, but obviously neither of us know the full details.
Click to expand...

The "offender" could not have flirted with the avatar had the avatar not been created and, as we know, for the purpose of entrapment.
 
iangb said:
Entrapment would be if the police established and encouraged contact with the offender, especially if they initiated the illegal acts. I suspect that's not the case here, but obviously neither of us know the full details.
Click to expand...

Would you, or would you not say these kinds of scenarios are "traps" set up by law enforcement?

If a "trap" is not "entrapment" what is?
 
This is without a doubt entrapment, but that may not be a law in Australia. While the guy is disgusting but that doesn't give the police the right to commit a crime to catch him.
 
joG said:
The "offender" could not have flirted with the avatar had the avatar not been created and, as we know, for the purpose of entrapment.
Click to expand...
No, that's circular reasoning. It's only created for the purposes of entrapment if it was used for entrapment, which (I would argue) it is not. See my response below for more.

Dragonfly said:
Would you, or would you not say these kinds of scenarios are "traps" set up by law enforcement?

If a "trap" is not "entrapment" what is?
Click to expand...
No, it was not set up as a trap, although it would not have mattered if it did. It was set up as an investigative tool. Yes, it was an investigative tool which would lead to more arrests - but that's no different to any investigative tool.

Some scenarios:

1) A police officer goes undercover, befriends a drug smuggler, busts open a drug ring. Is that 'entrapment'? The officer's role was to 'trap' the ring members, and arrests were only made because of his actions. No different from Sweetie.

2) A police officer hears the claim that a 10-year-old is being abused via her webcam and internet connection, but there is no hard evidence. They monitor the childs internet activity (with her/parental consent) and catch her abuser in the act. The only difference between this and Sweetie is that Sweetie does not put an actual child in danger, so it is (if anything) more ethical.

It is only entrapment if the officer's actions made the crime more likely to happen, which means that Sweetie is only entrapment if the predator had no way of chatting with real ten-year-olds online and so Sweetie's presence enabled the interaction between the offender and a ten-year-old. Since that's not the case, it isn't entrapment.

EDIT: Also, being a 'trap' does not make it 'entrapment'. Consider the police who intercept a drugs package, then replace the drugs with fakes and allow it to continue it's course so as to catch the recipient. Definitely a trap, definitely not entrapment.
 
Last edited:
iangb said:
.... The only difference between this and Sweetie is that Sweetie does not put an actual child in danger, so it is (if anything) more ethical.
.....
Click to expand...

No. That is not the only difference. But if that is what you think, I understand your position.
 
iangb said:
No, that's circular reasoning. It's only created for the purposes of entrapment if it was used for entrapment, which (I would argue) it is not. See my response below for more.

No, it was not set up as a trap, although it would not have mattered if it did. It was set up as an investigative tool. Yes, it was an investigative tool which would lead to more arrests - but that's no different to any investigative tool.

Some scenarios:

1) A police officer goes undercover, befriends a drug smuggler, busts open a drug ring. Is that 'entrapment'? The officer's role was to 'trap' the ring members, and arrests were only made because of his actions. No different from Sweetie.

2) A police officer hears the claim that a 10-year-old is being abused via her webcam and internet connection, but there is no hard evidence. They monitor the childs internet activity (with her/parental consent) and catch her abuser in the act. The only difference between this and Sweetie is that Sweetie does not put an actual child in danger, so it is (if anything) more ethical.

It is only entrapment if the officer's actions made the crime more likely to happen, which means that Sweetie is only entrapment if the predator had no way of chatting with real ten-year-olds online and so Sweetie's presence enabled the interaction between the offender and a ten-year-old. Since that's not the case, it isn't entrapment.

EDIT: Also, being a 'trap' does not make it 'entrapment'. Consider the police who intercept a drugs package, then replace the drugs with fakes and allow it to continue it's course so as to catch the recipient. Definitely a trap, definitely not entrapment.
Click to expand...

A more proper analogy would be a cop going undercover as a drug dealer then offering people drugs to random people on the street then arresting them for taking it. In the bag would be oregano and not any kind of drug. It's fishing and it's entrapment.

Unless you can show this guy was a repeat offender that they had soft evidence against, enough to warrant further investigation.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A more proper analogy would be a cop going undercover as a drug dealer then offering people drugs to random people on the street then arresting them for taking it. It's fishing and it's entrapment.

Unless you can show this guy was a repeat offender that they had soft evidence against, enough to warrant further investigation.
Click to expand...
No, it would be a police officer going plainclothes and then arresting someone when they, without prompting, asked the officer for drugs.

Actually, it could be either of our analogies - the story does not give enough information. I am working under the assumption, however, that the police knew what they were doing - especially given that the case has gone through the courts and the offender sentanced.
 
I don't like it at all, and I absolutely do not support it. If it isn't an actual crime, then no crime was committed.
 
lizzie said:
I don't like it at all, and I absolutely do not support it. If it isn't an actual crime, then no crime was committed.
Click to expand...

So when a lady meets a man in a restaurant under the premise that he's a "hit man", and she offers him money to kill her husband, is that a crime?

Or is it only a crime if the hit man pulls the trigger?

Conspiracy is a crime is it not?
 
Dragonfly said:
So when a lady meets a man in a restaurant under the premise that he's a "hit man", and she offers him money to kill her husband, is that a crime?

Or is it only a crime if the hit man pulls the trigger?

Conspiracy is a crime is it not?
Click to expand...

If a crime is committed, that would make her an accessory. In my mind, crime denotes action, and harm done.
 
The guy set out with the specific purpose of abusing a child, harm was prevented by the charity. To break out my legal Latin, the guy had mens rea, and he was in possession of child porn, which is the actus reus. I've no problem with the conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom