IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: This is wrong, what next
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
MWTW wrote:
But the perv may just need that extra nudge. Or maybe not.
But might have at least shown the will to commit a crime (with nobody) yet the "burglar" (like in the case of my friend in the seventies) might never have committed a crime, never wanted to, and might be minding his own business going home after fixing my mothers bike with a few spanners, only to find himself arrested and battered.
(completely cleared after a lot of palava).
Both situations are about assuming someone's intentions and presenting it as a crime. |
|
MWTW |
But the perv may just need that extra nudge. Or maybe not. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
MWTW wrote:
But Honey in your burglers situation he has not be goaded.
The attempt to me thing.
The guy thinks he's chatting to a 14/15 yr old but has no idea what that person looks like unless a photo has been used which must breach the trades discriptions act! My point is your creating the lure.
Also I know that there must be no leading questions ie "will you come and meet me in a park" but the answers can be refective ie perv; "you look nice today what a pretty top you have on" entrapper; oh do you think so it's old and does not fit very well now it's a bit tight" to me that is not just reflection that's leading but is what happens and I have seen many chat logs.
Perv; we could meet up for a chat" entraper; why would you want to meet up with me I'm only a child that's silly; and it goes on.
" you look sexy" oh no one's ever said that to me before"
In real terms if the guy is being straight I'm 48 or 35 whatever I would think most 14 15yr old would tell you to do one or block you.
It's easy to blame the guy but I see it just the same as blokes on their family holliday looking at the girls on the beach there is always one that attracts your attention who could possibly be under 18.
MWT who startrd this whole ATM thing off follows sabrina the teenage witch on twitter, I find that so strange fo obviously he has an attraction to someone who in his mind looks like that.
This vigilante thing can only turn out to be a bad thing or at least be open about who you are.
It is worse,yes. But in the "possible" burglar's situation just the fact of carrying tools that "might"be used in a burglary is enough, so they dont even need to bother provoking him! |
|
MWTW |
But Honey in your burglers situation he has not be goaded.
The attempt to me thing.
The guy thinks he's chatting to a 14/15 yr old but has no idea what that person looks like unless a photo has been used which must breach the trades discriptions act! My point is your creating the lure.
Also I know that there must be no leading questions ie "will you come and meet me in a park" but the answers can be refective ie perv; "you look nice today what a pretty top you have on" entrapper; oh do you think so it's old and does not fit very well now it's a bit tight" to me that is not just reflection that's leading but is what happens and I have seen many chat logs.
Perv; we could meet up for a chat" entraper; why would you want to meet up with me I'm only a child that's silly; and it goes on.
" you look sexy" oh no one's ever said that to me before"
In real terms if the guy is being straight I'm 48 or 35 whatever I would think most 14 15yr old would tell you to do one or block you.
It's easy to blame the guy but I see it just the same as blokes on their family holliday looking at the girls on the beach there is always one that attracts your attention who could possibly be under 18.
MWT who startrd this whole ATM thing off follows sabrina the teenage witch on twitter, I find that so strange fo obviously he has an attraction to someone who in his mind looks like that.
This vigilante thing can only turn out to be a bad thing or at least be open about who you are. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Randall wrote:
Some good points in the posts above.
There is a debate to be had over whether this is entrapment when the police do it. The key test is whether an agent goes beyond what a regular member of the public would do in the same situation. Like I said, there's a debate to be had and there is case law about the issue, which I'll not go into now.
Different rules apply to journalistic entrapment and I'm not familiar with those. Before this decision, there was no case law (that I'm aware of) about private individuals entrapping people into committing a crime. Personally, I have nothing in principle against so-called vigilante action. There's a quote from Robert Peel, something like "The police are only those members of society paid to give full-time consideration to the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon all members of society." However, if one accepts that as valid, then the rules limiting police entrapment should apply to private individuals too, right?
I have two main contributions to this subject. Firstly, I question whether a prosecution for attempting to meet or molest a non-existent child pursues a legitimate aim. Interference in a European resident's liberty must pursue a legitimate aim to be lawful. The legitimate aims are listed in various Human Rights articles incorporated into member states' legal systems. The aim invoked here would be, I suppose, 'the protection of health and morals." However, it is not permitted for the aim to be pursued merely generally or in an abstract way. The aim must be pursued in the specific and actual circumstances of each individual case. Authority for that is contained in a Eurocourt ruling in The Sunday Times vs UK. In sexual sting cases, there is no child, therefore no crime victim, therefore no one's health and morals can be protected by a prosecution in the particular circumstances of the case. Ah ha, comes the counter argument, but the prosecution serves to protect the other children that the Vile Pervert would have gone on potentially to meet. That's easily smacked down by pointing out that those hypothetical future children are not part of the specific circumstances of the prosecution so it makes no difference.
My second point is that anyone - be he policeman, journalist or private citizen - who does this sort of sting operation is committing a crime of Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence. That's s.14 of the SOA2003 and here is the text
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, and
(b)doing it will involve the commission of an offence under any of sections 9 to 13.
An example of the offence referred to in (b) might be the attempted version of s.9, sexual activity with a child. A counter argument might arise out of paragraph (2) of s.14. Here is the text, my emphasis added.
(2)A person does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a)he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do, and
(b)any offence within subsection (1)(b) would be an offence against a child for whose protection he acts.
Since there is no child, there would be no offence against the child and the part of the defence in bold is absent. Therefore the defence is not available to anyone claiming to act in the interest of child safety when there is no actual child involved.
I was boggling at the idea of a crime against a non existent person too,Randall.
But then I realised that we do have situations like this in law,such as the potential burglar "going equipped".
We dont know what the "burglar's" actual intentions were, unless we can read minds, and maybe he would have thought better of it when it came to the crunch?
It doesn't even have to be a specific building about to be burgled for the prosecution to go ahead, so perhaps this situation is similar to the vigilante cases?
(unless the law has changed on this? I am thinking of a case in the late seventies) |
|
|
|
|
