I am personally troubled by this approach for the simple reason it's very binary approach (no pun intended) to a very complex issue.
The articles language alone (predators) a formulation which will ensure that no matter what these guys did it will be understood in the worst possible way and inform public opinion.
I fact I believe that FastCoCreate is guilty of a form of sensationalism something we last saw during the Spanish inquisition.
And yes if someone did something like this to my kids I would want to worst possible sentence to those people, which is why it's good that we have a system where I am not going to be the judge.
Now, if they knew it was just a computer-generated image, I think you might have a point; they'd still be perverts, but maybe (IANAL) not criminals.
In the specific instance involving "Sweetie", sure.
Please don't tell me you think that Bob, aged 51, had never before in his life propositioned a child — a child who is in all likelihood an actual slave — to perform sex acts over the internet, until he happened innocently to be hanging out in #dirtylittlegirls, and propositioned Sweetie.
Attempted murder is a crime. Trying and failing to steal a car is a crime. I see no reason why attempted child abuse shouldn't also be a crime.
So should stabbing a mannequin should also be treated as murder, if the person doing the stabbing was 100% convinced that it was a real person? Or an attempt to break into a car made out of cardboard treated as an actual robbery,if the thief was 100% convinced it was a real thing before trying it?
I want all child molesters to rot in prison forever. I really do. But there was no children present here.
It's controversial, but it's definitely accepted in some jurisdictions. Police have, in fact, nabbed car thieves using honeypot "broken down cars" on the sides of freeways.
Personal opinion: someone stabbing a mannequin with the intent to murder a real person should be charged with attempted homicide. IANAL. ;)
There should be nothing wrong with thinking about crime. Openly discussing and planning a crime...well, that depends on a lot of factors, but there's certainly situations where it should be fine, e.g. kids idly fantasizing about blowing away a school bully without any real means or intention to do so.
But when someone honestly and to the best of their ability attempts to commit a serious crime like murder or child abuse, then yes, absolutely they should be prosecuted. If someone attempts to kill me but screws it up, I don't want them walking free to try again and again until they get it right.
Also bear in mind that, at least in the US, "murder" and "attempted murder" are different crimes, and I'm okay with that.
Attempted child abuse should be a crime, but for that, there'd have to be a child.
Which then, if you never offer to pay, leaves such a costumed officer frustrated - what if these webcam viewers literally just wanted to chat? (Treat that as a statistical experiment) Where they disconnected? Or entrapped?
Past sting operations in the narcotics space have involved fake drugs---flour in plastic bags. Perpetrators who either bought or attempted to steal the fake drugs were convicted. One can debate the morality of stings in general, but I think the question of intent vs. reality is a settled question regarding legal precedent.
If there were a site where legally adult people posed as children using virtual avatars and voice-altering software selling sexual services and the site was advertised as such, then the issue becomes a lot more complex.
My opinion is that as long as a person doesn't show clear intent (and this is a very slippery slope, I realise) to cause harm to a minor, they should not be persecuted for their actions. And if intent is clearly determined, but no harm was actually done, I'd prefer that the individual be not punished (including not having their communications monitored, though this might only be acceptable for first offenders), but asked to attend a form of therapy. On the other hand, if harm was done, the measures to be taken should depend on presence or absence of intent, as is in other cases.
'Predators', though not yet known under this moniker, became a problem quite soon. So what did they do? They set up automated bots, which had just enough logic to fool a human into thinking it's speaking to it's own kind. If someone engaged them in a conversation, and IIRC, asked for some sensitive information (though I'm not sure of the latter), they generated an alert and a real, human police officer took over the bot.
But either an avatar or other human being - I'm still not sure about the legality of the whole thing; a long time ago I learned something along the lines that law enforcement is not allowed to 'bait' someone into doing something illegal; as the whole situation could be doctored to force somebody to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise. I think it's related to your question; but unfortunately I can't recall what the concept is called, or if I'm completely off-track here anyway.
Though in the end; the person still did something illegal, and I can't think of this line of reasoning to work well in court.
The concept is "entrapment".
I'm all for discussing this and thinking about it, but actually chatting with the person on the other end demonstrates intent.
That would certainly change things—where did you get that data from?
Under debate is whether it is still illegal when the victim of your action does not actually exist as a person.
The UN is not a government.
If they thought they were selling illegal drugs but they were just selling sugar they would be convicted. (In England if you sell sugar as illegal drugs you will be convicted of a drugs offence even if you know you are selling pure sugar).
If I plan to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces in triple-mylar garbage bags, when I go to the store to buy garbage bags I've crossed the legal threshold.
In many states, if the prosecutor can prove to the jury 1) I planned to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces into garbage bags, and 2) bought garbage bags, I'm toast and will go away for several years. NB there is nothing wrong with just buying the garbage bags.
Incidentally, this is why you should always get a lawyer before talking to the cops.
It's certainly a crime to plan to murder someone. These guys have gone beyond thinking about it; they have actually planned and tried to execute on the idea. What about that is different than conspiracy to murder?
Now,if these people are being accused of anything more than intent I think it is going too far.
Of course it's not a crime to think about something. But that's not what happened here. The alleged perps propositioned a child for sexual acts. That it happened not to have been an actual, breathing child in the specific instance involving Sweetie is incidental; I'll bet you real money it was every other time...
EDIT: Or do you somehow actually think that for all 1000 people found via this "honeypot", it was the first time they ever thought, "I know what I'll do today! I'll pay a naked 8-year-old to touch herself over the internet!" and that they were just "lucky" enough to get a fake kid their first time out?
If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.
That he interacts with a virtual child in an inappropriate way is strongly suggestive that has engaged in that behavior at other times, with other, real children. The issues that cause people to act on their pedophilia tend not to result in isolated incidents, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated by years and years of study of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals.
If the police find no evidence that he's done this before — whether because he actually hasn't (vanishingly unlikely), or because he's too good at hiding his aberrance — then we may or may not be able to prosecute him, depending on the jurisdiction.
But, for my money, Sweetie isn't per se about prosecution. It's about helping surface individuals that warrant further scrutiny, subject to due process, and then quite possibly prosecution.