Reader comments
Supreme Court considers whether Internet chat alone can be a crime
22 comments | Read story
Think Outside the Box | 3:09 p.m. May 7, 2008
Why don't these people just go after people of legal age? Perhaps of
prostitution were legal, the motivation for these types of crimes would be
reduced. What harm does prostitution if regulated do anyway? Isn't it
worth a try?
The Thought Police | 3:10 p.m. May 7, 2008
I've got to side with James on this one. Freedom of speech was one of the
fundamental rights that America was founded upon. And that includes freedom of
speech everywhere, especially the internet. That he set up a meeting and drove
by is a far cry from committing a crime. What's next? The thought
police?... oh, if forgot, that is the "evidence" in this case. But
what to do for a safer society? Maybe we should just have everyone implanted
with microchips so the government can monitor the ages of those chatting online.
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, after all it is just another small
sacrifice of security for some increased safety.
Comments continue below
Anonymous 2 | 3:15 p.m. May 7, 2008
If the cops lose this case then hopefully they will get serious and nail the
perve with evidence that can't be disputed. How about a real 13yo girl
taking a guy into a house that has several cops and video waiting to take the
perv down.
Who cares? | 3:16 p.m. May 7, 2008
Whether it's on the street or online, if you solicit a minor for sex
you're committing a crime. End of story.
Hero of Canton | 3:42 p.m. May 7, 2008
Nevermind morally, its against the law to coerce or trick someone into
committing a crime they normally would not otherwise. This, however, can not be
a case of entrapment. This man, when he determined that this person he was
talking with was a minor, continued to conversate with this person and went so
far as to go to the meeting place at the pre-arranged time. He had no idea law
enforcement was involved AND admitted to having done this before...therefore he
clearly was pre-disposed to committing this crime.
Dad | 3:55 p.m. May 7, 2008
Discussing sex without the permission of a parent in and of its-self is
sufficiently harmful to be considered a crime. I don't believe that the
charges should be the same if a minor is approached face-to-face vs. on cyber
space, but there definatelty needs to be action taken on adults who are reckless
enough to start up sexual conversations with minors in the cyber world. No good
can come from it. Grow up you gross people, and leave our children alone!
Anonymous | 4:00 p.m. May 7, 2008
Thought crime. AG office would have to double, and that would make Nancy Grace
happy. Actually people like Nancy Grace will never be happy.
Joe | 4:02 p.m. May 7, 2008
Anon is wrong. It's called intent. You sound bitter like you actually got
caught in a sting once. A person has the 'intent' to do something with
a 13 yr old girl, acts on that intent, and makes the necessary decisions to go
through with it = crime. It's called protecting children who cannot protect
themselves. Biblical prophets had it right when they spoke of a weight and
something about drowning in the depths of the sea.
Your rational is like saying that it's wrong for undercover cops to set up a buy for drugs to catch a dealer.
Your rational is like saying that it's wrong for undercover cops to set up a buy for drugs to catch a dealer.
Anonymous | 4:49 p.m. May 7, 2008
Just keep catching the sickos through meetings. That is the best way to do it.
Steven Jarvis | 5:43 p.m. May 7, 2008
I wonder if there aren't enough real crimes around that we have to create
fake ones to keep our police force busy?
What we actually need is a more proactive technological approach to this growing problem. Start with parents watching more closely what their children are doing on the internet.
Next, make laws requiring companies that feature internet chat for minors provide a quick abuse link that can be clicked alerting a moderator and saving a complete chat log that includes the IP address of the potential abuser. When a pattern of abuse comes from a certain IP a profile of that individual and what they are after should be apparent. That is when a sting should be set up, with plenty of evidence, clear intent and hopefully an increased prison sentence because there wouldn't be any doubt that the person was using electronics means to ensnare minors.
It should only take the same IP address coming up two or three times before a pattern is evident. I just hope that the authorities do these stings in a way that none of the people caught could use the entrapment defense as they very well could now.
What we actually need is a more proactive technological approach to this growing problem. Start with parents watching more closely what their children are doing on the internet.
Next, make laws requiring companies that feature internet chat for minors provide a quick abuse link that can be clicked alerting a moderator and saving a complete chat log that includes the IP address of the potential abuser. When a pattern of abuse comes from a certain IP a profile of that individual and what they are after should be apparent. That is when a sting should be set up, with plenty of evidence, clear intent and hopefully an increased prison sentence because there wouldn't be any doubt that the person was using electronics means to ensnare minors.
It should only take the same IP address coming up two or three times before a pattern is evident. I just hope that the authorities do these stings in a way that none of the people caught could use the entrapment defense as they very well could now.
Anonymous | 6:38 p.m. May 7, 2008
Joe read the article real good.
Constitution | 7:28 p.m. May 7, 2008
Freedom of speech
The man never saw a 13 year old girl and did nothing
The other end was a setup
This is illegal to start with
The cyber cop said she was 13 and inticed the man
It does remain a problem
The cyber cop needs a year in jail as well
The man never saw a 13 year old girl and did nothing
The other end was a setup
This is illegal to start with
The cyber cop said she was 13 and inticed the man
It does remain a problem
The cyber cop needs a year in jail as well
awsomeron | 7:50 p.m. May 7, 2008
I love Dateline and their prep busts. I am somewhat concerned about entrapment.
Not as it applies to the subjects in question but where it can lead. Part of me
does not want to go down that slop. There is no reason you can't keep
things over 18. Unless you are a perp. Words with out actions it a touchy
subject. Many people say they are going to kill someone but never really would.
Could words be considered assault or even attempted murder. Can someone die from
embarrassment and the person that caused it be charged with a crime. That would
give P.C New Meaning. That could get into general conversation and even thought
control. Can you be charged with a Stare, Glare, or Dirty look. Or even a
perceived thought because of the way you looked. That is leap. However so
isn�t Costco being able to tell me how much Rice I bought
in 2006. Amex and Gas and Food Refunds sure because we get that 1% to 3% and
over a Year that adds up. The point is do you see how controlled we are
becoming. The Beast is upon us Repent!
They (Adults) | 8:13 p.m. May 7, 2008
agreed while chatting online, to a time and location to meet a minor. What if
that supposively the minor wasn't an Internet Crime Task Force Agent? What
would happen to the real minor during these agreed meetings? Enticing a minor
over the Internet is a crime in my book...
Agent was a sick person too | 9:37 p.m. May 7, 2008
They (Adults), "agreed while chatting online, to a time and location to
meet a minor. What if that supposively the minor wasn't an Internet Crime
Task Force Agent? What would happen to the real minor during these agreed
meetings? Enticing a minor over the Internet is a crime in my book..."
If it wasn't an Task Force agent then it would have been a crime but it was a Task Force agent and the man may have acted inappropriately but he didn't have sex with a minor or follow through on his internet chat.
We must bear in mind that the Task Force agent was also culpable and played a major part in getting this man to cross the line between having an online chat to talking about sex with a minor and then setting up a meeting with them. What would have happened had the man not shown up that time but had instead chosen not to do so because he still had some boundaries he wouldn't cross but later went online and started a conversation with a real minor but the agent had broken down the barriers. That agent would be responsible for a child being molested.
If it wasn't an Task Force agent then it would have been a crime but it was a Task Force agent and the man may have acted inappropriately but he didn't have sex with a minor or follow through on his internet chat.
We must bear in mind that the Task Force agent was also culpable and played a major part in getting this man to cross the line between having an online chat to talking about sex with a minor and then setting up a meeting with them. What would have happened had the man not shown up that time but had instead chosen not to do so because he still had some boundaries he wouldn't cross but later went online and started a conversation with a real minor but the agent had broken down the barriers. That agent would be responsible for a child being molested.
Child molested because of agent? | 9:45 p.m. May 7, 2008
Constitution, "The man never saw a 13 year old girl and did nothing The
other end was a setup This is illegal to start with The cyber cop said she was
13 and inticed the man It does remain a problem The cyber cop needs a year in
jail as well."
I agree that the Agents actions were reprehensible and could have resulted in an online chat turning into something far more serious. Had this man said no this time and not acted upon anything he would be far more likely to do so the next time because of the actions of the Agent. Look at what the agent was able to accomplish. She got him to drive to the school and almost met with her. What would have happened had he driven half-way but decided to turn around. He wouldn't have committed a crime but now he is one step closer to doing so because of the agent's actions.
So I agree that the agent needs to be held culpable since this type of behavior could lead to someone saying no this time but end up saying yes when it is my or your child. Shame on the agent!
I agree that the Agents actions were reprehensible and could have resulted in an online chat turning into something far more serious. Had this man said no this time and not acted upon anything he would be far more likely to do so the next time because of the actions of the Agent. Look at what the agent was able to accomplish. She got him to drive to the school and almost met with her. What would have happened had he driven half-way but decided to turn around. He wouldn't have committed a crime but now he is one step closer to doing so because of the agent's actions.
So I agree that the agent needs to be held culpable since this type of behavior could lead to someone saying no this time but end up saying yes when it is my or your child. Shame on the agent!
Freedom | 10:18 p.m. May 7, 2008
What a joke. get a protective order and the other person has to kill you before
the police act. Talk online and you have intent.. intent to what?? Talk. No
action. No crime.. Dateline knows how to do it right.. Utah just messes it up..
Go Texas!!!
UtahaninNC | 12:16 a.m. May 8, 2008
Question. Would the man have done what he did anwyay if he hadn't met the
cyber cop? Answer that and you have your answer as to the guilt or innocence of
the accused. I believe that is the standard here. A pretty high bar in my
estimation.
Dawg | 12:36 a.m. May 8, 2008
Here's my take. I would never get entrapped on a sex crime particularly
with a minor. Those entrapped are likely bad news already. If I found out my
10 year old daughter were talking to someone online... even someone she thought
she knew, she wouldn't have computer access from my home anymore. The same
goes if she was 12, 14, or 16. We used to have to put our finger in the phone
and dial to talk to our friends. She'll have a phone. That's enough.
If I found out someone was trying to "SEDUCE" my daugher at any age
she was in my care. I would be the one committing the next crime. Watch out
punk!
Re: Steven Jarvis | 2:19 p.m. May 8, 2008
That is an excellent idea Steven, however there is one slight problem. Logging
the same IP address is difficult as most people have a different address each
time the log on the internet. That is a dynamic address vs a static ip address.
Each ISP has a block that they can assign, so all you can do is narrow down the
ISP. Now a task force may be able to log IP addresses each time and ask the ISP
who was using it at a certain time, but then you have to go through subpeonas
and search warrants and both of those require either reasonable cause or
probable cause.
The idea is great, just some fine tuning needs to be done.
The idea is great, just some fine tuning needs to be done.
Reader | 2:45 p.m. May 8, 2008
Growing up is a time for the formation of the whole individual, and excessive
focus on one area sidetracks that development in a harmful way. Something as
focusing and powerful as human sexual feelings distorts the natural, healthy
development of the child/youth, an opportunity which can never be completely
recouped. While the sexualization of children and youth is increasingly common,
that does not mean this trend is good, or even neutral, for the individual
child, or for our society's future. Children and adolescents who are
prematurely sexualized suffer real and lasting harm, and unless we are willing
to hide children away we need societal norms which will help protect them.
Putting the onus completely on the parents is unrealistic; no parent, no matter
how neurotic, can guarantee their child's safety.
We must take steps to protect the vulnerable from predators who manipulate others for their own ends. And speech which causes real harm is not protected as �freedom of speech�. Criticizing others efforts without seriously contributing to the solution undermines what is currently being done while helping no one. If you can think of a more effective way to legally clear society of such harms, present your ideas.
We must take steps to protect the vulnerable from predators who manipulate others for their own ends. And speech which causes real harm is not protected as �freedom of speech�. Criticizing others efforts without seriously contributing to the solution undermines what is currently being done while helping no one. If you can think of a more effective way to legally clear society of such harms, present your ideas.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Pfizer drug study reports fudged 3:25 p.m.
- Netanyahu, Sarkozy meet 3:24 p.m.
- Ark. man convicted of capital murder 3:23 p.m.
- Obama, abortion rights folks to talk? 3:21 p.m.
- Koerber faces 19 new charges 3:05 p.m.
- NFL local watch, week 9 2:09 p.m.
- Cougars practice with urgency 1:59 p.m.
- Man killed in Utah County crash 1:34 p.m.
- Drug company settles Utah suit 1:33 p.m.
- NBA game experience Online 1:31 p.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
- Utah Jazz have a problem at point
- 'Love story' of crash victim ends
- BYU football recruit turning heads
- 12 Utes return to Texas
- Wyoming writer amazed by BYU
- Cougars' defensive hoops clinic
- Gays get Mormon support in SLC
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
- Long days for BYU interns
- House passes health care bill
271 - SLC council OKs gay rights policies191
- TCU showdown has big implications189
- Senators want food tax restored157
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy108
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections107
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges95
This week, I'm compiling my annual list of restaurants serving...
Advertisement
Latest comments
How about rights for people as human beings. I don't want to know who they...
RE -- To Anonymous the first | 2:30 p.m I have no clue who you're talking...
Jazz stink! Injuries are going to be an excuse AGAIN. I say they are they...
If Wyoming is a weak team, why did Utah have such a difficult time with them...
Republicans have it right. Most scientists are wrong and should listen to...
So many of those who dislike Rush, Hannity, and Beck on this board probably...
That's a good point. . . I don't know if he can hit harder than BYU's...
One thing I should have the right to worry about is if I want to rent to...
Your clarification post, along with your letter that was published, makes me...
Joke? | 2:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009 Utah gives a group of people the right to...
Advertisements
The difference would be that the man propositioned an actual under-age girl, and was not a victim of police entrapment. Morally, police do not have any right to trap someone into any illegal activity they would not have been committing otherwise.