Reader comments
Supreme Court considers whether Internet chat alone can be a crime
22 comments | Read story
Your rational is like saying that it's wrong for undercover cops to set up a buy for drugs to catch a dealer.
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.
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
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.
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!
The idea is great, just some fine tuning needs to be done.
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.
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.
- 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 policies
191 - TCU showdown has big implications
189 - Senators want food tax restored
157 - Cougars crush hapless Cowboys
155 - Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings
131 - TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd
119 - No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy
108 - S.L. vote pending on gay protections
107 - Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
95
This week, I'm compiling my annual list of restaurants serving...
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...


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.