Sex crimes- I'm in the minority here

[reason]

Let me get this right. He thinks it's wrong but doesn't think it should be considered criminal behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that?s not correct. His argument is not about the rightness or wrongness of this nor any act. You, for whatever reason can?t seem to understand that there is a technical side to law as well as a moral one. Your selective blindness is preventing you from seeing the danger that the rewriting of the particular law may represent.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then you need to go back to the very first post on this thread and read it *very* carefully, because you are not on board and lack the comprehension and totality of Lew's argument.

Lew is arguing many things. Yes, we know he doesn't like the law - and perhaps some things need to change. Yes, I *know* there are technical issues.

But he's also arguing whether a crime was even committed. When he puts quotation marks around "criminal activity" it signifies an attitude about whether that behavior was actually criminal, then he goes into a comparison with circumstances where offenders visited in person those whom they first met online.

It seems clear to me that Lew thinks words over the internet, even if to a minor, are private and should be protected behavior.

Ok...let's ask Lew, straight up...

Do you think soliciting a minor over the internet is protected behavior and that those private email conversations should be protected from goverment intrusion?

Do you think no criminal activity resulted because your friend never left his house and because only words were spoken? Am I incorrect in understanding that this is your position?

Oh, and Pina...you can't just argue technical points in a vaccuum. We're supposed to ignore the activity that brought the punishment despite the fact the threads founder made it the cornerstone of the discussion, and predicted he'd get beaten up for it.

[jumper69]

I think reason has "slightly" over reacted to Lew's thread. [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]

That being said, I think Lew's friend was guilty of importuning as that is how the law is written. No real argument there.

I also think Lew makes a valid point: At what point do internet conversations become fair game for criminal charges? My god, do you have any idea what is said on internet....on this board even? I've threatend folks, I've been threatend....on this very board. So today it's nabbing someone who asks to diddle a pre-teen (maybe). Tomorrow they're coming after me..you....who else, all because I said I was gonna kick your ass.

Where does it stop? Who stops it?

[Lew]

And therein, Jumper, lies my problem from the very first page. You pick up on it, and actually Reason does, too, because he's not an idiot, but since it's me posting it, he must automatically disagree.

Government inertia is difficult to start, but once it starts, it's even more difficult to stop. Hence, you always start out with the extreme examples. In this case, sex offenders. I mean, how could anyone stick-up for them? So you pass this law that does away with traditional cornerstones of criminal due process (and I listed them- the 'proximity' argument; the 'impossibility' defense; the "substantial step"; I raised the jurisdictional and evidentiary concerns; I pointed out privacy and free speech concerns) but who cares because these are just a bunch of sexual pedophiles anyway. And they're all guilty just the same, no matter if they said something over the internet or if they actually went out and fondled a little kid.

My point was, the legislature passed this law, and the Courts upheld it (I don't know if the U.S. Supreme Court will address it). Ergo, it's the law of Ohio and it's here to stay.

OK fine. But my original contention was, it's not like the legislature is going to stop there. The idea of committing "crime" over the internet (yes I put "crime" in quotes because the legislature can deem anything they want to be a crime) is not going to stop with the sex offenders, or at least there is the real danger it won't.

But the public is unlikely to view it that way because, again, we're dealing with a bunch of sex perverts, who cares about due process and all that nonsense? Well, fine, but let's see over the next 10-20 years what other crimes we can squeeze out of internet conduct.

If the Dateline program taught us nothing else, it did demonstrate that sex offenders (and in that context, yes, I'm talking about those who actually showed up at the house thinking a young child was waiting for them) come from all walks of life. There is the very real possibility that one of these days a defendant under this law will be a prominent member of society, or maybe the son of the CEO of a major coportation, or a politician, etc. It will be interesting then to see if attitudes change.

[reason]

And therein, Jumper, lies my problem from the very first page. You pick up on it, and actually Reason does, too, because he's not an idiot, but since it's me posting it, he must automatically disagree.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. I disgree vehemently because I think you're wrong. You want to argue technicality but you say a number of other things along the way.

You said what your friend did was wrong.

Do you or do you not think what your friend did was a crime? Do you think knowingly soliciting a minor over the internet is a sex offense?

Simple questions.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 02, 2006 04:40 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[reason]

.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 02, 2006 04:56 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

[jumper69]

You said what your friend did was wrong.

Do you or do you not think what your friend did was a crime? Do you think knowingly soliciting a minor over the internet is a sex offense?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Man....you've missed the point by a LEAST a country mile. Lew said his friend was guilty as the statute is written. That's not up for debate and that wasn't his main argument. Wwhy you keep harping on it mystifies me.

[Lew]

It mystifies me as well, so to re-cap:

1) What my guy did was morally wrong, by most any human standard; I've told him he was wrong, and he would be the first to admit it;

2) What my guy did was legally wrong (i.e. a crime) per the Ohio Revised Code (by statute written by the legislature, signed into law by Governor Tax, and upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court)

3) If I had the opportunity to so do, I would revise the law to come into compliance with some of the traditional legal principles of criminal law I mentioned; for example, I believe that all crimes should still require a "substantial step" in their commission, and in my opinion, mere words transmitted over the internet, with nothing further, should not qualify;

4) Even if the law were going to stand as-is, I would have at least allowed the possibility of misdemeanor sentencing in such cases like this one- first offense, no actual victim, no substantial step taken; and then if you commit the same offense again, then fine, there's your felony;

5) My guy's conduct nothwithstanding, I also rasised what I believe to be legitimate questions of the exercise of government power- jurisdictional concerns, evidentiary concerns, the ability of a county you've never stepped foot in to have you arrested in your home and brought before their court;

The internet is still new, maybe not so much in the techno world, but definitely in law. Any time there is something new, it takes a while for its jurisprudence to develop. When DNA first became admissible, everyone thought it was the be-all end-all. And in many cases, it was. But, in time there were cases of abuse (most infamous being the racial manipulation of DNA evidence by the West Virginia State police a few years back). And even now, DNA is still not a completely settled area of the law. It will be, someday, as will the internet, presumably.

But just because a law looks good on paper, that doesn't mean it will always work out in practice. Some laws are fine as written, some laws need a little tweaking, and some need a complete overhaul. In my opinion, this law needs some tweaking. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-child molesting, or that I think the police are evil or any of that crap. It just means that government actions should be studied carefully and checked when excessive.