I have a city prosecutor friend I'll query on this to get his take.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm only 43...what's your point! [img]tongue.gif[/img]I don't know what charges can be brought for such discussions, but the reality is the freedom to speak one's mind does not come without responsiblity or penalty for causing harm. Do you seriously think it's ok for a 45 year old man to call a 10 year old and tell her his deepest sexual fantasies? Do you let him off the hook just because the medium involved was the internet?
If possible, I'd like to know more specifics regarding the "importuning" of the convicted mentioned in the first post. We are discussing hypotheticals, but it's difficult to discuss something when we really don't know what exactly happened to cause the conviction.
So what exactly was involved with the "importuning"?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be Lew's call but I doubt he'll divulge the info for this particular case but maybe he could provide a "hypothetical"???Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
If possible, I'd like to know more specifics regarding the "importuning" of the convicted mentioned in the first post. We are discussing hypotheticals, but it's difficult to discuss something when we really don't know what exactly happened to cause the conviction.
So what exactly was involved with the "importuning"?
I'll see what info I can find from a prosecutors POV...
Yes, I, too, would like a more elaborate "hypothetical" situation.
While I'm discussing with Law Dawg, some of my comments are directed at the line of thinking posed by Lew.
He seems to be arguing that because accused only verbalized things and never acted on them, no crime was involved. Furthermore, he seems to say that there's some kind of immunity involved due to the privacy and freedom that characterizes the internet.
I make no claim to expertise regarding the law; however, I have to think an adult who knowingly exposes a minor to inappropriate sexual themes is a crime of some sort.
There is a victim here - the child. Children exposed to sexual themes for which they are not ready, or presented in a manner that is not appropriate are harmed.
I had a very sheltered life as a child, so I'm still shocked at some of the stuff I hear kids - elementary school kids! - doing these days. They shouldn't be learning this stuff by some anonymous 40 year old on the internet.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 10, 2006 11:15 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
Here's the statute:
2907.07 Importuning
(A) No person shall solicit a person who is less than thirteen years of age to engage in sexual activity with the offender, whether or not the offender knows the age of such person.
(B) No person shall solicit another, not the spouse of the offender, to engage in sexual conduct with the offender, when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and four or more years older than the other person, and the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.
(C) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, to engage in sexual activity with the offender when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and either of the following applies:
(1) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, and the offender knows that the other person is less than thirteen years of age or is reckless in that regard.
(2) The other person is a law enforcement officer posing as a person who is less than thirteen years of age, and the offender believes that the other person is less than thirteen years of age or is reckless in that regard.
(D) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications device, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, to engage in sexual activity with the offender when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and either of the following applies:
(1) The other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, the offender knows that the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age or is reckless in that regard, and the offender is four or more years older than the other person.
(2) The other person is a law enforcement officer posing as a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, the offender believes that the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age or is reckless in that regard, and the offender is four or more years older than the age the law enforcement officer assumes in posing as the person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age.
(E) Divisions (C) and (D) of this section apply to any solicitation that is contained in a transmission via a telecommunications device that either originates in this state or is received in this state.
(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of importuning. A violation of division (A) or (C) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree on a first offense and a felony of the third degree on each subsequent offense. A violation of division (B) or (D) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree on a first offense and a felony of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense.
Gae- your earlier post alluded to the "impossibility" defense. Historically, this was a defense that could be raised in criminal law; if it was impossible for you to commit the crime, you couldn't be guilty of it.
That defense is now a shadow of its former self. You still raise it, and there are exceptions, but many statutes do away with it. As you can see above, the importuning statute specifically states that if the "minor" is, in fact, an undercover police officer, the defendant can still be convicted.
Reason- again, I'm not saying the statute was wrongly applied in this case. I'm saying it's a bad statute as written. My assault analogy is reasonable, at least I think so. Proximity does matter, at least in most crimes. Again, if I can employ Jumper as my guinea pig here- suppose I'm ten feet from him and I'm coming after him with a brick in my hand. I'm probably in trouble.
Now say he and I are on opposite sides of Winton Lake and I threaten to throw the brick at him, even though it's obvious I could never throw it that far. I'm probably not in trouble.
And if I call him up and threaten to hit him with the brick, again I may be guilty of some type of harrassment, but not an assault.
No matter what my guy said over the internet, if he didn't leave his room, no act could have taken place. And that does create a proximity problem and I do have a problem.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you are soliciting a minor, whether it be from across the room or from another state, that should not matter. You are soliciting a minor.My assault analogy is reasonable, at least I think so. Proximity does matter, at least in most crimes.
The problem I have with your analogy is that you are connecting the wrong crimes with the one your friend committed.
You ask, if someone threatens you on the internet, are you guilty of assault. Well, no, off course not - no one was assaulted.
But if solicit - whether it be on the phone, on the internet or verbally, it's still solicitation, and you simply cannot get around that.
No one here is saying he actually had sex with the girl - that isn't even part of the equation. But he may have been lewd, he may have solicited, and that is the crux of this matter.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I always thought that assault was just the threat of attacking someone and battery was the actual attack. If so then I would think that Lew's analogy would stand.Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
You ask, if someone threatens you on the internet, are you guilty of assault. Well, no, off course not - no one was assaulted.
Frankly, if someone was to threaten to kill me over the net I'd want some sort of recourse if it was a credible threat. So I really don't think the two, solicitation and assault, are that far apart in this regard.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I always thought that assault was just the threat of attacking someone and battery was the actual attack. If so then I would think that Lew's analogy would stand.Originally posted by Pi?a:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
You ask, if someone threatens you on the internet, are you guilty of assault. Well, no, off course not - no one was assaulted.
Frankly, if someone was to threaten to kill me over the net I'd want some sort of recourse if it was a credible threat. So I really don't think the two, solicitation and assault, are that far apart in this regard.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But Lew pretty much implied in the first post that a threat is NOT an assault. Since he's the attorney, I figured he'd know:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's just say a threat is an assault. Does that carry over to mean a solicitation is the same as having sex?say I email Jumper and tell him in the email that I'm coming over there to kick his ass.
Am I guilty of criminal assault?
Well, no.
But it doesn't change the fact that he still solicited. So if I read the law as posted above correctly, Lew's friend is guilty of importuning.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks