Minority Report

[GenericBox]

So a recent news article got me thinking tonight. As I usually do at these hours (wow its 3:30am :S ). And then looking through my DVD collection, to find something to put me to sleep (again, as I usually do at these hours), I found Minority Report, and it motivated me to make this thread.

I am thinking about paedeophilia. Well, not specifically paedeophilia (but hey, who am I to say where this thread may head), but in the way they are "caught".

The news article I heard was on the radio, so I can't provide quotes / sources, but, the gist was that a paedeophile was charged after arranging a meeting with a child, who was actually a cop.

Now how do I put Minority Report and Paedeophilia together? Because I am trying to figure out how I feel about charging someone with a crime they haven't yet committed.

I mean, I know these police officers are posing as children, and are probably well trained to act like children, but well, I can't help but just feel that no, they just aren't children. And although they may act as childlike as possible, and be undetectable than the real thing, by being police officers they are indeed facilitating or creating a situation that a child may or may not in the similiar situation.

I mean, ultimately, a police-poser-child is trying to get the paedeophile to ask them to meet. So isn't it almost goating them into committing the crime? I do not know how they operate, so the opposite may be true. Just a thought I was having.

And then, even once a paedeophile has arranged a meeting with the police officer, they still aren't committing a crime because they are going to meet a police officer not a child. And I know its petty and whatever but they are not being charged with 'attempted paedeophilia' or whatever, but are being charged with full 'paedeophilia'.

I don't know. Just a thought. What does everyone else think?

But don't get me wrong. I am not defending paedeophiles in anyway. And I know how serious the issue is. Thats why I said its sorta not about actual paedeophilia. Its about how they are charged/caught before they actually commit a crime.

I have more to add but I can't think properly I'm too tired, so when (if, maybe, please?) people reply, I'll probably have more to say and fuel off them.

Just to recap. Not about the actual act of paedeophilia, but how they are caught and charged before committing a crime and whether or not that is right. Even though they are under the impression they will be meeting a child, they are not, therefore is it right to charge them as such, for the future crime they were likely to commit?

[Jaar-Gilon]

Very interesting GB. I must admit I haven't seen Minority Report, I will have to do so.
Specifically
and be undetectable than the real thing,
This means that literally the predator thought it was a child so it was a child!
I don't know the law, but for me It is inapropriate for any adult to be talking explicitly in a sexual way to any child. Is the behaviour harmful? Even if it is someone posing as a child? Yes!
I think that behaviour is a crime in itself.
Will the behaviour lead to further physical behaviour?
Possibly.
Is that enough to warrant it a crime?
Yes, don't talk about sex(unless you ae the parent! or a peer? in an appropriate way) in sexual way to minors especially with intent to meet!.:mad:
If it's not it should be a crime.:mad:

4 Corners had these freaks (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2571466.htm)on sunday night, sort of similar, the argument being did he touch a fourteen year old and a sixteen year old inappropriately. A sixty four year old man getting them to take of all their cloths for fuck's sake!!!! Holy shit!! Then lying in bed with them!?!! That's gotta be a crime SURELY?!!Ahhhh crap I think I've popped a blood vessel! Did he commit a crime?? If he didn''t touch them inappropriately? READ ABOVE!!!
I know a little different to what you are saying, there is an actual minor involved etc. But the tool and his worse followers actually believe he is the son of god!?! So he can groom the girls to have sex with fucking sick!! Fortunately a group of his "peers" agree with me and he got I think 8 years or something but he claims he will starve himself to death. Good riddance.

But his lawyer was surely arguing that the law had to do with the touching not the wrongness of the encouraging of a minor to behave in that way.

Same with attempting to meet a minor via any form of communication.

Think of the word intent.

Is it a crime to intend a crime?

I can't believe i didn't have 1984 in my top 5 books. I have waaaay more than an equal top 5. Doubleplusbad. Wot?

[NakedApe]

It's all laid out here:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/htcb/htcb017.html

I watched Four Corners on Monday - it nearly made me puke. How appropriate that the guy's name is Wayne Bent. I hope he has a nice time in prison - I understand they just love kiddy fiddlers in there. :mad:

[GenericBox]

Ah ok thanks that does clear it up alot more. But I still don't know. I mean this statement worries me abit.

From these two examples, it is apparent that a real child need not be involved in the commission of the offence, as child grooming can be viewed as an act preliminary to commission of a sexual offence. For example, the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 218A(7) states that 'it does not matter that the person is a fictitious person represented to the adult as a real person'.

So in the end, they are still being charged for the future crime they would of committed if the online handle was actually a child.

I mean ultimately I agree with it. It is like attempted murder. They didn't ultimately commit murder because someone/something stopped them, but they were still going to and still tried to.

But then shouldn't they be charged with say attempted sexual assualt or intent to commit ....

Again, the outcome I agree with, its just whether or not the method I agree with. But I don't know how these chats go down, perhaps they do warrant it. I mean if they are sending pictures to these kids and telling them before hand what they are going to do to them thats pretty f'd up. But if the police officer tries to imply or get the paedo to arrange a meeting then it just seems that thats goating him into committing the crime, even if he was likely to do it.

[GenericBox]

Hey sorry Jaar didn't see your post.

Yeah for me that is pretty open/shut. Because they were children, they were present, and his actions were under law illegal (which I know in my case its the same). But like yeah. They were no doubt children if you get what I mean.

And thats basically the question I am asking. Forget paedeophilia even.

Is it a crime to intend to commit a crime?

For future reference for people who haven't seen it, Minority Report is about the police gaining a method that allows them to see murders before they happen, so they create laws that allows them to arrest people for the future murder of someone.

In the movie they use the analogy of a rolling ball along the desk. The ball was bound to fall off the desk. But the officer caught the ball. The ball was still going to hit the ground, but it didn't. By catching the ball before it hit the ground doesn't change that it would of. Simplistic I know but it is Hollywood.

[youngmoigle]

There used to be a crime called "Loitering with Intent", so this new law is just an extension of that.

[Ramen]

Along similar lines, I couldn't believe this when I heard it. From The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html), December last year:

A NSW Supreme Court judge has ruled an internet cartoon in which lookalike child characters from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts is child pornography.
In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams today upheld a decision convicting a man of possessing child pornography after the cartoons, depicting characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie engaging in sex acts, were found on his computer.
The main issue of the case was whether a fictional cartoon character could "depict" a "person" under law.
"If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,"Justice Adams said in his judgement. "Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."
Alan John McEwan had been convicted in the Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, the latter of which has a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail.
The male figures in the cartoons had what appeared to be human genitalia, as did the mother and the girl depicted in the cartoons.
The magistrate had said that had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.
However, he was fined $3000 and required to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect to each of the charges.
McEwan appealed the decision arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form.
But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.
Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of "real" children.
However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children."
He dismissed the appeal and ordered each party to pay its own coasts as it was "the first case dealing with [this] difficult issue."

[Seamus]

I put that same question to friend several years ago. He's a prosecuting barrister.

His opinion was the same as the magistrate's

I've seen some of those cartoons. I think they're gross and unfunny.

[TÐöer]

I understand where you're coming from GB.

I've seen it in US shows all the time. I think they call it entrapment. A policewoman dresses as a prostitute and when a guy comes up and ask for services, they nab him.

They've even made jokes about it, like the guy just wanted to ask for directions but was taken nonetheless.

Whether it is lawful or not? I think if there is an intent to commit the crime it is Wrong, and should be punished legal or not.

But what if they fantasize it, but have no intent on doing it? Yes it is still sick, but there is a difference between the 2.

And how about in cases the person has no intent at all, but was coaxed into being curious?

It is difficult to tell the intent of a person, or the degree in which they were coaxed to err.

In minority report, the offender was potrayed as a man who was engulfed in rage for his wife's adultery, and therefore was going to do something out of his character. Catching him before he committed the crime didn't feel right.

hum... that is a real problem indeed. Intention was there, but he wasn't himself. If they had simply stopped him, I am sure he would not have wanted to kill his wife anymore.

[SinisterDexter]

I would tend to say no, we shouldn't.

I don't think it is possible to adequately determine intent prior to a crime and, as much as this means that offences will occur, I don't think the benefit is as great as the risk represents.

Of course, we have a way of trying to head off intent already - by making an example of those who are caught. There are enough people already engaged in the crimes that trying to prosecute those who might be involved at a future date is, I think, somewhat inefficient.

We have made huge leaps in this area over the last couple of decades. It is no longer socially acceptable in any context, but I think we run the risk of overblowing it.

Kids are not asexual beings, and treating them as such makes them vulnerable in the first place. I think we place an unrealistic expectation on kids to be "innocent" and conflate "childhood" with "asexual". But kids experiment with their sexuality from a very early age, and especially between the ages of 10 and 17 are becoming more and more sexual. During puberty it is an incredibly powerful urge.

I'm not saying we should promote sexuality amongst children, and I'm especially not endorsing sexual predation by the mature on the immature, but I think our attitudes to children and sexuality are just as unhealthy at the moment in the opposite direction as they would be if we condoned paedophilia as a society.

[Jaar-Gilon]

Kids are not asexual beings, and treating them as such makes them vulnerable in the first place. I think we place an unrealistic expectation on kids to be "innocent" and conflate "childhood" with "asexual". But kids experiment with their sexuality from a very early age, and especially between the ages of 10 and 17 are becoming more and more sexual. During puberty it is an incredibly powerful urge.

I do not think kids are asexual beings at all, but I sure as shit don't want my daughters first sexual experiences to be with some thirty year old douchbag she met on the net!
I don't think it is possible to adequately determine intent prior to a crime and, as much as this means that offences will occur, I don't think the benefit is as great as the risk represents.
I think there is a difference between criminal intent and the normal usage of the word intent. In a lot of cases I think it is possible to prove intent.
I think the predator caught in the type of sting that police use is explictly displaying criminal intent, and the law needs to curb this behaviour.
The bloke parked outside the bank with a bag and a balaclava and a shotgun in his car had better have a very good explanation for having those things! What if he has the balaclava on and the gun and is approaching the bank, if a police officer is watching must he wait till the person actually robs the bank before a crime has been committed?

[Jaar-Gilon]

But what if they fantasize it, but have no intent on doing it? Yes it is still sick, but there is a difference between the 2.

And how about in cases the person has no intent at all, but was coaxed into being curious?

It is difficult to tell the intent of a person, or the degree in which they were coaxed to err.



An adult on trawling for kids on kid sites is beyond curiosity, I think it is clear that doing this is going beyond the bounds of fantasy, and is not right full stop.

There is definitely a difference between fantasy and intent, i think fantasy is completely a mental process. Acting on fantasy is different. Doing something is reality not fantasy. An adult has no business talking to a minor in a sexually explicit way (even if they are just curious!) hence the laws as NakedApe linked to.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

I think there is a difference between criminal intent and the normal usage of the word intent. In a lot of cases I think it is possible to prove intent.
I think the predator caught in the type of sting that police use is explictly displaying criminal intent, and the law needs to curb this behaviour.
The bloke parked outside the bank with a bag and a balaclava and a shotgun in his car had better have a very good explanation for having those things! What if he has the balaclava on and the gun and is approaching the bank, if a police officer is watching must he wait till the person actually robs the bank before a crime has been committed?
Looking up (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?query=%22mens%20rea%22;results=50;sub mit=Search;mask_world=;mask_path=;callback=on;meth od=auto;meta=%2Fau;view=database-natural;offset=0) the legal term "mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)" may help clarify the matter of intent. It is a difficult concept, but once the matter of a guilty mind is decided, it's all downhill.

[Vonnie]

Is it a crime to intend to commit a crime?

If it is legislated as such, it is. For example, there is a current court case in Brisbane where a man and his lover plotted to kill the man's wife. They have both been charged.

However, it is not a crime, for example, to plan to park at a parking meter and not pay for a ticket.

It comes down to the law, and what has been legislated.

So, yes, the scum who "groom" children, even if those children are actually under-cover adult police, are committing a crime by law.

Vonnie

[GenericBox]

Yeah I agree with you. But I'd imagine the coulpe are being charged with attempted murder, or consipiracy to commit murder (I know, I know, I watch too much American television - but you get what I mean)...

I know its just being pedantic, but, they charge paedophiles with say murder, although they haven't committed murder. If you get what I mean.

Anyway, I really should stop posting so late. And I really need to get to bed earlier (But alas, I will be up for lets see, about another 6 hours yet (6am bedtime yay -_- )).

But as people have pointed out, intent to commit these charges is covered under the exact laws / crimes they are charged with. So there you go. You learn something new everyday.

I can rest easy knowing paedeophiles aren't being hard done by. (sarcasm intended if anyone misses it).

[SinisterDexter]

I do not think kids are asexual beings at all, but I sure as shit don't want my daughters first sexual experiences to be with some thirty year old douchbag she met on the net!

But how likely is this to occur? It is much more likely that her first sexual experience will be with a classmate or peer, probably one who has never been introduced to the idea of a condom (or at least has not been able to obtain one) because we fear even mentioning sex to them.

I think the paedophile risk has been greatly overblown.


I think there is a difference between criminal intent and the normal usage of the word intent. In a lot of cases I think it is possible to prove intent.
I think the predator caught in the type of sting that police use is explictly displaying criminal intent, and the law needs to curb this behaviour.
The bloke parked outside the bank with a bag and a balaclava and a shotgun in his car had better have a very good explanation for having those things! What if he has the balaclava on and the gun and is approaching the bank, if a police officer is watching must he wait till the person actually robs the bank before a crime has been committed?

Well, in your example the criminal has a gun on him in public. There's your crime - go right ahead constable.

In the case of child grooming... I think it depends on what has been said. I agree that there can be some very clear intent to commit that does need to be seen as a crime in and of itelf (Vonnie's example is good). But like almost every situation, each one will be different. Where the intent is absolutely clear... well... maybe. But in most cases it won't be. You just can't lock someone up for a crime they haven't yet committed.

By all means use these stings to identify and scare potential paedophiles, but I just can't condone pre-crime punishment.

[GenericBox]

By all means use these stings to identify and scare potential paedophiles, but I just can't condone pre-crime punishment.

That is what I've been trying to word I think. That's what I was trying to get at originally. But I don't know the laws, (and I guess I should start learning if I do eventually become a police officer ;) ), but other people have mentioned that the crimes they are charged with include Grooming and the nature of the chats they have in these stings.

So although its not worded as such, the crimes they are charged with are basically 'Attempted Murder'. Well thats what I am getting out of this thread anyway.

But I also agree with you that the issue is completely overblown.

But then again, until recently when a family member fell for the basic tricks I didn't think kids were that 'easy'.

My 14 yr old cousin, without telling her parents (but told my mum - her aunty - why is it that girls always identify with their aunts more than their mums? My mum is like the go to person for all my female cousins - anyway) she went by herself from Caboolture to Brisbane to meet a guy she was talking to on MSN who said he was 20.

My mum told her parents though and she wasn't allowed to go, but she was going to. She had planned it so that she told her parents she was going to mind her brother at his basketball game, but while he played, she was going to train it to brisbane and come back to pick him up.

Scary its that easy.

But I still think it is overblown in public.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

GB, I'm merely commenting here, not giving opinion, but the "thoughtcrime" is not without precedent.

I am not familiar with drug laws in NSW as they stand today, but certainly in 1988 the following could happen...

X is arrested for possessing a very small amount of cannabis, and is in transit back to the local police station in the back of a police car.

Constable Hogg is speaking to X in a "conversational" manner: "Geez, not much. A couple of joints. That all for you, or would you share if your mates were going a bit short?"

X answers that no, he'd never leave his mates go short.

Constable Hogg adds "conspiracy to supply" to the list of charges: the roundabout admission that X would share cannabis with his mates is sufficient under the law.

The really scary thing is that, even if the "cannabis" had turned out to be oregano, the charge of consipracy to supply would still hold, and the hypothetical situation in a coonversation would be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

[GenericBox]

I don't find a problem with that case. IF it turned out to be Oregano I would. But I mean if it was Oregano, why would he answer the question like he did. If he was claiming it was Oregano, of course they (I) wouldn't believe him at the point of arrest, but when you get back to the station you'd test it / send it for testing. I don't know what police procedure is, but surely they have methods of testing it at the station, as they would have to do with every narcotic they find, as it may be baking soda instead of crack or whatever. However unlikely.

Like I am saying, I am in no way objecting to Paedeophiles being charged with "Attempted ..." like charges. And if that is the definition of some of the charges they are being charged with (wow, I used charge too many times), I have no problem with it. The crimes they are charged (-_-) with are just not worded easily for idiots like me to understand initially ;)

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

I don't find a problem with that case. IF it turned out to be Oregano I would. But I mean if it was Oregano, why would he answer the question like he did.
Forget your common-sense for a moment: this is LAW!

You don't know whether X knew what was in the stash either. The nature of the substance is irrelevant, however.

The point is that the constable asked whether X would supply, and X agreed. Outside of anything else, from the price of fish in Manila to Constable Hogg's shoe size, the crime of "conspiracy to supply" was self-admitted.

Your problems with the case are irrelevant. The law is the law, and can be used in that manner. (The word "used" was deliberately chosen in this case, rather than "applied".)

[GenericBox]

Yeah, and IF it was Oregano I would have a problem with the law being used this way.

But since the officer is under the impression it is Cannabis, I don't mind him using the law like this. Does the way he asks the question change the answer? I don't think it does. If I was an officer, I probably would ask the question in the same style, because by asking them front on before arrest, they will be trying to cover themselves, and probably say no, in fear of more charges.

This way, the officer is setting up a comfortable (relative) environment in which the detainee feels safe to answer the question. Basically, it gives the officer a greater chance of getting a truthful answer.

I would only then find it wrong, is that if they got back to the station, and it was tested and proven to be Oregano, but Constable Hogg still charges our detainee with Conspiracy to Supply.

Then it is wrong.

But that method of getting an answer from a detainee seems obvious to me, because it gives the detainee a sense of comfort and security (however false).

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

Wrong but totally lawful, which is the point I have been trying to convey to you.

Put aside your opinion and indignation for a moment, and see that the thought is proven, and that is sufficient to establish guilt as the law stands.

Other "consipracy to" and "intent" charges are almost certainly run on the same lines. I have not been arguing for this, but trying to expose the mechanism to you.

[GenericBox]

Yeah I know. I see what you are trying to convey. I have not argued that they shouldn't be charged with intent nor conspiracy to charges.

I thought initially that they were just being charged with straight out murder (and excuse the comparison you know how I suck at those), but you get what I mean.

But as posters and yourself have pointed out, if the laws they are charged with cover or are defined as conspiracy or intent. Then by all means thats what they should be charged with.

I just initially thought they were being charged for crimes they hadn't yet committed, which I think is wrong. But if the crimes they are charged for are defined as such, then they have committed them.

I've confused myself. But hopefully you get were I am at.

[davo]

entrapment is not illegal in Australia as far as I know. There is no law saying police cannot lie.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

entrapment is not illegal in Australia as far as I know. There is no law saying police cannot lie.
I have been successful getting a case thrown out once, by pointing out that prosecution police witnesses were using the same serial-numbered police notebook. Score one: me.

Then again, I pointed out (back in the early days of word-processing) that two police statements contained exactly the same wording for about half a page, although the statements were supposedly from two different people, taken by different officers. In this case, the defence solicitor told me that the judge would want to rush things so he could go trout fishing, as always did on this part of the circuit, and that he was going to find "guilty" anyway.

Apparently if judgeypoo's headlong rush to the trout stream was held up, he was almost certain to impose a custodial sentence. As it was, the result was fines and bonds. Score one: the system.

[Jaar-Gilon]

But how likely is this to occur? It is much more likely that her first sexual experience will be with a classmate or peer, probably one who has never been introduced to the idea of a condom (or at least has not been able to obtain one) because we fear even mentioning sex to them.
I think the paedophile risk has been greatly overblown.

Like most other "risks" in society it is overblown, everything from terrorism to contagious disease to the risk of women under 40 getting breast cancer is overblown, so I am well aware of the statistical implications of this occuring SinDex, and combined with how she has been raised it is very unlikely to occur, this does not mean that it won't though. Surely that also doesn't mean that we have to wait until a paedophile actually commits an act of indecency against a child before we act. Again, although I don't know exactly how these stings work, I am assuming that an arrest is made during an attempted rendezvous. That is the offender actually thinks he/she is meeting with a child. As has been put forward a number of times now, that is in itself legislated against, it is a crime.

I am pretty sure that this criminal would be charged with an offence like "using ICT to procure or groom children for sexual contact."
Not charged with penetration of a minor or any crime that involves an actual offence against an actual child, because they hadn't. I think this is the crux of what GB is trying to say, this is how they are not arrested for a future crime but something they have already done.

[SinisterDexter]

You said:
Like most other "risks" in society it is overblown, everything from terrorism to contagious disease to the risk of women under 40 getting breast cancer is overblown, so I am well aware of the statistical implications of this occuring SinDex, and combined with how she has been raised it is very unlikely to occur, this does not mean that it won't though. Surely that also doesn't mean that we have to wait until a paedophile actually commits an act of indecency against a child before we act. Again, although I don't know exactly how these stings work, I am assuming that an arrest is made during an attempted rendezvous. That is the offender actually thinks he/she is meeting with a child. As has been put forward a number of times now, that is in itself legislated against, it is a crime.

I am pretty sure that this criminal would be charged with an offence like "using ICT to procure or groom children for sexual contact."
Not charged with penetration of a minor or any crime that involves an actual offence against an actual child, because they hadn't. I think this is the crux of what GB is trying to say, this is how they are not arrested for a future crime but something they have already done.

I said:
In the case of child grooming... I think it depends on what has been said. I agree that there can be some very clear intent to commit that does need to be seen as a crime in and of itelf (Vonnie's example is good).

[Jaar-Gilon]

I said:


In the case of child grooming... I think it depends on what has been said. I agree that there can be some very clear intent to commit that does need to be seen as a crime in and of itelf (Vonnie's example is good).



You did indeed SinisterD, my apologies :o

[Godless Ray]

Yeah this is interesting. I had wondered often about the US police having female officers act as prostitutes. I wondered how many people were caught that ordinarily wouldn't have commit the crime.

There is something else also that worries me about pedo's also. You would have noticed the amount of venom that gets directed at them on release from prison no one obviously, wants one in their street. So, where do you put them on release from prison seriously?

What worries me is that the prevailing culture has only one safe place and that is with another of their kind. This would soon build to whole areas of them and that is a very,very bad idea.

Should this then be a life inprisonment offence?

What might be the answer ?

Godless Ray