Networks

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Is this a "Slippery Slope" ?

0 helpful
12 replies

by mickster269 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/4440472.html

"A new state law says internet predators no longer have to make physical contact with their victims for it to be a crime."

"Unlike years past, police didn't have to wait for him to make physical contact. A new law which took effect in July makes communicating with a minor in an attempt to engage in sex-- illegal."

Ok, obviously, I am all for taking child predators off the streets, offline, and away from society. That's not what is troubling me.

What I can't quite come to terms with is that the man was arrested for talking about potentially committing a crime. What worries me is that while the current law is understandable, and probably to be lauded- does this start us down the infamous "slippery slope"?

12 replies

by jamesrl

What is required is demonstrated intent to meet.

It isn't enough to for the predator to say "we should meet". Instead they have to say, "Meet me at 6:00 at the park bench, I will be wearing a rose in my lapel".

Works for me.

James

by jdclyde

is the law laid out on what is and what is not a crime?

I would hate for this to become a subjective thing. Your example is perfectly fine in my book as it shows clearly intent to commit a crime.

Any spin-off laws I hope will also have to be as clear.

by absolutely

If any physical, sexual contact with a person known to be younger than age 1x in locality x, then why whould speech relating to same actions, with person known to be or [b]REPRESENTED AS BEING[/b] less than same age (that age being the age of legally recognized maturity in same locale) be any freer?

by jdclyde

but to say I am going to do it might be a crime?

I do hope there is a VERY clear set of rules, such as the person actually sets up the time and place, but I don't see how this makes things better.

Let they guy go the the fake meeting and pick him up then.

This does make me nervious, because it really could get out of hand with other crimes. I see absolutely no advantage to picking the person up before the meeting, hopefully on video.

by mickster269

That's what I find really troublesome - this whole incident was in a Chat toom.

Chat rooms are so random, and so easy to spoof personal information in.

by absolutely

Why, exactly, do you think anybody should have the right to say, to an underage person, "I am going to f*ck you!"?, or to make any other statement of intent to engage in any sexual act with any person younger than the age of legal consent?

by deadly ernest

saying them in a situation where you can actually carry them out, and present as a real threat is. And the same should apply here.

However, this does make one wonder, with the current younger generation's attitude to saying "F**k you" to just about everyone, well I can see the police being VERY busy with this.

by deadly ernest

places to day to some one "F**k you" or "Get f**k*d" does that constitute a reason to be arrested under this law? :p

by deadly ernest

apart from such things as entrapment, and its legal troubles.

1. Many underaged kids get in chatrooms and present themselves as older, is the person in trouble then, despite believing the kid to be of legal age?

2. Who initiated the sexual content of the conversation?

3. This is a Kentucky law, how does it apply if the chatroom server is in another state, or the kid is in another state, or the older person is in another state. Where has the crime been committed. Traditionally, the laws have held that the act / crime took place in the state in which you were in when you took the actions. So if you're standing in North Carolina, just north of the border, and shot someone in South Carolina, you would be charged with the crime in North Carolina, as that's where you were when you fired the gun.

Applied to this situation, a person outside of Kentucky, chatting up a juvenile in Kentucky, would not be committing a crime under Kentucky law, as the act was not a crime where they are. Very messy.

However, wait till they visit Kentucky for a meet, and catch them at the meet, you got them dead to rights - the crime of the meet is in Kentucky.

Hey,(for a moment forget if they have the death penalty in Kentucky, OK) since an adult trying to make it with a kid would be a coward - would someone convicted of this law, and sent to the electric chair in Kentucky be

a Kentucky Fried Chicken. :p

Sorry, it was too good a line to give up.

Seriously, this sounds like thought police.

by jdclyde

I really do not understand where there is really an advantage to this, especially if they have several preditors plan on showing up on the same day. Getting someone on video is hard to defend against, and not have to deal with the challenges to new laws. To have someone get off on a technicality is never good.

by yobtaf

Our current administration would call it a preemptive attacks,
hold the perpetrators indefinitely in secret prisons and
legally torture them until they confess to anything.

This discussion is closed to new replies.