DO you think it is right to convict a person of child endangerment for soliciting minors on the internet

Question

if the supposed victim never existed? How can you endanger someone who isn't real?

Answer 1

I think that it is a good idea to charge and register these people as sexual predators.  They obviously fully intended to exploit a child.

Answer 2

Are you talking about people who pretend to be minors in order to trap child predators? If so, absolutely, danger (abuse, murder, rape) is their intent so why shouldn't they be convicted?

Answer 3

The intent and potential are there.  It's like stabbing someone but missing the heart and the victim lives.  It wasn't like you weren't trying to kill him.

Answer 4

Yes, I do.  The intent is there.  Just because no one responded to it does not mean the offender is innocent.  If someone tries to steal your identity or drain your bank account, yet is caught or stopped before they are successful, they are still charged with a crime.  As a person soliciting to minors should be.  It is still a crime.

Answer 5

maybe the charge needs to be reworded but in essence yes, the intent was there whether the victim never really existed or not!

Answer 6

Until there is a specific law , it'll do.

Answer 7

Wouldn't it be similar to calling in a bomb threat to your school, but never really intended to act on it?  

It's the threat of harm that is the crime here.  Sort of like living in Israel I would imagine on the border with Hamas.  

Answer 8

I have mixed feelings on this one.  Definitely the intent was there.   But the supposed victim wasn't.   I would prefer they were off the street.    

Answer 9

For the same reason you can convict someone of attempted murder even if they didn't actually kill someone. The intention was there.

The pedophile may have been unaware of the fact that the 13-year-old he wanted to victimize was an FBI agent in disguise, but that doesn't mean he didn't intend to victimize a 13-year-old and wouldn't do it for real at his next opportunity.

Answer 10

I do feel this is appropriate.  The reason I feel this way is because this individual poses a direct threat to the safety of minors.  So long as there is no indication of entrapment, such an individual poses an egregious threat.

Waiting for such an evil person to actually engage in abuse of a minor is irrational.

When one hears hoof beats, it's best to assume there are horses coming, as opposed to zebras.

In the same way, when there is an obvious threat to society, it's best to act preemptively to ensure that the minor is not harmed, rather than engage in analyses of whether the threat is real or simply a matter of quantum probabalistic outcomes.

Answer 11

In most cases, they pretended to exist (decoys), and if they were picked up, it would mean that the solicitor had the intention to do it.