--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I can see it both ways. Some states have a law
> that if
> > the girl is under 18 and the guy is not more than
> a
> > certain number of years older, 5-7, something like
> > that, then it's not illegal, or is less illegal. I
> > don't want to see people our age preying on MY
> > DAUGHTER.
>
> I made no attempt really to control my three
> children (2 daughters, one
> son) after they reached about 15, and they all
> turned out fine.
I'm not talking about parenting.
> > Entrapment is a virtually impossible defense to
> make
> > out. You have to show that you weren't inclined to
> > commit the defense, but the cops basically made it
> > irresistable for you to do it. You see why this
> has to
> > be: otherwise all undercover drug buys and the
> like
> > would be entrapment.
>
> Let me guess. Almost all uses of stings against
> individuals (not
> counting Illinois politicians, who don't count for
> much on the whole)
> are for victimless crimes.
>
Depends on what you mean by "victimless crimes." Do you mean drug crimes? I agree that drugs ought in the mainto be decriminalized and regulated, but drug dealing is not a victimless crime. Drug dealers are typically violent and dangerous people who keep their markets by murder, torture, assault, and coercion. As for what proportion of stings involve what sorts of crimes. I wouldn't know. In my totally anecdotal experience, after three yewars on the district court, I saw strings involving (a) public corruption (a Chicago alderman, some seriously bent cops -- that was a drug crime too), (b) fraud, (c) regular drug dealing. In the latter case, all the defendants were absolutely terrified -- not of prison, but of their suppliers.
jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com