To make out an entrapment defense you have to show that you didn't have any predilection on your own to do what you did that was illegal and you only did it because of the influence of the authorities. Needless to say this is hard to show, because, after all, you did the bad thing, and most people on juries (and off) will assume that you did it because you had at least some predilection to do it -- which is enough to make it not entrapment.
Presumably adults who send lewd pix or have sexual internet conversations with people they think are 13 year old girls with the purpose of inducing them to have sex have a predilection to send such pix or entice (sub)minors to have sex, so they are not being entrapped when the cops pretend to be 13 year old girls.
Btw the thing with its being crime, or a worse one, to send lewd pix to an adult when you think it's a minor (or a subminor -- 13, not 14, whatever) goes to the legal doctrine that the crime is in doing or attempting to do what you thought was the bad thing, even if you failed to do it or you couldn't have done it because, for example, the object of your attentions wasn't as young as you thought.
Likewise, it's still attempted murder to shoot (at) someone with an unloaded gun, as long as you thought it was loaded and meant to kill them by shooting it. That's not crazy, is it?
***********
I'd add in this context that the situation is largely created by the defendant. He's sought out an internet site where this sort of thing is discussed -- the authoriities haven't sought him out; they're waiting for him to seek them out -- and he has engaged in a series of exchanges with a stranger; no previous relationship or social context exists that might make the defendant susceptible to social pressure or feel his pride or manhood or something is at stake if he doesn't do the bad thing. It's very hard to imagine how a defendant could show a lack of propensity in these circumstances. ANd of coursde the fact the defendant here is not only a lawyer but a criminal lawyer, a prosecutor, sort of obviates the empty mind defense, so far as that has any force (not very much).
It's horrible and sad.
--- Charles Brown <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
>
> John Thornton
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Dennis Claxton wrote:
> >
> >
> >> A sheriff's deputy posed as a mother who was
> interested in finding
> >> someone to have sex with her children
> >>
> >
> > What kind of idiot would actually fall for that?
> >
> > Doug
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: The story I read here a couple of days ago also
> said that the
> "mother" was not asking for any money. What kind of
> ____ would believe
> there was a mother who was just offering up her five
> year old for free ?
> Well, I guess he might think there was a mother out
> there who thinks
> like him, i.e., that sex is good for children ( I
> guess that's what he
> thinks; otherwise, what _is_ he thinking ?)
>
> ^^^^^
>
>
> We just had a woman arrested where I live trying to
> sell sex with her
> minor child.
> The person she arranged to meet to have sex with her
> child was a
> sheriff's deputy running the same sting from the
> other side.
> If this prosecutor had met up with this woman online
> everything would
> have worked out alright between them and no one
> would have known.
> He claimed he's "done it plenty". Maybe he has.
> My fear here is that they are enticing people to
> commit crimes that
> they
> may have wanted to commit but would not otherwise
> have acted upon.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: That's the legal issue of entrapment. You can be
> sure that the
> sheriff deputy posing as a "mother" has a script
> that is legally tight
> as not to be an entrapment.
>
> A couple years ago I was discussing with an attorney
> in the state
> appellate defender's office the impossibility
> defense for internet fake
> kids who are really cops. ( I think it was discussed
> here by andie and
> others too). But the Michigan Supreme Court had
> already decided that
> there is no impossibility defense in same. I don't
> remember the
> rationale. The argument can probably be searched by
> an engine.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> I know law enforcement officials claim they don't do
> this but that
> promise is built upon a mountain of previous lies in
> so many instances
>
> it is more than a little suspect.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Well, in this case the whole exchange is in
> email texts, so this
> Florida prosecutor's defense attorney will be able
> to examine the texts
> for entrapment.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> I don't have an easy answer but my feeling is that
> is is not the best
> approach to this problem.
>
> John Thornton
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Anyway, it's like what I recommended ( smile)
> for Michael Jackson.
> He should raise a defense based on the ancient
> Greek value that
> pedaphilia is high virtue.
>
>
> Going back to the Senator who was recently busted in
> the bathroom in
> Minnesota, when I heard the transcript of the
> exchange between the cop
> and the Senator, I'm like "wow, he really has got an
> unconstitutionally
> vague defense." I recall that issue was discussed
> here at the time. I
> read in the last couple of days that the ACLU is
> doing an amicus brief
> for the Senator. Of course, he made a big mistake
> pleading guilty.
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz