5 ms·

This is my concern, too: there was no crime outside of thoughtcrime, and I'd rather we didn't start prosecuting that. That these men intended to engage in chil

This is my concern, too: there was no crime outside of thoughtcrime, and I'd rather we didn't start prosecuting that. That these men intended to engage in child exploitation doesn't alter the fact that they didn't.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
btown 13y ago
However, this system could be used to identify people who would be willing to commit these crimes, and to justify investigation into other past crimes of the type that they may have committed. The line will probably be blurred in practice, but at least there is an ethical way to use this technology.
- wyager 13y ago
  You really think it's ethical to entice people into thinking they're committing a crime, just to have an excuse to investigate them? That seems kind of shady to me.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    A man that searches the Internet for vulnerable children, and then makes contact with a fake vulnerable child with the intent of abusing that child, does not appear to have been enticed that much.
jlgreco 13y ago
Probably analogous to leaving fake angel dust on the counter in the bathroom of a club, then arresting anybody who tried to snort it.
- Semaphor 13y ago
  No it's not. It's analogous to posing as a dealer but only selling fake angel dust. Which seems to me like it's a proper way to do it.
chc 13y ago
Attempted crimes are charged and convicted all the time. It isn't the thinking that's the crime; it's the attempt. The fact that they failed doesn't quite negate the fact that they were sincerely trying to get a real girl to do it.
rayiner 13y ago
At least existing American legal standards define "thought crime" literally. You can't be convicted of a crime merely based on your intentions, but if you take a "substantial step" (or something similar, depending on the jurisdiction) towards committing the crime, then it's no longer just "thoughts" and you can be convicted for an attempt. At least some of these men completed every step that was under their control: engage the girl and pay the money. That's an attempt, not just a thought crime. It's like lining up and firing a shot at what turns out to be a mannequin cleverly dressed as your ex-wife. Still attempted murder.
- trentmb 13y ago
  How can you take substantial steps to commit a crime against someone that doesn't exist?
  - Jagat 13y ago
    Coming next: NSA pre-crime division (powered by AI precogs)
  - rayiner 13y ago
    In the U.S. the theory of attempts is largely based on the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code) (MPC). The MPC has a somewhat unintuitive but very rationally consistent theory of criminal guilt. The MPC focuses on personal culpability. It finds someone guilty of an attempt when: 1) with intent to commit a crime; 2) he proves himself willing to carry out that intent by taking a substantial step towards committing that crime. The focus is on subjective culpability: what the criminal is thinking and what actions he takes. The focus is not on what happens. Thought experiment: three people go out and buy a gun, and take a shot through an apartment window at who they think is their ex-wife. First one hits and kills her. Second one misses because of a sudden gust of wind. Third one hits what turns out to be a mannequin. From the point of view of moral culpability: aren't the three people equally guilty? Each had the same murderous intent, and each took exactly the same actions to carry out that intent. Now, if you think the three aren't equally guilty, because the same thing didn't happen in the three cases, consider this hypothetical: three men are driving down the road. They see their ex-wife at a bus-stop. The first man is driving very carefully, but drives over a nail, blows out his tire, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The second man is playing a video game on his iPad, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The third man is still bitter from the divorce, and veers into his ex-wife on purpose, killing her. If the focus is on what happens rather than on what the actor thought and did, should all three be prosecuted as murder?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

btown 13y ago

However, this system could be used to identify people who would be willing to commit these crimes, and to justify investigation into other past crimes of the type that they may have committed. The line will probably be blurred in practice, but at least there is an ethical way to use this technology.

wyager 13y ago
You really think it's ethical to entice people into thinking they're committing a crime, just to have an excuse to investigate them? That seems kind of shady to me.
- DanBC 13y ago
  A man that searches the Internet for vulnerable children, and then makes contact with a fake vulnerable child with the intent of abusing that child, does not appear to have been enticed that much.

jlgreco 13y ago

Probably analogous to leaving fake angel dust on the counter in the bathroom of a club, then arresting anybody who tried to snort it.

Semaphor 13y ago
No it's not. It's analogous to posing as a dealer but only selling fake angel dust. Which seems to me like it's a proper way to do it.

chc 13y ago

Attempted crimes are charged and convicted all the time. It isn't the thinking that's the crime; it's the attempt. The fact that they failed doesn't quite negate the fact that they were sincerely trying to get a real girl to do it.

rayiner 13y ago

At least existing American legal standards define "thought crime" literally. You can't be convicted of a crime merely based on your intentions, but if you take a "substantial step" (or something similar, depending on the jurisdiction) towards committing the crime, then it's no longer just "thoughts" and you can be convicted for an attempt. At least some of these men completed every step that was under their control: engage the girl and pay the money. That's an attempt, not just a thought crime. It's like lining up and firing a shot at what turns out to be a mannequin cleverly dressed as your ex-wife. Still attempted murder.

trentmb 13y ago
How can you take substantial steps to commit a crime against someone that doesn't exist?
- Jagat 13y ago
  Coming next: NSA pre-crime division (powered by AI precogs)
- rayiner 13y ago
  In the U.S. the theory of attempts is largely based on the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code) (MPC). The MPC has a somewhat unintuitive but very rationally consistent theory of criminal guilt. The MPC focuses on personal culpability. It finds someone guilty of an attempt when: 1) with intent to commit a crime; 2) he proves himself willing to carry out that intent by taking a substantial step towards committing that crime. The focus is on subjective culpability: what the criminal is thinking and what actions he takes. The focus is not on what happens. Thought experiment: three people go out and buy a gun, and take a shot through an apartment window at who they think is their ex-wife. First one hits and kills her. Second one misses because of a sudden gust of wind. Third one hits what turns out to be a mannequin. From the point of view of moral culpability: aren't the three people equally guilty? Each had the same murderous intent, and each took exactly the same actions to carry out that intent. Now, if you think the three aren't equally guilty, because the same thing didn't happen in the three cases, consider this hypothetical: three men are driving down the road. They see their ex-wife at a bus-stop. The first man is driving very carefully, but drives over a nail, blows out his tire, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The second man is playing a video game on his iPad, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The third man is still bitter from the divorce, and veers into his ex-wife on purpose, killing her. If the focus is on what happens rather than on what the actor thought and did, should all three be prosecuted as murder?