3 ms·

It's probably the same principle as offering to kill someone for a cop; even though they didn't really have you kill someone, it still is enough to put you in j

It's probably the same principle as offering to kill someone for a cop; even though they didn't really have you kill someone, it still is enough to put you in jail. Here, the perverts thought they were trying to get a little girl to take her clothes off, even though there wasn't a real little girl. Now, if they knew it was just a computer-generated image, I think you might have a point; they'd still be perverts, but maybe (IANAL) not criminals.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Can you be charged with anything further than "Conspiracy to do X" if all they have is intent?
johnchristopher 12y ago
And yet no crime were actually committed. There are no victims.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Whether or not you believe a victim other than society in general (or the sovereign) ought to be required for a crime, that's not an actual requirement.
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    Fair point.
- rosser 12y ago
  There are no victims. In the specific instance involving "Sweetie", sure. Please don't tell me you think that Bob, aged 51, had never before in his life propositioned a child — a child who is in all likelihood an actual slave — to perform sex acts over the internet, until he happened innocently to be hanging out in #dirtylittlegirls, and propositioned Sweetie.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Then we should catch Bob propositioning an actual child. Surely we don't want to have a justice system based on assumptions and probabilities? Either we have hard evidence or we don't. Chatting to a virtual avatar is not hard evidence of anything in my opinion.
    - rosser 12y ago
      I don't know for certain, but I don't believe the police are making arrests based solely on an alleged perp's interactions with Sweetie. If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.

toomuchtodo 12y ago

Can you be charged with anything further than "Conspiracy to do X" if all they have is intent?

johnchristopher 12y ago

And yet no crime were actually committed. There are no victims.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Whether or not you believe a victim other than society in general (or the sovereign) ought to be required for a crime, that's not an actual requirement.
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  Fair point.
rosser 12y ago
There are no victims. In the specific instance involving "Sweetie", sure. Please don't tell me you think that Bob, aged 51, had never before in his life propositioned a child — a child who is in all likelihood an actual slave — to perform sex acts over the internet, until he happened innocently to be hanging out in #dirtylittlegirls, and propositioned Sweetie.
- gambiting 12y ago
  Then we should catch Bob propositioning an actual child. Surely we don't want to have a justice system based on assumptions and probabilities? Either we have hard evidence or we don't. Chatting to a virtual avatar is not hard evidence of anything in my opinion.
  - rosser 12y ago
    I don't know for certain, but I don't believe the police are making arrests based solely on an alleged perp's interactions with Sweetie. If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.