To Catch ... Some Heat

jakenupe2, as I have said before it is never right to have or ask a minor to have sex. That is not what the show is doing. It is getting people for "attempting to convince" someone to have sex. There is a difference. But everyone just looks at it as being the same. Just for reference thought, in Florida a 24 year old can legally have sex with a minor down to and including 16 years old. Some states go as low as 14, but Federal law requires a minimum manditory 10 years for "attempting to convince a minor".

Saw in court a case where the police decoy told the defendant "We need to hookup", "I want to do boyfriend/girlfriend​ stuff". The jury convicted. So please don't believe that just because the law might say one thing, jury's don't necessarily follow. This is one of those crimes that people are so emotionally involved that once you are accused, it's over.

I was merely pointing out to all the people here who are crying entrapment what might actually constitute entrapment.  Every single "predator" episode I have seen, the transcripts that they show would stand up against an entrapment defense (in my not-an-expert-in-any​-way opinion based on what little I know of the law because I'm not a lawyer).

Here is the first explanation of entrapment that I came across in a quick Google search.

State v. Doran (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 187 -- Syllabus: "(1) The defense of entrapment is established where the criminal design originates with the officials of the government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order to prosecute. (2) Entrapment is an affirmative defense under R.C. 2901305(C)(2).  (3) A jury instruction which fails to allocate any burden of proof on the affirmative defense of entrapment is inherently misleading and confusing and is prejudicial error."

I'm sure different states may word it differently, but the gist is likely the same.  Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to get a case thrown out if the decoy was the one soliciting the meeting.  A decent judge would recognize entrapment in a case like that if a motion to dismiss was presented.  That is assuming that it was the decoy who initiated.  The decoy can play along once the topic has been broached, but can't initiate the topic.

Again, this is based on my layman's understanding of the law and nothing more.  I don't make any claim to be any kind of expert.

@ fldemocrat

at what age is it wrong to have or ask a minor to have sex? Since for you it is ok as long as it is consensual!

Although these guys are pervs and should be punished. I did not like the show's method of entrapment.. I actually don't like entrapment at all. It just seems to me that most sting operations consist of the feds being overly aggressive, damned near forcing the "perpetrator" to solicit in the act. In real life, no 15 year old is that aggressive or pushy... The pervs are usually more slick and aggressive... More like the big bad wolf... LOL

I can't believe people on here are faulting the judge for allowing the suit to continue.  A judge, by law, must be impartial.  Their decisions must be based solely on the letter of the law... well... sometimes the "spirit" of the law.

Being a pedophile doesn't preclude the plaintiff from having the right to sue in our legal system.  The judge made the correct decision by allowing this suit to go forward.  I personally don't think he has a case, but letting each side state their case, and allowing the laws to be examined will determine that.