Illegal

by Michelle Ann Newton

Created on: October 18, 2007   Last Updated: November 10, 2007

Not only is this sting operation iillegal, but it an outlandish disregard of the law.

Before I voice my humble opinion here, let me first clarify something for the record. I have had more personal experience with this subject than I care to admit. I was a victim of four individual, brutal rapes, perpetrated by four different people, in four different places, under four very different circumstances. I was also mollested at ages seven and ten, by two of my adoptive family members. This issue is both personal and intimate for me, in ways most people cannot grasp or understand.

The premise of catching a predator, before they make claim to their victim, is a home run, indeed. But in order to do so, legally, with evidenciary proof, is a whole different ballgame.

I have watched numerous Dateline Predator Specials and what I see happening is disturbing. I do agree, men beyond the age of 18, who pursue underage teens for sexual gratification, especially those 15 and under, in any form, are the clear and present danger signs of possible pedofiles. The problem with Dateline's Predator series is, entrapment.

Entrapment: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Dateline crosses the line, according to the definition on the laws of entrapment, in two ways.

First, their agents (each undercover), coerce individuals (older men), online (not in person), to engage in explicit sexual conversations (by initiating the start of such topics)online and by phone.

An older man is no more guilty of pedofilia by engaging in sexual conversation with a minor, online or over the phone, any more than a minor is guilty of the same offense through the same means of conversation.

Second, at no time, do any of the men accused of a crime, ACT on or physically perpetrate an actual crime, while being video taped or otherwise recorded by phone or online.

The Predator sereies on NBC neglects to show, in any way, with any reasonable certainty, that the act or perpetration of a sexual crime against a minor would in fact have taken place, had Dateline not intervened with police and made arrests. These men are, in fact, led to a trapped location, and upon their arrivals are told by the minors in question, to "stay where they are," then, the alleged perpetrators are taken by surprise, with Dateline cameras rolling, where Chris Hansen proclaims to have "caught" them, red handed, IN the ACT of a sex crime.

Here's why entrapment is illegal:

Though these accused individuals do exhibit obvious signs of troubling and even disturbing behaviors, they may have also been coerced, in some way, by police officers (and other professionals) into doing or responding or reacting to something they otherwise would not. It is impairative of law enforcement, to ensure any alleged perpetrator, of any crime, WILL in fact ACT in some way, as prescribed by law, according to their suspicions. It's called probable casue. Lamen's terms, that means, once these men have been lured into the "trap," he must be granted the liberty to ACT indepedently and of their own volition.

Here's an example of entrapment: If I, for whatever reason, believe my babysitter is hurting my child, I have a right to investigate, to the fullest extent of the law, including with hidden cameras and other undisclosed recording devices, without being required to inform the babysitter. But, if I then provoke, insight or ENTRAP the babysitter, let's say by offering some form of permission to conduct an act against my child (such as spanking), I cannot cry wolf later, if the babysitter decides to act on my provocation. The babysitter must, by their own choice, knowingly and deliberately ACT in some way to bring harm to my child (physical or otherwise) in order to have committed a crime.

Everyone knows, laws have been put into place to protect the rights of victims of sexual oriented crimes and abuse. That means, even to the point of intercourse, consenting adults have the right to say no or stop. If at that time, intercourse does not stop, a deliberate sexual offense is then perpetrated against the victim.

These men are not being afforded their right to stop. A crime, as described in this case, has not been committed, unless or until an idividual acts beyond talk or banter or even curiosity.

How can anyone know for certain, if these men would not stop themselves, PRIOR to committing an act against the minors in queston, if they are presumed and convicted as GUILTY, without hard evidence? If this is how our laws work, we're all sitting ducks.

Dateline's, To Catch A Predator, makes a mockery of our justice system, disregards all the civil liberties our forefathers faught and died to safeguard, and it is a disgrace to real victims of sexual misconduct, everywhere. I, as a prior victim of said crimes, am flabergasted, at the total disregard for liberty and justice involved with the handling of the entire televised production.

Learn more about this author, Michelle Ann Newton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.