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

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>