navigatro

This statute only requires that you set up a meeting with a minor (under age of consent) for the purpose of sexual activity. Money is not an element. You do not even have to show up for the meeting.

Bottom line (no pun intended): If you believe (or have reason to believe) the other person is underage and you try to meet them for sex, it is a violation of this statute.

Archie Bunker

Well, if what you're saying is correct, then the case should be very easy to prove, since I'm sure the police have every word of the "chat room session" recorded in print.

So, let me see if I have this straight...the accused doesn't even have to show up to a meeting to be found guilty? I'm no Perry Mason, but that doesn't sound right. How are you going to prove the intentions of the accused? What would stop the accused from saying that the whole conversation was not serious, that he thought it one of his friends playing a joke on him? He could say he was not serious, because he didn't show up for the meeting. I know that didn't happen in this particular case, but surely it has happened in others. Seems like the prosecution could lose a lot of cases that way.

I'd really like to read those transcripts though.

Night_Hawk

To tag on the not showing up, how about someone else was using my computer?

navigatro

That would be a valid defense (essentially mistaken identity) and would not be difficult to defend.
Sting operations like to have the suspect call the minor on the telephone, so they can record the person's voice. This helps their case, but it could also clear an innocent person, such as in your example.

It does bring up a good point of only letting those you trust use your computer, and also using a secure wireless router.

However,

These cases are generally very easy to prove, and do not go to trial (the defendant pleads guilty) because of the electronic evidence trail. Typically, first time offenders receive probation, must register as a sex offender, and are prohibited from using a computer. Some do go to prison, though.

You should not "jokingly" solicit minors for sex, just like you should not joke about bombs in the airport security line, or solicit a prostitute (or undercover officer) for sex, or joke about fire in a movie theater, or lots of other things.

The law presumes that you are serious about your intention to have sex with a minor, because of the necessity to protect those at highest risk of exploitation.

navigatro

In one of the "To Catch a Predator" episodes (Texas, I believe), the prosecutor ended up dropping charges against ALL those arrested, for various reasons.

Check out the Perverted Justice website (that is the organization that assists the "Predator" show by providing actors and technical help). They have transcripts from actual cases, and they are disturbing.

navigatro

Kentucky Law: (I omitted the first 2 sections for brevity's sake)

(3) The solicitation of a minor through electronic communication under subsection (1) of this section shall be prima facie evidence of the person's intent to commit the offense even if the meeting did not occur.
(4) This section shall apply to electronic communications originating within or received within the Commonwealth.
(5) A violation of this section is punishable as a Class D felony.

N9373M

Lucky the Feds are not involved. 10 year min.

Whistlin' Dan

For a while, the Perverted Justice site showed not only the transcripts, but the pics the perps sent. As if the guy's face being all over prime-time TV and being sentenced to prison as a child-molester wannabe wasn't enough, there was his junk in glorious color, posted on the internet for his friends and neighbors to see.

Most (but certainly not all) of those guys didn't seem like the sharpest knives in the drawer. That's why I'm surprised and maybe a little skeptical that another pilot has been caught up in this again, especially when the other guy was from the same carrier.

Whistlin' Dan

The first thing prosecutors do in cases like this is order a forensic exam of any and all computers to which the suspect has access. To convince them that "some other guy" did it, you'd first have to convince the prosecutor that another person had access to your computer, knew your password(s), read and answered your e-mail, searched all the websites you normally search PLUS the ones of questionable content, and a dozen other things.

Then you'd have to give him the name of that person.

navigatro

It cracks me up how pilots think they are so much smarter, better, etc. (I am a pilot BTW.)

Yes, there were a bunch of idiots caught on that show, but there were also Doctors, a Rabbi, Police officers, Teachers, and other professionals.