So, Iâm going to respond to each of the points. I can tell that AI wrote your response. Thatâs good. That means you donât necessarily have a deep knowledge of this subject and can learn more about it. Thatâs where I was several years ago, and now, unfortunately, someone I cared about was âstung,â and it has thrown me into the deep end of the dark world of sex trafficking, the corrupt prison industrial complex and the absurd justice system.
(The points in your comment are in italics below, for clarity.)
1, **Entrapment isnât what you think it is.
In U.S. law, entrapment only applies if the government induces a person to commit a crime they were not predisposed to commit. Simply presenting an opportunityâeven a shady oneâis not entrapment. If someone willingly goes along with it, thatâs on them. Courts have been crystal clear about this.
So, first, an entrapment defense basically says, âYes, I was going to commit the crime of having sex with a minor but only because agents induced me to do it.â That is not whatâs happening here. These men never intended to have sex with that minor! Context matters: Agents fabricate their decoys as ADULTS, in a 100% ADULT environment. Other stings donât switch the decoy or crime back and forth, and that ambiguity and confusion serve a purpose â to induce the man NOT to have sex with a minor but to JUST SHOW UP, and THAT is where the entrapment happens. These men were seeking legally aged women for sex where legally aged women are offering or selling sexual services. They never clicked on an ad for a minor and never saw minor photos or minor age, until after they were lured in by this pretty, young, thin, flirtatious photo of a 20ish woman. Do you really believe these men suddenly changed their sexual preferences to seek a minor? These men clicked on an adult womanâs ad, albeit young but LEGAL.
Second, the comment, âCourts have been crystal clear about this.â When it comes to these types of cases, about 97% plead, and the 3% that go to trial typically have altered or hidden evidence. Case law is NOT even close to representative of actual truth, and appellate courts often rubberstamp jury convictions, as well. Everyone I know who hears the details of my friendâs case is shocked that agents are allowed to act in this manner. Itâs not just unethical, itâs unconstitutional. Itâs literally electronic warfare on American citizens (the electronic privacy issues alone are a violation of federal law. Look up Electronic Privacy Expert Bonnie Burkhardt, who staunchly opposes these stings and has written two books on the subject. Agents are violating hundreds of federal electronic privacy laws in each sting.)
- *Intent mattersânot the photo.
You say âthe guy never believed it was a minor,â but if the decoy says they are a minor and the person continues to engage, especially in a sexual context, then the law looks at intent. Itâs not about whether the person hoped it was an adult; itâs about whether they were willing to go forward after being told otherwise. Thatâs the legal threshold for attempt.
This is nuanced, but that is not quite the legal threshold for attempt, and while there is case law outlining as much, those cases are often different from these types of stings. It WOULD fit the legal threshold for attempt if the man were being arrested for trying to SEE if it were a minor, but thatâs not the crime. The crime is child sex abuse; the intent should be to have sex with a minor. Agents often never prove THAT intent. Instead, they say, âOh, we told him, so he believed it, and his showing up proves he wanted to have sex with a minor.â Prosecutions based on this rationale are well beyond the intended scope of the statute, which was supposed to arrest men with intent to have sex with minors, but instead over-criminalizes men who showed up in an attempt to resolve their confusion, in hopes of having sex with an adult.
If youâd like to discuss mens rea, we can do that. 18 USC 1591 states that a man must KNOWINGLY or in RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE FACT try to have commercial sex with a minor. Because itâs an attempt with a decoy, the âknowingâ goes out the window. The government MUST prove that the man BELIEVED it was a minor or RECKLESSLY DISREGARDED the fact it was a minor. [There is also a provision that if someone was able to OBSERVE the minor, then the government doesnât have to prove that the man knew or believed it was a minor. Ironically, visual observation is deemed so CRUCIAL that if a man âobservesâ the minor, the government is completely absolved from having to prove anything! Remember, all the men in these stings observe are ADULT photos; not age-regressed photos.]
So, hereâs the rub: The government says observation is indisputable when it comes to proving THEIR case, but when theyâve created a confusing scenario that lures some men into wanting to observe for final judgment, or who never believe it was a minor at all, then thatâs âreckless.â The government says, âWe TOLD them it was a minor, and so, they recklessly disregarded that fact.â And theyâre right. The men DID RECKLESSLY DISREGARD THE GOVERNMENTâS ASSERTION IT WAS A MINOR â BECAUSE MANY DONâT BELIEVE IT. Is it naive and stupid? Yes. BUT IT IS NOT INTENT TO HAVE SEX WITH A MINOR. If the government presents a confusing, ambiguous, ADULT decoy, then they cannot make it a crime to show up to see. IF the government wants to make it a crime to show up, then they MUST present a minor decoy from beginning to end to ensure thereâs actual intent.
Thatâs not just the way I think. Thereâs testimony surrounding this from FBI agents who state that they use age-regressed photos with minor ages on sites where minors are located, and they CLEARLY ensure, even asking over and over, that the men HAVE THE INTENT to have sex with a minor. THAT is the way to do these stings appropriately. Some even wait for money to exchange hands after the men OBSERVE what appears to be a minor decoy in person. Officer Gomez on youtube said that they never did these stings on adult sites because thatâs entrapment. So, there you goâŚargue with them.
When determining reckless disregard, there are typically two prongs (in most circuits): 1. Subjective awareness (men are told itâs a minor) and 2. Conscious avoidance of finding out the truth. In many of these cases, SHOWING UP IS trying to find out the truth. Thereâs no conscious avoidance if they were never sure it was a minor, and they were trying to figure it out.
Since the agentâs goal is NOT to induce men to want to have sex with a minor BUT to simply induce them to SHOW UP so they can be arrested for attempt, then the more confusing they can make the decoy, the better. In my friendâs case, he was shown yet another adult pic AFTER he was told it was a minor. He was actually shown photos of THREE different adult women, furthering confusion. Remember, agents just need them to show up.
- **The crime isnât âfabricatedâ if the person chooses to act.
These stings donât force anyoneâs hand. No one is dragged to a meeting spot against their will. If someone continues after being told, âIâm 14â or âIâm underage,â and still makes arrangements to meet, thatâs the crime. It doesnât matter that the initial profile showed someone of ageâonce the conversation shifts and the person stays in, theyâre responsible for their choices.
Ah, the âAI lack of nuance.â Give the AI a little more information about how these stings really operate if youâd like to hear a different version. Certainly, you can understand the difference between âforcing someoneâs handâ and enticing someone to show up? These agents have perfected their presentations, a little sexual dance of sorts. If the man starts to turn cold, then âmiss-highly-sexual-teenâ will talk about needing to showerâŚif the man asks for more information, then âsheâ will start accusing HIM of being a cop, etc. Legal entrapment is NUANCED, and courts DO recognize that. And given that these stings START on sites where men are actively seeking adult sexual services, then 85% of the agentâs job is already done for them. Further, these sites are filled with scammers telling all kinds of lies. If the man actually thinks thereâs a chance of scoring with that beautiful woman he clicked on, then yeah, itâs worth showing up to see. EVERYONE on Tinder expects to be able to at least show up to see if that person was lying. Agents know this, too, and take advantage of it.
- **Escort site or not, the conversation defines the crime.
Yes, Megapersonals is supposed to be 18+. But predators go looking in adult spaces hoping to find âbarely legalâ or âfake teenâ personas. Law enforcement knows this, and courts have upheld the validity of stings even on adult platformsâbecause predators are there, too.
Thatâs bullshit. Agents love to say that there are teens on these sites, but itâs just not true. In fact, in my friendâs case, they never bothered checking any other other ads he clicked on to see if it were a trafficked minor. They didnât even bother checking his phone for ANYTHING minor-related UNTIL ALMOST A YEAR AFTER THE ARREST. Why not?? Because they KNEW he wasnât seeking a minor.
So, this âprobable causeâ of being on an adult sex site because teens are on there? Itâs not even believable. Theyâre literally creating their own statistics with their own fake decoys. Young adults (18+) are on there, but often thatâs older woman trying to get the clicks; i.e. good marketing. (Look up Indicators of Sex Trafficking in Online Escort Ads, Final Report | Office for Victims of Crime. Their own government-funded study contradicts what agents - and chatgpt - says about this.]
Your final comment:
So no, these cases arenât âtextbook entrapmentââtheyâre textbook accountability. If someone backs out when they hear âIâm underage,â theyâre not charged. But if they push forward anyway, theyâve made their intent clear. And thatâs what the law punishes.
Well, AI really let you down here. I mean, INTENT IS INTENT. That means, the government needs to prove that the man was SEEKING SEX WITH A MINOR, not showing up to resolve confusion, or consciously avoiding trying to find out if it were a minor. When presented with these confusing stings, the government has an EXTRA obligation to ensure verbal or written acknowledgement that the man TRULY wants to have sex with a minor. Everyone who hears the totality of the facts of these cases agrees the government dropped the ball. People v. Aguirre also agrees, âOur analysis suggests the government should not be in the business of testing the will of law-abiding citizens with elaborate (if improbable) fantasies of sensuous teenagers desperate to engage in sexual acts with random middle-aged men." And the Aguirre case wasnât even a bait & switch using adult photos, which is even more egregious behavior.
You should also take the time to read about the overcriminalization of the sex trafficking statutes: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4688&context=wlulr.
Finally, an important thing to consider. While agents spend valuable resources advertising on adult sites, using adult photos and ages, then bait/switching to try to get men to show up, REAL PREDATORS are free to offend on sites where CHILDREN are - gaming, social media, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. (You know, the sites that law enforcement warns parents about. Ironically, law enforcement never tells parents to keep their kids off megapersonals or backpage gals.) There are hundreds of thousands of Cybertips annually, and NetChoice has reported that 99% of those Cybertips are NOT investigated due to âlack of resources.â Cybertips have a much better chance of representing real abuse, with real victims and real predators. Until THOSE are investigated, then agents should STAY OFF adult sites, where, in all probability, no freaking child predator is lurking in hopes of finding some minor. [Hey, ChatGPT, do some freaking real research.]
Hereâs a sample of one sting ad:
https://skipthegames.com/posts/prescott/female-escorts/caucasian_w/young-hottie-just-got-to-town/452802933528
This is similar to what youâd see on megapersonals, etc., and I can assure you, this woman will be the prettiest one on there (again, by design).
I think I answered all the points. If not, let me know.
Focuses on science, not stigma
He knows heâs wrong.