Posted on 11/28/2002 11:18:47 PM PST by TheOtherOne
Man Convicted of Attempted Rape of Child Who Never Existed
Published: Nov 28, 2002
|
|
|
Prosecutors said Steven Peterman, 44, believed the child was real and that he intended to commit the crime.
Peterman was convicted Wednesday of attempted rape, solicitation to commit rape and sexual exploitation of a child. He faces 11 years in prison at his sentencing Dec. 27.
Authorities said a woman Peterman met in a bar made up the girl to help break up a child pornography ring.
Although prosecutor Keith Schroeder admitted to performing "a little bit of legal gymastics" in filing the attempted rape charge, he said Peterman wasn't prosecuted for simply thinking about raping a child.
He was arrested with several photos characterized by police as child pornography, along with a variety of sex toys.
"When he went to the residence where he believed the child was waiting, he had purchased several items that he intended to use in committing a crime," Schroeder said.
Tim Frieden, Peterman's defense lawyer, had an unlisted number and could not be reached for comment Thursday.
AP-ES-11-28-02 2157EST
But did the ficticious 10-year-old girl ever ask the man to have sex with her? If not, they would have to prove he came with the intent of raping her, if so, that would be entrapment (right?)...
They should have just chopped his genitals off and left him to bleed to death, instead of getting into all these legal complexities.
I am not so sure about that. 'Johns' are entrapped all the time by vice squad 'prostitutes' -- but in those cases, the 'John' is already actively cruising, looking for prostitutes. Was this guy cruising the internet with the intention to commit statutory rape? Impossible to say, and difficult to muster much sympathy for him. It's the gov't methods that concern me.
Anyone remember De Lorean, the auto magnate who was charged with cocaine distribution? He was acquitted by claiming entrapment, saying the Feds had created a crime where none would have otherwise existed. Of course, he had millions for high-powered lawyers.
Then there was, what did they call it -- 'Sheikgate'? The case back in the '70's where FBI agents, posing as arab sheiks, talked various Congressmen into accepting graft money in return for sponsoring favorable legislation. As I recall, they did NOT get acquitted. So it seems the law is ambiguous on the point of entrapment. But in all three of these cases, the accused did not go seeking a crime to commit -- they were contacted by gov't agents who induced a criminal intent on their part. At the very least, I think there are better ways of catching criminals and enforcing the law. Or, simply get clear, tough laws passed against the objectionable behavior, then go after the criminals. That's the American way.
No. Not unless you believe in "thought crimes". The guy was in possession of child porn and some other stuff,so prosecute him for that,not what agents of the government SAY he was thinking.
HEY! Let's not get too personal,here. I'm sure she has a nice personality.
No matter what everybody else on this thread is saying in their FR mails,*I* believe you. Honest.
It wouldn't matter if a 10 year old girl begged or even offered to pay him money to have sex with her,it is STILL rape. A 10 year old isn't competent to give permission.
Errrr....what?
The legal theory behind "attempted" crimes can best be shown by the classic example used in law textbooks -- trying to kill someone who's already dead. For example:
You want to kill your neighbor, John, so you invite him to your house to watch the Super Bowl. As he sits in a comfy chair in your living room, you excuse yourself (ostensibly to get some chips and beer from the kitchen), but return with your Glock 9mm and sneak up behind him. Unbeknownst to you, John suffered a massive coronary as soon as you left the room and is now propped up, dead, in the chair. You don't know this, and want and intend to kill John, so you fire three shots into the back of his head.
If all the facts are known, then you can't be charged with murder -- because you didn't kill John.
Should society give you a free pass just because you got lucky and it was impossible for you to kill John, even though you tried? Should you walk away with a slap on the wrist for descrating a corpse?
What happens if someone (hmm . . . let's call him "Willy C.") tricks a young nursing home owner into entering his Arkansas hotel room. Willy C. then rips her clothes off, bites her lower lip, and tries to rape her, but, alas, Willy C. is impotent and is not . . . um . . . "up to the job."
Do you think he should be charged with attempted rape? Or some misdemeanor (or perhaps criminal assault)?
Argument of entrapment aside, the guy here THOUGHT and PLANNED to have sex with a minor, and took affirmative steps to do that. He attempted to rape her, and impossibility is not a defense.
I hope nobody else misinterpreted it that way.
In New York, Cochran is or was involved in a case of a drunk driving accident involving an off-duty cop. the lawyers are suing the police, FOP, and the driver's friends for not having prevented the accident. In NJ a man was tried for not having prevented a drunk driving accident. Reportedly the victim's family was considering suing.
Here's my timesiver for folks. On "Law and Order," the white, middleclass/rich guy did it.
Conspiring.
The presence of "sex toys" may debunk his contention.
If I walk into the local bank with the idea that I could use some extra money for the holidays and my .45 hugging my hip, then I decide not to rob the bank, am I guilty of anything?
I didn't think it was,but some things are important enough they always need to be highlighted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.