Man Convicted of Attempted Rape of Child Who Never Existed

AP ^

[TheOtherOne]

Man Convicted of Attempted Rape of Child Who Never Existed
The Associated Press
Published: Nov 28, 2002

HUTCHINSON, Kan. (AP) - A man was convicted of attempted rape for planning to assault a nonexistent 10-year-old girl who was imagined in an effort to break up a child pornography ring.

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

[oldcomputerguy]

We don't prosecute people in this country for intent. That is the province of people like Stalin and Saddam.

He could just as easily have fantasized about such an act, been led on by the woman and changed his mind had there in fact been a real child involved.

This is, in fact, preposterous. This is prosecuting people for what they are thinking, not what they are doing!

[oldcomputerguy]

This is in response to the attempted rape charge. I have no
argument with vaild conspiracy charges

[Dan(9698)]

>> I have no doll nor daughter.

Ah -- but you could easily get a doll.

[jwalsh07]

We don't prosecute people in this country for intent

Ah, yes we do.

[Doc Savage]

You have the right to face your accuser in court. Whom did the defense attorney have to call to testify?? An imaginary child?? The guy is obviously a sicko, but is intent to commit a crime even provable here????

[NormsRevenge]

Thought crimes and convictions based on "non-existent" accusers .. What next?

The idea that an idea can get you 11 years is intriguing, to say the least, especially when I think of Hitlary and Bill and all the warm thoughts they have for their fellow man.

Yes, it is repugnant that this POS says he would have done it if the child existed, but there is something else to this conviction also that troubles me.

Our legal system ( I hate to call it justice in this case) may be the best we got, but ... This adds a Clockwork Orange-ish tinge to the world that may be a step too far for all of us to take.

[skr]

Then why are we amassing troops in the Middle East? To wait until Saddam sends over a nuclear suitcase and then strike? Won't most Americans then ask why we waited until ten thousand people became radioactive?

[go star go]

They should have shot him when he showed up but he'll get what's coming to him in prison...

[Capt. Tom]

Is this an example of "A sinner at heart is a sinner at hand"? -Tom

[dljordan]

So, if someone on the street looked like a pervert to you it would be ok to put them away based on your feelings?

[Viva Le Dissention]

I'm not sure if you wanted an explanation of the charge, but solicitation is a speech crime, basically.

The government alleges he tried to solicit someone else to rape the child--probably the woman with whom he was speaking. If he were to say something like, say, "Hey, you should go get that 11 year old girl and we'll have sex with her." That'd pretty much work.

It's interesting to me that the prosecutor called this a stretch--we don't know all the details, but the impression I got was that there was an arranged meeting place, and he showed up and was arrested. Seems like a slam dunk to me.

[Viva Le Dissention]

You can't conspire with a government official. Although the article was not clear, I got the distinct impression that the woman with whom he spoke was a police officer.

If so, this would preclude conspiracy charges, and then of course, explain why there were none filed.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I like that one, and suggest that you consider becoming a who or what dunnit to who or what writer.

A lot would depend upon your own relation ship with that inflatable favorite squeeze in question and whether the sexual encounter between the house breaking dummy and the inflatable doll aka rapee, was not in fact a consenting sex act between two willing or at least non-complaining individuals of similar mental and moral dextriety.

The safest thing for you to do when the police arrive, is to swear the pervert brought the inflatable sex toy with him when he broke into your house, and deny any thing to the contrary the inflated winch says.

[bluefish]

Many criminals make foolish mistakes ....If you rob a bank and dont get the money is it a robbery? yes

Not close enough. So I tried to come up with a more accurate analogy. At first, I thought "if you were standing in the desert pointing a gun at a cactus thinking it was a bank teller, can you be tried for bank robbery?" would be closer to this case. But I realized that was off. The more accurate anaology is that if you were making plans to rob a fabricated 1st National Bank at corner of 5th and Pine Street, in Anywhere USA with someone who gave you fake blueprints, you buy the gun, gather a "crew" and draw up your plans, have you committed a crime?" Recall that the bank doesn't exist, as the 10 year old girl didn't exist. It seems that perhaps conspiracy to commit robbery may be accurate. Is there such a thing? There is conspiracy to commit murder. If the person you are conspiring to murder doesn't exist, or better yet, died in an auto accident the day before, unbknownst to you, have you committed a crime? You solicit an undercover cop posing as a hit man, despite the target being dead just 18 hours prior. Have you committed a crime? The solicitation is illegal. Still so with a nonexistent (or already dead) victim? Probably, I guess. Heck, I don't know.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Although I think you're coming close to the exam question from hell, I think there would be a conspiracy to commit robbery in the situation you proposed.

As was mentioned on this board before, factual impossibility isn't a defense. What that basically means that even if it was factually impossible to commit the desired crime (in this case, robbing the non-existant bank), you can't use that as a defense. The only impossibility defense, and it's a slight one at that, is legal impossibility--like what you were trying to do wasn't actually a crime. Like, say, tax evasion in the Cayman's. You might think that you were committing a crime, you might have taken steps and planned your crime of tax evasion, but since tax evasion isn't a crime in the Cayman's, you can't be charged. Most judges don't understand the difference, anyway, so impossibility is pretty much a long shot to begin with.

Anyhow, there was a federal case some years back where some folks from SE Asia were convicted for attempted possession and attempted distribution of narcotics. They thought they were trying to buy heroin when they were really buying soap powder. Their convictions were upheld on appeal, and it seems the most analogus to this case. In all cases, the item necessary for the object crime to be completed (the bank, the girl, the heroin) was absent, but in the drug case, the conviction was upheld. I think the conviction would be upheld in our fictious bank robbery and assuming this guy is convicted, I think it will be upheld here, too.

[breakem]

A judge told him it's his daughter.

[breakem]

Interested in how you can conspire to rape someone who doesn't exist?

[bluefish]

Thanks for your reply. How about my intial failed analogy involving the cactus? Let's take that one a little further. There exists no evidence at all of the conspiracy to rob the bank. However, you as a police officer come across the man pointing a gun at the cactus (assume it isn't some enviro-whacko protected rare species or something) stating "Mr. Bank Teller, hand over the cash and nobody gets hurt." The gun is legally owned and he has a right to carry. Is the statement, i.e. the intent of the "robber" sufficient to convict on conspiracy to commit bank robbery? I suppose that is too narrow and is probably nothing more than a debate about whether a prosecutor should apply the conspiracy charge with such minor evidence, intent of the perpetrator or what have you and not one concerning legal impossibility, correct?

[xm177e2]

Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify it, when I looked back at that post I saw just how unclear it was (more people probably interpreted it the way you did).

[Pookie Me]

We don't prosecute people in this country for intent

Sure we do. All the time. But intent is hard to prove. Either the perp admits to it, or his actions indicate his intent to commit said crime. Which is why we have juries and judges.

But you are correct, some of the attempt crimes come VERY CLOSE to thought crimes. Just think happy thoughts.

Pookie & ME