Man Convicted of Attempted Rape of Child Who Never Existed

AP ^

[TheOtherOne]

I am no fan of potential child rapists, but I am not comfortable with this type of prosecution either.

[xm177e2]

If I told you I had a rare painting in my house worth 10 million dollars, and the police caught you outside my house as you went in to rob it, wouldn't that still be a crime, whether or not the painting existed?

[RLK]

This is an interesting and complex case of law. No Crime existed. He is being tried for a crime that would have existed if things had been different. I see grave possibility of misuse of this concept.

[TheOtherOne]

If I told you I had a rare painting in my house worth 10 million dollars, and the police caught you outside my house as you went in to rob it, wouldn't that still be a crime, whether or not the painting existed?

What am I doing outside your house that the police caught me doing?

Back to this case, I don't like the idea of being prosecuted for attempted rape of nothing. There seems there should be crimes he was guilty of and could have been prosecuted for.

Try this one: What if you break into my house at night and in the dark, 'rape' my inflatable doll thinking it is my daughter. When I catch you and turn you over to the police can you be prosecuted for breaking and entering and rape?

[RLK]

as you went in to rob it,

---------------

Is that breaking and entering?

[boris]

"If I told you I had a rare painting in my house worth 10 million dollars, and the police caught you outside my house as you went in to rob it, wouldn't that still be a crime, whether or not the painting existed?"

I am not a lawyer.

However, a person approaching your house is not committing a crime. He may have a criminal intent but since we do not yet have the capacity of mind-reading, there is no basis for apprehending a person who is merely approaching your dwelling. I am assuming here that the individual is on public property; i.e., that he is not (yet) trespassing on your property (in which case he could be charged with trespassing).

If he is "caught in the act" of physically breaking in then the charge is "breaking and entering," not "theft of a ten million dollar painting."

We charge actual crimes (acts) that actually happened (note past tense)--or we used to, when sanity ruled our government and laws.

--Boris

[Billy_bob_bob]

You have an inflatable doll?

My, we do have some interesting freepers, don't we?

[TheOtherOne]

Just to add to your reply, had another person been involved in the planning he could have been convicted of conspiracy to commit rape. For a conspriacy, the actual crime need not be commited, just overt acts in its futherance - like showing up in front of the house with duct tape, rope, etc. It seems in this case, he had obviously told someone, so I am not sure whey they could not have charged him with conspriacy to commit rape.

[TheOtherOne]

I though since xm177e2 talked about a 10 Million dollar painting we were going for the outrageous examples. I have no doll nor daughter. But it always makes for a better discussion example.

[skr]

I can understand that. But aren't we all frustrated to the nth degree whenever we hear the police say they can't arrest anyone until after the crime is committed? If no one forced the man to respond to the bait, isn't it ultimately what his intent was, evidenced by the items he brought with him plus just the fact that he showed up, that's at issue?

I'm not a parent, but I can't help but feel better that the police didn't just say tsk, tsk and let him go.

[CougarGA7]

Granted that I'm not a fan of entrapment. And I admit that this almost seems like it. But I am a parent, and I do not have a problem with these kinds of techniques to get these sickos off the street. If anyone ever did anything to my daughter there would be no end to the torment I would give that individual. I'd rather just see them routed out and put away.

[skr]

What if your daughter is hiding under her bed and the intruder stabs her pillow, thinking he's killing her? Wouldn't his intent be worth prosecuting, despite the pillow's non-human status? I know I would feel a lot happier if he were behind bars, even if it were just a pillow that bit the dust.

BTW, not having even met an inflatable doll, I can only imagine that a would-be rapist could tell by touch wherher or not his intended victim were human or not. But, considering some stupid-crook-cases, I could be wrong. : )

[skr]

whether, not wherher...good grief, must be time for some Zzz'x AND some new glasses!

[TheOtherOne]

What if your daughter is hiding under her bed and the intruder stabs her pillow, thinking he's killing her? Wouldn't his intent be worth prosecuting, despite the pillow's non-human status?

There is a PERSON who is being attacked in that room. This case is like that but with no person.

[KneelBeforeZod]

a long standing concept (back to common law)is "impossibility is not a defense"

US v FARNER (texas) "factual impossibility is not a defense if the crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be."

California: "Factual impossibility is not a defense, but legal impossibility is."

The concept is also upheld by a lot of USSC opinions, although mostly in conspiracy cases, since the act is never completed. KANSAS v JONES

[KneelBeforeZod]

oops kansas v jones HERE

[Axenolith]

Must have had Precrime Dpt on this...

[Mark17]

I am no fan of potential child rapists, but I am not comfortable with this type of prosecution either.

I am against these people too, but I am also not comfortable with it. When the demon cats are back in power, (God forbid) how long would it be, before they try to arrest someone for having anti democrat thoughts? That idea is not too far fetched. I am sure the demon cats would love to put all conservatives in prison, because they are champions of the thought police.

[woofie]

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

[pariah]

I am not comfortable with this type of prosecution either.

Nor I. Yet it is admittedly complex. What bothers me most is not that this guy was mistaken about the existence of the girl, but that the gov't itself created the fictitious circumstances of the 'crime', then induced him into criminal actions. Imo, all that has been proved is that he had an inclination to commit such an act. But it has not been proved that he ever would have attempted a similar act on his own initiative. This case crosses the line, because not only was there no victim, but the gov't actively helped create the intent for which the man was convicted. Bad legal precedent, imo.