Former Disneyland Resort worker pleads guilty to offering tickets for sex with underage girl

While the dude is clearly a scumbag, these kinds of "stings" make me uncomfortable. He plead guilty essentially for an act he had not yet committed. Now we have another person in jail for what... nasty thoughts about a teenager? That's pretty weird justice to me.

Whoa. I completely disagree. It's not like the guy was simply overheard talking about an idea he had. He actually posted the add soliciting for the act and engaged with a person about the act who identified to him her age, and then proceeded to show up for the act with all of the evidence of his intent on hand. All of his charges were associated with that intent and attempt, not the act itself.

I completely support intervention on the attempt of acts that will ruin a child's life if we have the ability to know that's what is about to happen. It seemed pretty clear here.

I disagree. He pleaded guilty for acts he did commit. He did contact a child; he explicitly intended to commit lewd acts with said child; he met with said child with the announced intention to commit lewd acts.

Not sure how you can say this guy just had nasty thoughts about a teenager. We don't criminalize thoughts in the US. But taking those thoughts into action creates legal problems. Had he just kept it to thoughts, he would have been ok in the eyes of the law.

I agree the guy probably belongs in jail, but I still don't like the idea of putting people in jail for what they might have done. He didn't actually contact a teenager, he contacted an undercover cop. It is a little Minority Report, only without the creepy people sleeping in water. It's interesting that we pick and choose our "might be a crime" scenarios. See also: gun sales screening.

It's interesting because there's the whole gamut of shades of grey between thought and action.

We've simply decided to draw the line in some cases so that acting in a way that suggests you may commit a crime is in and of itself a crime.

I can see what you are saying Jeff. But, other than stings like these, your only other option would be to wait for said crime to happen and hope it gets reported and then also hope you can still catch the person and also have the evidence to convict. Yes, that's how pretty much all other crimes are handled. But, in the spirit of trying to protect our children, this is what we have come up with as a solution.

Lord Gonchar said:

It's interesting because there's the whole gamut of shades of grey between thought and action.

We've simply decided to draw the line in some cases so that acting in a way that suggests you may commit a crime is in and of itself a crime.

And I think that's really key. When it comes to children, I completely agree with this. I don't want to wait until a child has been harmed to take action. Ever.

And if you think about it, in this weird day and age of technology, the criminals have been able to use technology to their advantage by pretending to be someone they aren't in order to lure children to circumstances where they can commit a crime against them. In that same regard, turn about is fair play in my opinion.

Conspiracy can be a crime. Acting in a way that suggests you may commit a crime. Its all part of a necessary line drawing process.

It's a pretty sleazy move when you're advertising tickets for sex. I wouldn't throw you in the (proverbial) pokey for that...I'd probably fine you and let Disney fire you....and thereby eliminate your access to the comp tickets.

Once the person on the other end of the telecommunication, be it an undercover cop, Chris Hansen, or whoever, identifies themselves as underage - then you move along. Because we do have to (get to, want to need, to - all of the above) throw people in jail for not doing that...

Well, it's interesting to me because there's lots of other crimes where you can be just as far (or further) along in the process and still back out and not be charged. I mean, who's to say this guy doesn't get face-to-face and pussy out?

Like too many things in life, I see both sides. It is kinda messed up that you can be arrested for what really amounts to considering doing something - but, like I even said, we've sort of established the precedent that considering doing the something in this case is a crime - attempted lewd act upon a child, contacting a child with the intent to commit a sex crime and meeting a minor with the intent to engage in lewd conduct. Those things have been defined as crimes.

I don't always buy "Do it for the children" though. If that makes me a horrible person, so be it. I think we've swung the pendulum much too far in the "If it saves just one person" approach. Meh. I dunno. I think it's indicative of the larger trend right now where we inconvenience the many for the benefit of the few.

Lord Gonchar said:

I think it's indicative of the larger trend right now where we inconvenience the many for the benefit of the few.

Who is being inconvenienced in this scenario exactly? The guy who wants to offer his Disneyland tickets in exchange for sex with adults? Come on.

Again, this guy wasn't considering, he was doing...as in taking deliberate action towards. And it is a crime, like it or not.

I admit that the world has gone silly with its boycott of solid red holiday cups. But it's still ok to stand for some things. This one is pretty clear for me. If that makes me an advocate of "PreCrime" when it comes to kids, then so be it.

You're sort of combining my ideas in a way I didn't really intend. This guy in particular isn't inconvenienced. He's a criminal.

But we had to define 'attempting' and 'intent' to do a crime as actual crimes themselves. And I'm making the assumption that it's very much a "Think about the children!" response. If the actual act was the crime, he very well may not have commited it. However, for the sake of protecting potential victims, we made "partially going through the motions of commiting this crime" a crime itself.

Then again, it's sort of just semantics. Being skeezy with a kid is illegal. Simple as that. The degree is irrelevant beyond charges filed.

I'm not saying it's wrong. But it's interesting that considering commiting a criminal act is a felony in this case. But not in many, many others. I never really thought about it before. I don't know how I feel exactly. I'm sort of thinking aloud as I post.

There's a UK vigilante group doing almost weekly stings at this point that are fairly similar.

http://www.darkjustice.co.uk

Attempting a crime is a crime. Have the requisite intent and take some direct act to complete the crime is what is required. And that isn't limited to situations like the case here.

At some point, society needs to determine how far is too far. Its somewhere between thinking about it/taking a first step out your front door on one side and committing the final act on the other. Where the line gets drawn isn't a black and white matter and changes over time -- though as a matter of criminal law, its important to make the line as clear and consistent as possible.

The elements of attempt aren't easy to establish. Though modern tech often makes it easier. Some people seem to be inclined to chat/blog about what they want to do/their every thought and even the efforts to complete it in ways that leave permanent records that are traceable. Cases like the one here often prove themselves because of what the perpetrator said and did on the record. That often isn't the case in other situations.

The problem to me with saying we inconvenience the many for the benefit of the few is it begs the questions. How much of an inconvenience to how many is too much? And how few are too few and how big must the benefit be?

GoBucks89 said:

The problem to me with saying we inconvenience the many for the benefit of the few is it begs the questions. How much of an inconvenience to how many is too much? And how few are too few and how big must the benefit be?

Like most things we discuss around here there isn't a 'right' answer and we could talk all day and not reach any meaningful consensus.

I'm simply of the opinion that we've generally long passed the point of diminishing returns. And my pet peeve is anytime someone says, "If it saves one child (or person, life, kitty, whatever) then it's worth it."

My thought is usually, "If it saved just one person, it was probably a waste of our time and effort."

Carrie J. said:

Again, this guy wasn't considering, he was doing...as in taking deliberate action towards. And it is a crime, like it or not.

(snip)

This one is pretty clear for me. If that makes me an advocate of "PreCrime" when it comes to kids, then so be it.

Absolutely! I don't think we should have to wait until the guy actually violates a child (or a old person, or someone mentally incapable of consent) in order to charge him with a crime. The intent was clear, and he took actions to follow through.

I don't think you can arrest someone for "impure thoughts" - but once there's action taken, then we as a society have to move to protect the most vulnerable....