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

rollergator said:

...the most vulnerable....

Teenage girls willing to screw for theme park tickets are our most vulnerable?

When do parents of these under aged girls take some responsibility? If your teenage daughter is looking for sex online it will happen eventually with someone.

I kind of see where this could go, which admittedly has little to do with this specific case. The recent cases where an 18-year-old kid is convicted as a sex offender for getting busy with a 15-year-old should absolutely bother people. Here we have the opposite problem, where the intent of the law is wrong in the name of "the children." The law wasn't intended to "protect" high school kids from being horny teenagers, but that's how it's applied. My concern, thinking more in logical terms than emotional appeal, is that intent as law can have unintended consequences.

Yes. Cases like that which enforce the specific letter of the law without regard for the intent of the law have terrible consequences. A 16 year-old sending a boob pic to her boyfriend should not be on the sex offenders' list. As per the law, she produced and distributed child pornography, but we all know that that's not what truly occurred. Sorry you're a horny teen. Good luck finding a job the rest of your life.

That being said, lock this specific guy up, please.

I agree that there isn't a "right" answer. But in that same vane, I don't think there is a right answer in terms of when diminishing returns are no longer worth the effort. In part, its a matter of first world problems. Estimates I have seen indicate that more than 1,000 kids die every day because of a lack of clean water, sanitation and hygiene. Compared to dying before age 5, what of our problems make the cut on a diminishing returns basis?

I also agree that mantra "if it saves just one life, its worth it" is overstated. The answer is it depends on the costs. We place values on human lives every day. Though ultimately, the mantra is one that is used to argue a case. There are a lot of other emotional appeals that get routinely used with no more factual basis to support them by those who support a number of causes.

I don't think saying parents have responsibility for what their kids do and how they are raised is inconsistent with putting guys like the one in the instance in jail.

Pretty much every law has unintended consequences. Doesn't mean it should be tossed out. I remember talking about age of consent laws back in high school 30 years ago so its not something new. I think that a lot of states have close in age exceptions for cases in which one or both of the people involved are underage but their ages are close (something like 3 or 4 years).

The law definitely needs to catch up to sexting type issues. Makes no sense to treat kids exchanging photos of themselves the same as we do rapists. Tech is changing at an ever increasing pace. Law is still slow and at this point is bogged down even more with no apparent relief in sight.

gamerguy said:

When do parents of these under aged girls take some responsibility? If your teenage daughter is looking for sex online it will happen eventually with someone.

That reminded me of this article/video. No doubt an extreme case of teaching your kids. But it seemed in all cases these parents felt they had done a lot to warn their kids about the dangers of meeting people in person that they don't know but "met" online and in all cases, the kids set out to do it anyway.

It's not about what he might have done. It is illegal in most states to solicit someone that you *think* is a minor. Which is a crime. Even if he may have dropped out at the last second, that just means he didn't commit more crimes.

If you know it is illegal to even contact someone you *think* is underaged and you do it anyway, it is in no way like minority report. You've actually acted on it and been charged for the act of believing you were soliciting a minor.

Yeah, exactly. That's what I was talking to myself about earlier. We've made 'attempting' the crime a crime itself. It's certainly a prosecutable crime...but I think the philosophical debate is whether it should be. And depending on the crime, which ones do you apply this logic to and how far do you pull away from the actual offense creating new offenses in the name of prevention and protection?

Again, I think we all agree that this guy is a dirtbag and broke the law as it is written and enforced.

What did his ad actually say? was it : will trade disney tickets for sex, or Will trade disney tickets for sex with anyone under 18? I would have to see his ad and the conversation with the alledged teenager before i could pass judgement!

It doesn't matter what the ad says. The moment someone you're trying to solicit sex from tells you they're under 18, it's illegal.

Tekwardo said:
It doesn't matter what the ad says. The moment someone you're trying to solicit sex from tells you they're under 18, it's illegal.

You do know in some states 17yr old girls can get married with their parents consent.

You do know that in some states it is illegal to solicit sex with anyone who identifies themself as a minor, correct?

Besides, marrying a 17 year old with consent has exactly nothing to do with trying to havevsex with someone you think is 14 years old.

gamerguy said:

You do know in some states 17yr old girls can get married with their parents consent.

I see the confusion now... you thought he was proposing marriage to this girl in his ad. Nope. He was soliciting for sex in exchange for Disneyland tickets.

*sigh* Thanks to these stupid laws, we'll never know if they would have lived happily ever after.

(Winkies.../sarcasm... yes, I'm trying to be funny, but really can't stand that a 27 year-old propositioning someone he thinks is 14 for sex on the internet brings about concerns about the grayness of the legal system...)

gamerguy said:

When do parents of these under aged girls take some responsibility? If your teenage daughter is looking for sex online it will happen eventually with someone.

If you think you can prevent your kids from doing stupid things, I've got some great deals on Florida real estate that I think you are going to love. You can give your kids a framework for what they are and are not supposed to do. You can dole out consequences when they act outside that framework. But, you can't actually make them do (or not do) much of anything. Tony Soprano had it right when he said (of Meadow): "Let's just not overplay our hand. Because if she figures out we're powerless, we're f****."

I'm with Carrie. I don't get why anyone thinks this is even sort of a grey area. Gonch asks the right questions, but I'd wager that most people would say that a 27 year old soliciting someone he thought was 14 is one of those times where you don't wait around to see if the sexy fun time actually happens before you arrest the guy.

Maybe that's just the parent of a teenaged daughter talking, but I doubt it.

At least I'm asking the right questions.

I'll take it. (as the father of a daughter that just turned 18 last week)

Lord Gonchar said:
At least I'm asking the right questions.

I'll take it. (as the father of a daughter that just turned 18 last week)

You are REEEEEAAAAAALLLLLY old now. Dang.

Nah, I didn't wait until my mid-30's to have kids.

I'm still closer to 18 than full retirement age. :)

(which is a bizarre perspective)

Even if you had her at 18 you're REEEEAAAALLLYYYY old now.

#jerk or that could just be the pain meds talking ;-)

Wait, don't you have to work to hit retirement age?

Lord Gonchar said:
I'm still closer to 18 than full retirement age. :)

Wait, if you mean 65, we're right in the middle now.

Isn't full retirement age for social security now 67 (at least for people born after 1960)?