Because, yeah, being charged with a crime totally means you did it. In this case, he ... uh ... didn't get a chance to do things with ... a girl who doesn't exist? Gosh: every day, that happens to me.&nbps; I'm always going around missing my chance to commit crimes against imaginary people. I'm guilty, and I deserve to have my genitals mutilated and then to be executed—but first I need to rot in prison for decades.
Speaking of genital mutilation: "Voices Rise in Egypt to Shield Girls From an Old Tradition
". This is an article about a gross injustice committed on what's estimated to be 96 percent of the women in Egypt. There were estimated to be 27 million women over age 14 in Egypt in 2005. This percentage means almost 26 million women and girls with their clitorises cut out. Those are some victims. That's something that millions of men and women in that country are going to support against millions more women and girls, unless something is done about it.
I'm not saying that what Mr. Atchison may have hoped to do wasn't disgusted, too. But I'd be way prouder of myself if I did something to tackle even a fraction of this 'circumcision' horror than if I decided it was time to kill someone just because he'd been charged with soliciting sex with a nonexistent girl.
(And I'm really sick of them calling it 'circumcision'. If this kind of circumcision were applied to penises, as it is to clitorises, it would mean cutting off the entire head, maybe the whole shaft, of the penis.)
Anyway, this stuff is all nauseating.
(Sorry about typos. Obviously, it's a topic that gets the blood boily in most of us—which can inhibit good English.)
I'm the queen of typos. lol. ;) No worries there.
It is called criminal intent.
Intent to commit a crime when he crossed state lines in order to commit a crime.
if i buy baby powder, thinking it is cocaine, i will still be charged. period.
If I have criminal intent to blow up a building, you show what building I intended to blow up. When it turns out the building was only in my imagination, you say "Oh, well.&nbps; Poor crazy person. Never mind."
The intent is to commit a crime that requires a victim. The victim doesn't exist.
Waste of money that could've been spent more effectively catching real people who are aiming themselves at real kids. A gross injustice to divert money from the real kids to the imaginary ones. Plain sickening.
i agree that there needs to be more money on this but your example has a few flaws.
there was a real person doing the talking... she/he just wasn't 5 years old. Your example would be a different thing all together. This case would be more like if you were to think you were intending to blow up a real building that turned out to be a card board building that did not have people in it inside.
They aren't charging him with child rape.
You would not be charged with blowing up a building
So we should have waited until this man raped and permanently damaged a real 5 year old until something was done?
The problem is that the victim of this crime can only be a victim if, in fact, she was either below the age of consent or an unwilling participant. Here, the person was neither.
And, no, we would not have waited for him to damage a real five-year-old. Instead, we would not have egged him on, and we would have spent our resources stopping people who were about to do something to real five-year-olds.
It's all fine and good to talk about preventing crimes that may end up happening. But we have to draw the line somewhere. For example, we don't cut out everybody's tongue just because he might one day use it for criminal speech inciting violence. I simply propose that the line be drawn at reality: real victims. This is where we draw the line in most areas of law.
And, yes, I understand I wouldn't be charged with blowing up a building. I'd be charged with intending to blow up a building. Then they'd find out the building didn't even exist, and neither would the charge. Here, they're charging him with an intention. When we go so far as to prosecute people for their intentions, rather than their actions, (in conspiracy to commit murder, for example), courts usually require that the state state specifically who the victim would have been (e.g., the person against whom the potential murderers were conspiring).
This isn't about questioning the motives of people who employ, or support, this attempt to reduce child abuse. It's about questioning the effectiveness and the justice of it.
and in this case wouldn't the say it was the person who was lying about their age?
it is a grey area, to be sure, and it needs work.
I have no doubt that this man would have found another 'victim' had he not been caught this way. It is not a perfect system, or way obviously, but I will not lose any sleep about his arrest and incarceration at all.
You don't think he would have attacked a "real girl" given the opportunity? Or bought her from her Mother?
You don't think he all ready has?
Similarly, if you're charged with (worse, convicted of) buying nonexistent cocaine, I'd call that stupid and an unjust use of the government's anti-cocaine resources.
i would not be charged with buying, only the intent to buy.
my mother was arrested when i was 11 for having a green leafy substance in her home...
it was oregano but they had to "test" it.
believe me, i don't always agree with the law but i believe protecting children deserves extra vilgilance
Exactly. Again. Intent to buy something that didn't exist in the first place. Imaginary drugs, imaginary girl, imaginary crime. Meanwhile, the real drugs are being bought, and the real children are being abused, by the real criminals. This is what sickens me.
I understand that the motive behind these methods is essentially the same. But, in my view, one method is just unconscionably unfair and wasteful.
Oh my Lord!! Seriously!? What happened with that? I mean.. flipping oregano?
And I agree with you. If 1 third of what they spent on drug enforcement went to protecting children I would be much happier.
You know, I never quite understood why men would want a clitoris-free society. It's as though they thought married men were getting laid too often.
When it comes to sexually abusing children, I'm very old testament. Eye for an Eye. No Jesus-like forgiveness as far as I'm concerned where that's happened.
And what is happening to girls all over Africa is horrific. I don't think anyone would deny that. It needs to be stopped.
I don't consider it the same as rape though. It's horrific, but theres not much I can think of that compares with a five year old girl being raped.
What would have had to happen for you to be okay with bringing this man to justice?
The actual penetration of a five year old girl?
I think it's good that the government is going after these monsters.
Beats incarcerating cancer patients for smoking a little pot, doesn't it?