Communicating with minors is now a crime

tyme · Oct 24, 2003

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2577749/detail.html

[blockquote]...
Police say they had numerous telephone and Internet conversations with Mej over a 30-day period.

When undercover officers tried to arrange a meeting with Mej (pictured, left), he reportedly became suspicious, saying he didn't want to jeopardize his life over a cute boy, according to the station's reports.
...
"There is no doubt that the arrest of this individual has prevented him from any future contact with minors," said Lieutenant Donald Foster, of the Royal Oak Police Department.

Mej was arraigned on two felony charges. If he's convicted, he could face up to 14 years in prison.[/blockquote]
:barf:

TheeBadOne · Oct 24, 2003

To those not familiar with pedophiles, this sounds like "grooming", where a pedophile attempts contact with a victim, gains their trust and then uses that to lure them to someplace to be violated, perhaps even abducted and killed.
The Internet has made this even easier. No more hanging out at the school yard or the shopping mall. Now you can hang out inside the home of every single child in the US, via Internet. You can now also pretend to be a child of similar age, and dupe a child into victimization/murder.
Parents, please monitor your childs computer use. A good rule of thumb....

NO internet access in the childs bedroom, only in the living room/kitchen.

All the best

TBO

Quartus · Oct 24, 2003

Uh, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that a lot of information was left out of this story. They aren't calling him a predator just because he likes to chat.

BrokenPaw · Oct 24, 2003

No more hanging out at the school yard or the shopping mall. Now you can hang out inside the home of every single child in the US, via Internet.

Not quite. Now you can hang out inside the home of every single child in the US (whose parents don't take the time to protect their children by monitoring their internet usage), via Internet.

Not saying that what the guy did wasn't wrong (I didn't even read the article), but stuff like this is trivial to prevent. If a parent is willing to take an active role.

The problem with Darwin is that, in modern society, he often aims at the child of the person he should be aiming at.

-BP

Augustwest · Oct 24, 2003

"There is no doubt that the arrest of this individual has prevented him from any future contact with minors," said Lieutenant Donald Foster, of the Royal Oak Police Department.

Planning on summarily executing him, are they?

Standing Wolf · Oct 24, 2003

People who sexually harm children should be hanged by the neck until dead. There is a cure for pedophilia.

ojibweindian · Oct 24, 2003

Better to use a $0.50 bullet than a $10.00 rope.

TheeBadOne · Oct 24, 2003

Either way...

...you are both right.

Hatchett · Oct 24, 2003

You can reuse the rope, however.

Bill Hook · Oct 25, 2003

This was probably a good call (guy admitted to knowing he was corresponding w/ a minor and his subsequent flight), BUT this sets a precedent that is rather flimsy. If some sort of proposition was involved, then more power to the cops.

Dashunde · Oct 25, 2003

I'm failing to see the story here? So he's a pervert.. who according to the report, thought better of his perversion, had no person-to-person contact, and left the area, maybe as planned prior to the later events.
He must have sent a foul picture or SOMETHING, otherwise...

btw... I in no way condon his type of internet contact or even his type, but seriously...

jimpeel · Oct 25, 2003

I have several problems with this story, much of which I am sure we know little about.

The guy stated that he didn't want to jeopardize his life by doing something wrong so rejected personal contact with this "boy".

The story says that the police tried to set up a meeting but were rejected by Mej. Hell hath no fury as a police officer scorned???

Regardless of any text or language the "child" and Mej may have exchanged over the Internet, no child's eyes ever saw any of it, only consenting adults posing as a child.

I see no crime here and it seems that the cops led this guy down the primrose path; and he is facing 14 years for that? I hope this guy gets the same lawyer John DeLorean had at his entrapment trial.

Chris Rhines · Oct 25, 2003

Agreed with Jimpeel. The guy may be a pervert or a pederast, but it doesn't look like any crime was actually comitted. Arresting someone for something they might do in the future is despicable.

- Chris

greyhound · Oct 25, 2003

Unless I read it wrong, it doesn't say what the two felony charges are.

Speculating here, but maybe he already has a record and any contact violates parole?

TheeBadOne · Oct 25, 2003

Soliciting is a crime in itself too, the actual molestation doesn't have to have occured before an arrest. And like the above post says, if he's on probation/parole to avoid contact wth minors....he violated it.

jimpeel · Oct 25, 2003

TheeBadOne

From the story, it sounds like the police did the soliciting. They went trolling, they tried to set up a meet. They were rejected by the suspect. No child was ever involved. No harm, no foul, no crime.

LawDog · Oct 25, 2003

Not only is there not enough information contined in that little blurb to make an informed decision on this, what little information that is present is being rendered by a journalist.

Find a couple of more news stories from different sources, and maybe we can begin to put this thing together.

LawDog

GinSlinger · Oct 25, 2003

And how does the SCOTUS decision RE: the use of adult models who appear to be children fit into this. IIRC it is OK to simulate child pornography as long as the portrayer is an adult. Is it then OK to communicate with a "minor" if that minor is in fact a thirty year old PO?

GinSlinger

TheeBadOne · Oct 25, 2003

GinSlinger

My state handled it this way. They passed a law to make it not only illegal to entice a minor, but to entice anyone they reasonably believe to be a minor.
To those who want to shout "entrapment", her goes.
It is not entrapment when an opportunity is made available. It is only entrapment when Police use coersion to overwhelm the reluctance of a person.
A classic example of Police doing their job and not emtrapment is Drug sales stings.
It's ok to offer to sell someone drugs, but if thay say no you can not hound them or use other means to overcome their reluctance.
In the same vein if a Pedophile Task Force Member is hanging out in a chat room pretending to be a young child and a Pedophile is hanging out in the same room (pretending to be a child), if the Pedophile hits on the Task Force Member and grooms him for sexual seduction, that is a crime.

All the best

TBO

Powderman · Oct 25, 2003

Call me over-reactive, call me quick on the trigger, call me a JBT.

I don't care.

Bottom line--there is NO reason for an adult to attempt to meet, or want to meet, or state an intention to meet a young child in any clandestine way. There is NO reason to EVER contact a child like this without their parents. PERIOD.

If someone had tried to contact one of my children in this way, they would have found out what true anger was.

Shoot the SOB. Now.

jimpeel · Oct 25, 2003

A "child" in CA is under seventeen. A "child " in Hawaii is thirteen. It is going to be interesting if the guy states that he thought the kid was fourteen and lived in Hawaii or Idaho.

Here are the numbers from http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html of the age of consent by state.

STATE, AGE
Alabama, 16
Alaska, 16
Arizona, 18
Arkansas, 16
California, 18
Colorado, 15
Connecticut, 15
D.C., 16
Delaware, 16
Florida, 16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia, 16
Hawaii, 14
Idaho, 14
Illinois, 16/17
Indiana, 16
Iowa, 18
Kansas, 16
Kentucky, 16 - [1]
Louisiana, 17
Maine, 16
Maryland, 16
Massachusetts, 16/18
Michigan, 16
Minnesota, 16
Mississippi, 16 - [2]
Missouri, 17
Montana, 16
Nebraska, 16
Nevada, 16
New Hampshire, 16/18
New Jersey, 16/18
New Mexico, 17
New York, 17
North Carolina, 16
North Dakota, 18
Ohio, 16
Oklahoma, 16
Oregon, 18
Pennsylvania, 16
Rhode Island, 16
South Carolina, 14/16
South Dakota, 16
Tennessee, 18
Texas, 17
Utah, 16/18
Vermont, 16
Virginia, 15
Washington, 16
West Virginia, 16
Wisconsin, 18
Wyoming, 16
Puerto Rico, 18

FOOTNOTES:
[1]Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

bigjim · Oct 25, 2003

Interesting post Jimpeel.

Another thought is how recently our culture has evolved to feel this way.

Not to long ago a girl not married with kids by 14 was a old maid. Its interesting that now a 18 year old male that has consentual sex with a 16 year old girl can be jailed and branded a molester.

I think in this country every one is way to worried about sex. People are either consumed with getting it or consumed with makeing sure nobody else does.

tyme · Oct 25, 2003

The whole point was that this guy didn't want to meet, but they arrested him anyway. Talk about a sick waste of resources. They guy may be unbalanced or even crazy. But if he's just talking to the "kid," who cares? As long as the kid's voluntarily reading or looking at what's being sent, there's much more indecent stuff available to them (by common notions of "indecent"). e.g. stile media and alt.sex.stories.* (which can be made more indecent by googling just those groups for bdsm)

Powderman, if you're going to get all riled up over some guy who wants to chat with your kids but doesn't want to meet them, you ought to keep your kids off the internet. If you don't, there's nobody to blame but yourself. You can't possibly expect me to have sympathy for minors who are being sent graphic images or stories and are looking at or reading them. There are things like alt.sex.stories.bdsm and stilemedia out there! If the minors can't handle it, they shouldn't be on the internet (and that responsibility falls to the parents). If they're on the internet, and the parents can't keep them away from any potentially dangerous sites or services, the parents are the ones with a problem.

And in the off-chance that this "minor" was sending the old guy nude pictures, well, if a kid's going to send nude pictures to strangers, how exactly do you blame the stranger (criminally) for that? Again, that's the parents' problem. If you don't trust your kid not to slice his/her neck or wrists with a knife, you keep them away from knives until they're old enough to learn respect. If you don't trust your kid not to send nude pictures to everyone on the internet, don't give them a digital camera.

TheeBadOne · Oct 25, 2003

Mark Mej, 41, was arrested after police say he was attempting to pick up an officer who posed as a boy over the Internet.

We don't have near enough info, but I suspect what the article tells us is this guy was attempting to suduce the "boy", and chickened out of a meet that was advantagous to the police, not the perp.

jimpeel · Oct 25, 2003

It was not too long ago that Britain lowered the age of sexual consent for males to sixteen. The age for females is sixteen but the age for males was eighteen.

The government in a state that the age of consent is eighteen will send you to prison, and give you the same sentence, whether you have sex with a fifteen-year-old girl or a girl that is seventeen years, three-hundred-sixty-four days old. One minute before midnight and you are a molester. One minute after, and you're just having a good time. Go figure.

The federal law, which is cited at: http://www.webistry.net/jan/law.html is eighteen whether or not the state law is lower.

Communicating with minors is now a crime

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member in memoriam

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus cum Laude

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads