US sex tour operator convicted

[pe7e]

Not condoning pedo behaviour, but this sort of stuff raises some troubling issues IMHO.

I take the same view, and it all seems a bit hypocritical from a country where, in certain states, 13 and 14 year old children can be legally married (with parental consent) which amounts to little more than state sanctioned pedophillia in my view.

[ChristianTroy]

Is intent enough these days to convict someone?

 

Nope, they need to actually catch him DOING IT with a minor. What if he his consciousness wakes up right when he sees that little child and he backs off! I am sure in the US they have ways to think pass by that in Europe a Dude like this walks free. I am almost tempted to say that in case of pedophiles they better arrest one too much instead of having another child molester run free!

 

[Old Hippie]

That is the part I don't get. Why you can marry at that age, but illegal to boink...

 

To the guy who asked if intent is/was enough...Yes, it is in many cases. Other wise you'd have to actually commit the crime...which would have been set up by the government...not good. Often they use youthful looking decoysd here to trap pedos, as using actual kids would endanger them.

[McBif]

... it all seems a bit hypocritical from a country where, in certain states, 13 and 14 year old children can be legally married (with parental consent) which amounts to little more than state sanctioned pedophillia in my view.

 

Interesting Wiki page on worldwide legal marriage ages: Link

 

I'm not sure there's anywhere in the States where young teens can get married just with parental consent - girl's gotta be pregnant and prove it to a judge. Anyway, would a judge let a 14 year-old mom-to-be marry a 30 year-old geezer? In the prison, maybe?

 

I assume it would have to be a case where two very young teens are involved. And I bet every social worker in the state would be working fulltime to convince the girl to have an abortion.

 

I also guess the term "pedophilia" wouldn't apply here. I could be wrong.

 

Bif the Pedant

[elef]

Age to marry and age to have sex are 2 different questions, not sure about the outcome. But I know that in the US you can be punished as a pedo even if the sexual relation was legal in the country where it took place.

 

However IMO the marriage takes over in the US, as long as the married couple stays in the state where they were married no problem, but traveling to an other state with a higher age may give problem.

[Nervous_Dog]

OH - I remember reading that making a video with someone over 18, but looking under or giving the impression they where under 18 (Max Hardcore comes to mind) is now iillegal.

 

So if you sell me a granny but claim and can fool me she's under 18, then I bet I am off to the monkey house

 

DOG

[Evel_Penivel]

There are a lot of ways the prosecution can prove intent. Generally speaking, the defendant has to have taken steps to make real an illegal action, you can't just have thought about it. It also depends on the way the laws are written. In most countries, possession of a certain amount of drugs, as well as scales, baggies, etc., is defined as intent to sell and carries a much heavier penalty than mere possession for personal use. It's also illegal to threaten to kill the President of the U.S. and a defendant can go to jail even he doesn't own a gun, lives thousands of miles from D.C., etc.

 

But with child pornography and underage sex laws, law enforcement, judges and juries have a much wider scope for interpretation. It's more like if they consider a suspect to be a pedo, then he is one. Not much corrobative evidence is needed for conviction because jurors feel happy about stopping a crime before it happens.

 

Evel

[Bangkoktraveler]

The problem with this case and cases like it, is that it shows that the USA is making a major shift - extreme conservitism almost to the point of being radical.

[Guest]

Intent is the byword....and it's upto your lawyer, the judge and the jury of the day to decide such things. There's biology and psychology involved somewhere, but that doesn't interest people nowadays.

 

Moral vindication is the new trend...i'm justified, therefore i am...

 

Reality, nah, that's for liberals.

[lembeh]

 

>OH - I remember reading that making a video with someone over 18, but looking under or giving the impression they where under 18 (Max Hardcore comes to mind) is now iillegal.

 

 

I recall reading some time ago that editing a photo to give the appearance of underage is also illegal. So although the photo may be of a model of legal age, changing it to *look* under age is illegal (and presumably possessing the image also breaks the law).

 

The whole problem is that this is *such* an emotive issue. Anyone who tries to say "whoa. This is just daft" is immediately labelled a paedophile. Its my understanding that, as said, *intent* is sufficient for a prosecution if it can be proved. Now, to me that is scary, scary shit. Welcome to the world of big brother and the thought police.....

-j-