I think since the 70's -- or earlier (when did the Miranda case happen...?) -- I've found our legal system very confusing. I'm sure it helps little having an attorney as a father. Dad is the original contradictory man. The greatest issue which bothers me is that a detctive's job has nothing to do with finding the actual guilty party, but rather finding someone -- anyone -- who fits the profile. So long as some individual had motive & opportunity, that person is considered guilty at lest till they are found "not-guilty" in court.
Then, of course, in a criminal case, one has to deal with a lawyer who may not be able to talk as good a game as the opposing attorney & a group of people who are intended to be -- but certainly aren't -- one's peers. Does this really make sense to anyone?
What prompts me to bring this subject up is what was once (although it may still be) referred to as "entrapment". We don't hear this term any longer, but rather what would lead to it. We hear the word "sting" -- which, as anyone who'd seen the movie of the same title knows, is a term used in grifting, or, the art of the con. Would this not imply that one is trying illegally to take something from another...?
Now, I certainly don't condone the act of sex with any minor, but I just saw part of one of these "stings" performed by the talking monkeys at 20/20. I suspect they've done this in past & found that their ratings were high, in turn they do it again.
What they'd done was hire an eighteen year old girl to pose as a thirteen year old girl. Why any man over the age of eighteen would really do more than experience a short fantasy -- whether a good thing or bad in itself -- of sex with a thirteen year old girl confuses me alone. But, then to actually seek to meet &, perhaps, have sex with the girl completely boggles my mind.
Apart from what I or anyone else thinks about such a coupling, what incredible stupidity would possess one to pursue such when there are countless stories in the news about this very thing? Do these people really think themselves special? Do they believe they could either get away or continue to get away with this when so much of society is driving arrests, convictions, & a life of being hounded by neighbours & the law for doing something clearly not acceptable by society's standards?
But my point -- & do not think that I am suggesting for an instant that I think those seeking sex with under-age kids should be left alone or are innocent of a crime -- is that such "stings" are wrong as well.
I don't care if we're talking about the sale of drugs, prostitution, insurance fraud, or child molestation. What we're talking about is fraudulently representing yourself. Forget the fact that in reality the young woman who was posing as a thirteen year old girl is actually eighteen & of legal age, forget the fact that while the police perform these fraudulent acts frequently for the purpose of getting someone to incriminate themselves, but that the eighteen year old girl & 20/20 bozos were working with the cops in an even greater sham than the original "sting". Worse -- those very cops were in hiding till after the 20/20 producer walked out, like Allen Funt from Candid Camera, to explain the situation.
If indeed this were truly legal, what are the cops hiding from?
