But if those bit on the bait the of the sting, they'd bite on other bait as well.
They are getting people who are willing to act on it. That means that there are real kids getting hurt by these pervs every day.
I guess I don't have too much of a problem with this. Nobody is forcing these pervs to respond to the bait. It's not something they happen to stumble on and ooops, make a bad split second decision. Their responding to that bait is premeditated. And they'd do it again.
If they fall for it, it's their own stupid fault. They need to think with the brain in their heads, not any other part of their anatomy.
I don’t think that this case will qualify as entrapment:
Entrapment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have sold drugs, as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three conditions are fulfilled:
The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.