“It’s not about ‘thought’ it’s about intent. His intentions were to break the law. If you don’t think we should prosecute someone for criminal intent then to be consistent you don’t think we should prosecute terrorists who intend to kill simply because they were caught before they did.”
I don’t think that what we are talking about here is “intent” to commit a crime but they have actually criminalized talking sexually explicitly with a 15 year old. Granted he has tried to “hook up” with them, and probably has but the times that he was caught were all in stings designed to catch guys that like teenaged girls. So like I said, I don’t think that chatting sexually explicitly on line with a teenager should be illegal.
It’s also interesting that as our society morally declines more and more we seem to be criminalizing immoral behavior more and more. Really kind of weird that things that were legal in the 1950’s are now illegal but people in the 1950’s were much more moral than they are now. I’m sure someone can come up with a reason for that but it makes no sense to me. We live in an anything goes sexually environment but make laws that make that kind of thing more and more illegal. Good example, in the 1950’s there was no such thing as spousal rape, now there is and it can cause all sorts of problems if your wife gets mad at you and decides to make an example of you. How do you prove it wasn’t consensual when it’s (or at least was) considered normal to have sex with your wife? Also the ages for statutory rape were much lower in the 1950’s than they are now (most states it’s anything under 18).
After reading your pitiful comments, I simply had to log on (only the 3rd or 4th time I have done so) to reply to your idiocy. Let me spell it out for you, I have teenage daughters, and have witnessed a dear friend’s teenage daughter get pulled into the web of deceit by a freak such as Ritter. Yea, jail is gonna serve him well - and thank God he was caught.
As I am not an attorney, I couldn’t care less about trying to define the laws to meet your very odd criteria, ie. 13 is the cut off age, but as a parent, I damn straight can call bs on your mindless rantings of attempting to dodge the facts of what the dirtball Ritter has done. btw, do YOU know if he has ‘chatted’ with other under age girls, and not been caught? Do you honestly believe that some dude just chatting with an UNDERAGE girl is going to stop at just ‘chatting’?
You are so off base it’s almost funny. Thanks for letting me know by your own choice of words, just to who to steer clear of on this website.
Unless you believe that burning flags is "speech", or looting stores is "protesting", then exposing himself and masturbating for "her" via his webcam was not just "talking explicitly" with "her".