Ritter Wasn't "Set-Up" as Crtics Decry -- and Here's Why

self | 1-22-03 | WL-law

[WL-law]

Much has been chatted (see, i.e., Raimundo's latest screed, but also including thinkers on the right) about how Ritter was "set up" in an oh-so-obvious attempt to silence a Bush critic.

Putting aside the problem of TIMELINES and CAUSE-EFFECT metaphysical problems with that critique, I want to address another problematic aspect -- that the critics think that punishing an "attempt" crime is overreaching, and hence it is evidence of police conspiracy. Thes critics fundamentally misunderstand the notion and retionale for criminalizing "attempted crimes' in our criminal law system.

"Attempt" crimes are a morally legitimate and necessary part of the criminal law -- otherwise, one could never stop an obviously and imminently "intended" act and punish the actor -- you'd have to let the. i.e., murderer shoot the victim before you pulled your gun and said "drop it!"

The key issue in the solicitation case is whether Ritter's intention was provably to actually engage in his activities with an underage girl -- because he could argue that, i.e., he thought the on-line chat partner was a homosexual male and they were just role playing.

Another key is that the attemptor -- Ritter -- has to commit a "penultimate act" -- i.e., the last necessary overt act before the crime itself -- as part of the 'theory' and thus the key statutory element for punishable attempt crimes. And the logic is, since we're punishing a person for something they INTENDED to do, but hadn't done yet, we want to be sure that they were serious in their intent and were not likely to change their decision -- hence we want to see that the last preparatory act was committed.

In both requirements Ritter was caught red-handed.

First, the "decoy" undercover cop was presumably in the restaurant, and presumably looked underage, and presumably (from what I've gleaned from the reports) Ritter continued to 'engage' rather than withdraw -- hence he can't claim the defense of play-acting.

Second, going to the restaurant is the serious-furtherance-of-the-crime ACT that takes idle chat on a computer into the realm of real, imminent, dangerous actions that society is morally right in punishing "as if" the crime itself was already committed.

This is a heightened concern when Ritter's prior behavior is considered.

So the charge of 'set-up is baseless.

[WL-law]

What crime happened here? Ritter went to a Burger King where an ADULT woman waited for him. Did he think she was underage? Well, acting is hard, I say. While the intent of the police was to appear as if they were a "14 year old", there are many nuances even in an on-line chat that could have consicously or sub-consciously clued Ritter in to the idea he was actually engaging with and adult. Furthermore the police are consciously engaged in trapping behaviour and that colors the play-acting conversation as well.

Those are factual objections which is why we have trials. My sense of the decoy is that she must have looked convincingly underage. As to the content of the chat, that could be inspected as well, but again, I suspect that the cops were careful not to be ambiguous or hint at anything other than the mindset of a 14 year old. If the cops did their job well then those defenses wouldn't succeed. And presumably Ritter saw the young girl in the restaurant and continued to proceed with his actions.

[Catspaw]

There was NO 14 year old ... only adults playacting the part of a 14 year old.

Oh, I see--that makes it okay, right? That a crime can only be committed if Ritter had he actually been caught masturbating in front of a 14-year-old--am I stating your position correctly?

[goodnesswins]

DAY of SUPPORT....FLY your flags (US, a British one, Hungarian, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But that is the distinction. Attempeted murder meant that you TRIED to murder someone and either because you were a bad shot or the person was incredibly lucky, you failed. Otherwise it would be assault.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. The case I stated was a REAL case.

[bvw]

Ritter was stupid. Beyond that ...

Appearing in a government funded play is not a crime yet.

[WL-law]

There was NO 14 year old ... only adults playacting the part of a 14 year old.

The question is, are there real 14 Y.O. girls on the chat line? If all the chatters are in fact cops, your point is well taken -- because then "but for" the cops there would be no victim.

So this is a matter of practical common sense. Cops impersonate street walkers, but do so in areas where there are also real street walkers and hence real crimes being committed.

[Dark Knight]

Again, there was no 14 year old involved, and no 16 year old involved. Ever. He is accused of attempting to commit an illegal act with a non existant person. The only people involved in this sting were old enough cops.

>>And presumably Ritter saw the young girl in the restaurant and continued to proceed with his actions. <<

There was no young girl there, only an of age cop (probably over 21).

Did he cop to it, sure. Just the charge is enough to destroy a reputation of a public figure. Did he probably want to do it? Sure. Does the state have the evidence to show he wanted to do that act with a 21 year old police officer? Yes. Is that act illegal? No.

DK

[bvw]

So this is a matter of practical common sense. Cops impersonate street walkers, but do so in areas where there are also real street walkers and hence real crimes being committed.

And in those areas you can lay in wait for the johns and the ho's both. A good distance mike and a camera, bim bam boom. Real crime.

I am for playacting trapping in some crimes -- like murder for hire, smuggling, extortions, etc. In sex chats, however, I just don't think an adult can emulate a young child to the degree of fidelity needed -- sex is too potent an adult drive.

[WL-law]

I am for playacting trapping in some crimes -- like murder for hire, smuggling, extortions, etc. In sex chats, however, I just don't think an adult can emulate a young child to the degree of fidelity needed -- sex is too potent an adult drive.

And if I were Ritter that would be my defense, I agree. It's difficult to articulate and nuanced, and therein lies the problem -- can you bring the jury with you to see into those dark places? He'd need a good lawyer.

[montag813]

"SET UP"? Who is saying that? If Scott Ritter was in a chat room with supposed 16-year old girls, and lured one to watch him masturbate at a Burger King...how is that a "setup"? Would any of you have done such a thing? Ritter is clearly one sick puppy.

And why does anyone even pay attention to Raimundo? I have yet to see a single reasoned argument written by him in the last 2 years. To even mention his "screeds" is to give him attention he does not deserve.

[Consort]

From another Thread:

"...the ex-Marine's arrest record was sealed after an assistant DA, Ritter's lawyer and a town court judge worked out a deal to have the case adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD)."
"When that happens, a case is put on hold for six months and if the defendant keeps out of trouble, the charge is dismissed and the record is sealed."
"Ritter...underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling as part of the deal."
"The case was kept under wraps so well that even DA Clyne didn't hear about it until late last week - when it was reported in an upstate newspaper."

It appears that he may have been set up to be blackmailed into saying the things he has been saying. If his arrest was made public like everyone else's, he couldn't be blackmailed. But, when ...the charge is dismissed and the record is sealed..." and "...kept under wraps so well that even DA Clyne didn't hear about it..." then the threat of exposure becomes a very real motive for blackmail. The incidents were kept secret and anyone who knew about it could blackmail him or sell that information to a blackmailer.

[CharacterCounts]

It is the change in Ritter that is key. Why the change? HE WAS BLACKMAILED!!! By BUsh? Why?

Ritter isn't important enough to even appear on Bush's radar screen let alone blackmail.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the truth. Maybe,the guy is a pervert and a careless one at that.

[WL-law]

And why does anyone even pay attention to Raimundo

I don't, but these questions were being raised on the National Review website, and I believe they had a link to "Raimundo", which I quickly perused. It was a nonsensical lib rant, sort of D.U. paranoid-style material.

[Catspaw]

Appearing in a government funded play is not a crime yet.

It's a crime in my state (Wisconsin), with the punishment being " a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 25 years, or both."

948.075       
948.075 Use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime. 
948.075(1)       
(1) Whoever uses a computerized communication system to communicate with an individual who the actor believes or has reason to believe has not attained the age of 16 years with intent [to] have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the individual in violation of s. 948.02 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class D felony.
 
948.075 - ANNOT.       
       NOTE:  Sub. (1) is shown as amended eff. 2-1-03 by 2001 Wis. Act 109.  Prior to 2-1-03 it reads as shown below.  The bracketed language indicates a necessary word that was omitted by Act 109. Corrective legislation is pending.
 
948.075 - ANNOT.       
       (1)  Whoever uses a computerized communication system to communicate with an individual who the actor believes or has reason to believe has not attained the age of 16 years with intent [to] have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the individual in violation of s. 948.02 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class BC felony.
 
948.075(2)       
(2) This section does not apply if, at the time of the communication, the actor reasonably believed that the age of the person to whom the communication was sent was no more than 24 months less than the age of the actor.
 
948.075(3)       
(3) Proof that the actor did an act, other than use a computerized communication system to communicate with the individual, to effect the actor's intent under sub. (1) shall be necessary to prove that intent.
 
948.075 - ANNOT.       
       History:   2001 a. 109.

[Quilla]

Ritter is clearly one sick puppy.

I couldn't agree more. His first arrest was sealed and supposedly no further action would be taken if he "behaved" for six months. Two months later, they catch him again. Why wasn't the book thrown at him then? The more I think about this, the less it smells of Saddam blackmailing him as Saddam has no pull with the District Attorney's office. Someone let him slide - twice. IMHO, he should be in jail.

[bvw]

"or has reason to believe"

Sort of presumption of guilt there. Say the actor also has reason to believe the contact might be older.

[montag813]

I don't, but these questions were being raised on the National Review website

Fair enough.

[Catspaw]

Oh, boy, maybe you should adopt your legal theories and present them to the next NAMBLA convention....and you might want to suggest they change their name to NAMBG(irl)LA. Then send an application to Scott Ritter.

[dennisw]

Thanks for taking the time to OPINE!