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.

[Smedley]

Times are bad when a pervert on the left cannot have any privacy.

Yeah -- some of the morons at DU are screaming about how all this is about invading someone's personal sex life at government expense.

How dare the police set up sting operations for men who prey on underaged girls over the internet.

[OperationFreedom]

I am not that gullible. While I may disagree with the tactics used by the cops, your defense is sickening to a decent person. It also raises serious questions about your own morals.

[OperationFreedom]

Thank you for a good post. That some of our number would defend Ritter is beyond belief!

[Dark Knight]

Interesting law, but it would only apply in the cyber 14 year old case, the non existant 16 year old is not covered.

DK

[is_is]

. 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.

The correct comparison that everyone is missing is "Conspiracy to Commit Murder".

[bvw]

Sign me latent ______ (whatever you so chose). Is that the ticket?

I agree that Ritter was a bad actor. However, in my book, nothing that created a genuine crime occurred as has been reported so far. A statutory crime, sure. But Ritter is not reported to have hit up on a minor -- only some adults posing as minors, and there is a difference.

[Catspaw]

That some of our number would defend Ritter is beyond belief!

Arrests and convictions for this sex crime happen every day. Sometimes it's not a pretend 14 or 16 year old child, but a real live child. Sometimes the parents find out about it and acts to prevent it--and sometimes the child disappears with her new lover. Sometimes--if that child is lucky--he or she escapes or is let go (after being raped), and sometimes that child ends up dead.

Now there are those who believe this isn't a crime because no real child showed up to be sexually assaulted by Ritter. And there are those who think that this was arrest was falsified (even though his own lawyer acknowledges he was arrested). And there are those who think this crime was politically motivated. And there are those who feel sorry for Ritter.

Me? He got caught trolling the internet for young girls. He got nailed when he tried to turn his perverted sexual fantasies into reality. He got the record sealed in some wishful fantasy that no one would find out. When the word of it leaked, he lied. He's now single-handedly (pun intended) destroyed his own ultra-lefty peace movement hero career.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[cyncooper]

I agree, for many reasons, that the theory that Ritter was "set-up" is nonsense on its face.

The clincher is that he was caught in a sting in April, 2001 and *let go* with a warning.

Still, Ritter continued in his aberrant and reckless behavior and that right there puts the lie to the "set-up" theory once and for all.

(Now, back to why the second sting was handled in the manner it was, that is an interesting question.)

[cyncooper]

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?

Actually, the first time he was caught he merely got a warning. It was the second encounter when he was arrested, and still he received preferential treatment...

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I have always wondered why the penalty for attempted murder is less than murder. That the guy who kidnaps, rapes, cuts a young girl's arms off with an ax, and leaves her for dead would get a LESSER sentence than if the girl had died..."

Anything else would remove the disincentive to finish her off.

[bvw]

The second sting, after the first warning bugs me too -- even though I've been defending against this kind of sting. Ritter asked for it the second time, in all the practical honest justice of the street.

And like you what especially bugs me is how the case was handled.

[Smedley]

Gee, I wonder who will pay Ritter's speaking fees now?

[cyncooper]

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

Of course Ritter wouldn't be blackmailed by Bush, of all people. What nonsense (not directed to you, but crackpots who posit such a stupid idea), but I disagree that Ritter wouldn't be on his radar screen.

From the article on this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827245/posts

"Ritter visited Iraq in September, becoming the first American to speak before the Iraqi National Assembly."

He certainly merited being on the radar of the administration.

[Dark Knight]

>>Now there are those who believe this isn't a crime because no real child showed up to be sexually assaulted by Ritter. <<

I know, if you don't like a person's position, change it to one you can refute. The crime is dependent on the status of a person as a child, and there was no child, ever. No child, no crime. With no crime, you cannot attempt to commit a crime. Can you use this information to seize his computer records and contact possible victims? Sure. Is anyone trying to do this? No. Why not? Laziness. Does that really sound like I am excusing Scott Ritter for pathetic behavior?

If Scott Ritter did this twice in short order, he has probably done this many times. The answer is in his machine, or with his ISP. I know, a good sting is so sexy to watch, and a plodding but thorough investigation is boring as hell, but which would you rather have?

DK

[helper]

I really think if we can find out who had the Juice to get this sealed, or get the Asst DA to push for it we will learn what is really going on. I can't beleive the Asst DA got fired because she forgot to inform her boss.

I'll bet she got fired because someone got to her and she didn't inform him. Hey it's New York maybe Ritter called his Senator for help, and they needed him around to be a thorne in Bush's side

[Quilla]

Thanks. Hard to believe a warning was the only punishment deemed appropriate for attempting to arrange a sexual encounter with a 14 year old. I could just imagine the outrage if this wasn't a sting operation and a young girl's father discovered Ritter's efforts and intentions.

[cyncooper]

Who will pay? Well, according to this, these yahoos:

"Ritter is scheduled to give a speech Feb. 12 at Schenectady County Community College. There are no plans to cancel Ritter's appearance, for which he'll be paid $4,000, SCCC spokesperson Heather Meaney said."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827245/posts

[Starrgaizr]

I generally agree with you, particularly when it comes to protecting children from sex criminals. Or perhaps to see whether someone is a position of trust is really a security risk (espionage). But in other contexts it makes me uncomfortable to have the FBI hold out bags of cash to tempt a pol into taking a fake bribe. If there is an existing suspected pattern and corroborating evidence is needed, I guess it makes sense. But what if an otherwise honest pol with no record or accusation is tempted with $10 million? We don't want to create a criminal just to prosecute one.

Now with Ritter, his 180-degree flip has always been a huge red flag, and the combination of cash and potential personal humiliation and family issues could have turned him. I'd look at this as a case of a potential enemy agent.

[Marysecretary]

He's got to have a history of this kind of behavior. Hard to believe his wife didn't know, but we ARE the last ones to know. I can't believe he's only done this twice. He's done it more often, gotten away with it, and thinks he can keep on getting away with it--NOT. Got caught with his pants down this time.

[Marysecretary]

Wasn't there a scandal not so long ago about how UN employees molest small children in the countries they go into?