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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I ain't buyin' it. That guy couldn't have cared less if the girl lived or died. It only through the grace of God that she lived and not because he feared a greater sentence if she died.

[WL-law]

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

I don't think so -- conspiracy is an "anticipatory" crime like attempt, but requires at least 2 guilty actors to conspire (But it does NOT require the 'penultimate act' to be committed). Ritter didn't conspire, he attempted -- by himself.

[OperationFreedom]

He is reported to have had intent to sexually molest a minor. That is enough to make him a slimeball in any decent persons book. Should it be a crime. I really don't know. Should his reputation hang for it? You betcha! Should you defend him as you do? I will let that question up to others. I will only say you bring suspicion upon yourself with your posts.

[bvw]

He is reported to have had intent to sexually molest a minor.

There is a world -- all of creation in fact -- of difference between intent and actuality. I have the deepest regard for folks who, while tempted, while some intent is in mind, resist and rise above that temptation.

[OperationFreedom]

OK, but he did NOT rise above. He tried to ACT! Big difference.

[WL-law]

There is a world -- all of creation in fact -- of difference between intent and actuality. I have the deepest regard for folks who, while tempted, while some intent is in mind, resist and rise above that temptation.

Remember, though, per the points I made in the original post, that the crime (regardless of the 'name' of the offence) is in the "attempt", not in the "intent". Ritter did far more than intend, in the logic of the law, when he entered that BK, saw/confirmed that he was meeting an [apparently] underage girl, and continued with his planned actions.

As I said above, at that point society deems that we know enough to judge and to punish -- we're not required to wait for a real crime and a harmed victim.

[Catspaw]

Ritter's bust reflects the second time he got caught by the cops in three months. Do you think he was idle during those interim three months or do you think he was out actively trolling for a real live young girl to molest?

[Catspaw]

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

There's always an idiot with a pot of cash--and with Ritter's college speaking tour, in some cases, it's Our Tax Dollars At Work.

[Mr. Jeeves]

If Ritter is being set up, the M.O. has "Democrat" written all over it. Joe Biden might have gotten the goods on "Scotty Boy" a few years ago, and decided that his anti-Iraq statements had to be stopped, lest they lead to Republican gains.

I think Ritter is guilty, but if he was set up the prime suspect is neither Bush nor Saddam, but Biden.

[Dark Knight]

The real and better non-inflamatory example of a sting would be:

Suspected dope dealer shows up to sell dope to undercover officer. He gives up the dope, gets arrested and they find out it is milk powder or something innocuous. The crime of dealing dope was not violated. Was it a good act? No. Was it illegal? Maybe, but not for selling dope.

Showing up to a BK and meeting an of-age person, representing themselves as too young is not a crime. Stupid, yes. Reprehensible, depends on your feelings on 21 year olds having affairs with 45 year old married men. Or rather just waving at them from a distance.

Another scenario, girl tells you emphatically how she is 21 and you met her in a bar. You are intimate, and then charged with having sex with a 15 year old. You cannot use the idea that she looked 21 as a defense.

The 'penultimate act' you keep asking for is the meeting of an under-age person at the BK after discussing having a sex act on-line. There was no under-age person there that he discussed having sex with. No crime. Intent, maybe. He could not make a substantial step to completing the crime because he was talking to an adult about having sex, and met an adult. You can twist it, and turn it, put it in the oven to bake it, but it won't change that 21 year old cop into a 16 year old girl.

Give him the Marv Albert Award for public humiliation, or try to really find out how many other contacts he has had with children. But stop with the made up crimes.

This story would be a nonstory if the writer talked about how he met a 21 year old police officer at the BK and continued to ask for that act.

DK

[cynicom]

Media is letting this leftwing pervert off easy...Common sense says there is good possibility there is more if they were to check his past.

[Dark Knight]

Read my posts. I want the investigators to seize his computers, and subpoena the ISPs. You know, the kind of investigation that does not make it to COPS. Boring footwork, making contacts with his other internet contacts, that kind of stuff. He was let off with a warning. I'd bet because they don't want to take weak cases to court, just try to scare the perps. It doesn't work. They are predators. You have to get them, and get them right.

When I was in High School a teacher went off the deepend and started to stalk one of my male classmates. Do I think he was a danger, H@ll yes. If I can personally think of one example I know, there has to be many of them out there. I'm not soft on them, but you have to prosecute them for attempting a real crime.

DK

[WL-law]

The crime of dealing dope was not violated. Was it a good act? No. Was it illegal? Maybe, but not for selling dope.

The applicable statutes most likely crimin alize both selling dope and selling any substance you represent as dope.

Showing up to a BK and meeting an of-age person, representing themselves as too young is not a crime.

As I said in an earlier post, that would be a useful theory of defense -- that "I knew the minute I saw her that she was 21 pretending to be 15, and if that weren't the case I would have turned around and walked out immediately". Because if that's true, it seems to remove the criminlaity. But is it true? That's why we have juries -- its a question of fact for trial.

The 'penultimate act' you keep asking for is the meeting of an under-age person at the BK after discussing having a sex act on-line. There was no under-age person there that he discussed having sex with. No crime.

Here you're wrong. If that argument were a winner, no decoy could ever be used in an attempt to catch a criminal in the act. None. Of any kind.But that isn't the way our law works. Criminal intent, the "mens rea", and performing the criminal elements, constitutes the crime -- the focus isn't on the materiality/immateriality of the object of the crime.

[Dark Knight]

>>Here you're wrong. If that argument were a winner, no decoy could ever be used in an attempt to catch a criminal in the act. None. Of any kind.But that isn't the way our law works. Criminal intent, the "mens rea", and performing the criminal elements, constitutes the crime -- the focus isn't on the materiality/immateriality of the object of the crime.<<

The Government is making up one. Doesn't that strike you as bad? Don't you want the police to use the information to get a warrant and subpoena his ISP records and seize his computer, and find out what real contacts he may have had? Isn't that better police work, and real?

DK

[Catspaw]

Don't you want the police to use the information to get a warrant and subpoena his ISP records and seize his computer

Given that the record of the case is sealed--and that'd include police reports, warrants, subpoenae and the like--we don't know if the cops seized his computer. Do you know for a fact that they didn't seize his computer & subpoena his ISP? If so, what's the source of your information?

[Dark Knight]

It would have been leaked as an ongoing investigation. QED. Wouldn't that be pathetic if the only two times he tried to wave his flag, it was both to police officers?

DK

Of course I only know what I read in the New York Times.

[Catspaw]

If you want to have some fun, Phil Donahue is having an MSNBC chat at 3 p.m. Eastern. Let's ask him if Ritter's arrest for child enticement changes his view towards Scott.

[Catspaw]

Oh, so you don't have a source? Are you just making this stuff up on the fly? Of course you are--and then presenting it as fact. Nice work if you can get it.

[WL-law]

The Government is making up one. Doesn't that strike you as bad? Don't you want the police to use the information to get a warrant and subpoena his ISP records and seize his computer, and find out what real contacts he may have had? Isn't that better police work, and real?

Good question. Common sense says -- if the crime is a serious crime that warrants a serious response to control it, then one might elect numerous ways to attack it. Reconstructing a crime that already occurred is difficult, although sometimes necessary. But another approach is to use some bait and see what predators come to the bait. It's a tricky argument to prove guilt, because you are one step removed from an "actual crime".

But in the balance, balancing liberties and public good, and measuring the seriousness of the criminal behavior you're trying to prevent, I don't think you can call the baiting "immoral". Certainly Ritter's case, on its facts, does not constitute an immoral statist practice.

[cyncooper]

It would have been leaked as an ongoing investigation. QED. Wouldn't that be pathetic if the only two times he tried to wave his flag, it was both to police officers?

It sounds to me that when they arrested him for encounter #2 it got the lid slammed down right quick. But unlike you, I don't think it was due to a desultory police force.

Of course I only know what I read in the New York Times.

Did the NY Times report this story yet? If so, I'd love to read how they presented it.

The mind reels.