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.

[Dark Knight]

I love good baiting. One of the funniest videos I have ever seen is from the NY Transit Police. I'm sure you've seen it. A cop has a ton of jewelry, gold bands, pricey watch etc, and acts like he is drunk out of his mind and all alone at night in a subway station. He gets robbed, and the back up guys come in and tackle the bad guys, not nicely. Or watching a team get filmed after doing some controlled buys at a neighborhood crack house. Or even the Police Lady of the night, when after the price and act are said, the big guys come in the hall, and out of the closet.

The Intenet though, you've heard it, nothing is real on the Internet. You've seen the picture, of the fat balding guy in shorts and a gross T-shirt typing "I'm a 30 year old professional bodybuilder," and she's replying "I have a swim suit photoshoot in a week in Tahiti." while she is smoking a cigarette and looking very unpleasant.

The rumor I've heard is the only ones in those teen chatrooms are perverts and cops. I just feel like the Internet stings expecially the ones with fantasy victims are just a little too far removed from reality. If Scott Ritter had just contacted a killer for a job, yeah, the cost of the sting would be worth it. Sell a pound of dope, okay. Even the fourteen year old to me is a close call even if she was not real. But in so many states, a sixteen year old is free to have sex with anyone they want. Don't try to tell a parent that if you want to live. And there wasn't any real sixteen year old...

I looked it up. Washington's child rape laws end at 16 years old. I guess it would be legal here...sigh, what a world.

DK

[Catspaw]

At least on line, the Grey Lady has not seen fit to deign to report the Ritter story. The Daily News and Post have.

[Dark Knight]

Sorry, the NYTimes comment was a flat attempt at humor. I hope very few on FR use it as an only source.

DK

[Ditto]

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

There was no drug dealer, only cops pretending to be drug dealers.

There was no spy, only FBI agents pretending to be spys.

There was no fence, only cops pretending to be fences.

There was no terrorist looking to buy a nuclear weapon, only CIA agents pretending to be terrorists.

Do you get the picture. There is nothing in the law that says the authorities have to sit back and allow a crime to happen. They are allowed to arrest people who are intending to commit a crime.

[cyncooper]

I kind of figured that's how Dark Knight meant his reference, but isn't it interesting what's "fit to print" and not...

[Catspaw]

I've been reading the NYT recently to see if they'd cover this. I've come to the conclusion that it's crappy, right down to the recipes :-))

[amused]

Those crying set-up also think Bush orchestrated 9-11 to be the new Reichstag and Wellstone was assasinated so your logic falls on deaf ears.

[WL-law]

The Intenet though, you've heard it, nothing is real on the Internet.

I argued your same point regarding the Peter Townshend "investigation" -- you can do a search on my name and and find the thread if you'd like. (And I suffered the same attacks as you have here for doing it).

In that case, the notions of what constitutes "possession" were, I think, troubling, and as a general matter I argue that many laws need to be re-thought as they apply to the internet. Ritter's overt act is the troubling part in his case, but I agree that there is a desperate and pathetic quality to many of the internet sting operations we hear about daily.

[Dark Knight]

>>There was no fence, only cops pretending to be fences.<<

You had me stopped on this one, in a Zen Koan sort of way. I was imagining a bunch of cops trying to encirlce a field, which is my main point.

It is easy to pretend to be hooker. It is possible to pretend to be a spy, I'm sure the FBI can do a good impression of being a spy. The CIA probably teach some pretty good aspects of how to look like a terrorist. And a group of cops could take in stolen goods, for a fencing operation. How do you get teach a 21+ year old to be 14 (in an age dependent crime)? None of those other criminal enterprises has an associated physical look. Remember that age and sex are the only two aspects of this crime.

I was just kind of shocked to find that the case of the sixteen year old would be okay in Washington. Not a crime.

[aristeides]

I won't deny that the evidence strongly suggests that Ritter is guilty as charged. But why does that mean he was not set up? If he was targeted because of his politics (and that seems possible to me,) "set up" strikes me as an accurate term.

[Ditto]

How do you get teach a 21+ year old to be 14 (in an age dependent crime)? None of those other criminal enterprises has an associated physical look. Remember that age and sex are the only two aspects of this crime.

You have a young, small female cop wearing a wire with the right cloths and heavy make-up like so many teen girls use. The perp is looking for a 14 year old and will be bagged before he ever takes a close look at the cop's face. He'll be checking other parts of the anatomy first.

After the documented internet chats, the propositions and arranging a meeting place and time, all he has to do is show up, walk up to the girl and say "Hi. I'm Scott" and he is toast. They have more than enough to prosecute at that point.

As a father of daughters, I'd just take the sob out and waste him. I can't understand why they let this creep walk.

[weegee]

Didn't he get caught doing this twice? If true, then after the first attempt he persisted.

The left tried to claim that a VRWC sent Monica to Bubba's office too.

[weegee]

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 really burns my butt.

Same with how the guys who tried to blow up the WTC only got life (and they lived to see the destruction of the buildings by their partners in crime).

[weegee]

One of the charges got "dismissed" by a DA who has been fired for her actions (which have now come to light). The file in that case is sealed.

[weegee]

If he is "anonymously" chatting, how does a blackmailer find which chat room Scott Ritter was going to?

Did he go back to the same one where he was busted before?

[Focault's Pendulum]

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

Would you care to debate your stance in an open forum....If game you are....send me your age, education, and State that you live in....I'll be ready in about twenty seconds.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Didn't think so.

[bvw]

This is an open forum.

[fightinJAG]

Solicitation is not an "attempted" crime. It is a crime in and of itself, complete once you say, "Hey, little girl, yawanna . . ."

[bvw]

Late to the party and in a rush, eh? The debate has been had. If you have new points, speak 'em.