I'm with u prinny68.I was 14 when I met my first husband that was 19. These court systems need to get a reality check with some of these girls who like older men. I'm not saying all because I know there's alot of inocent girls out there who my heart goes out to, but I know somebody who is very close to me that has been fighting life without parole for the last two years. He's been in special Ed all his life, was getting SSI, and he is 27 now with a maturity level of a sixth grader. The victim has sent one guy to prison already with others in jail because of the same situation. She has never dated anybody her own age. Why, I don't know, but how fair is that? I could totally understand alot of things,but I know for a fact that she would not leave him alone. I think in situations similar to this one if they would put the girl on probation ther would be alot less sex offenders

Concerned, because she is only 15, the state and the law says that she cannot make a true and knowledgable decision to be a WILLING partner in this situation. The law says she is not old enough to consent, and that if she does, it's because of her immaturity, and the offender, or potential offender, MUST have coerced her into giving consent, taking advantage of her underdeveloped sense of judgement, or lack-there-of. I have one problem with this. At 15 years old, I was having illegal underage sex with a boyfriend to which I eventually married(who by the way was over 18 at the time), and i had children with him and the whole bit. I knew EXACTLY what I was doing, he did NOT pressure me, and in fact was very uneasy about taking our relationship to this next level. I pressured HIM if anything, yet he could have been arrested and could have been registered as a sex offender for life. THIS is ridiculous to me! Though I agree that THIS offender should be prosecuted as he did show intent to assault a minor, I think the fact that in our justice system, my (now ex)-husband and this guy if he had actually assaulted the 15 year old(if she were real), could have been charged and convicted and punished for the same crime (would've been 2nd-degree sexual assault of a minor) and both sentenced to a LIFETIME registration with the sex offender registry, is ridiculous! I can agree with Concerned's "victim" and "participant" view.... I'm just sayin.

Mikki writes: "I will tell you this much, I remember what it was like back in the 80's in Chicago. I was hit on by guys in their 30's. At the time, I was flattered. I didn't know they were pedophiles."

How old were you at the time? If you were 15, then they were most likely not pedophiles. Pedophilia generally refers to the sexual attraction to pre-pubecent children. Most 15 year olds do not fall into this category.

Although a 36 year old wanting to have sex with a 15 year is distasteful and inappropriate, I believe it is a stretch to call this man a predator, and I certainly do not think this should be a criminal matter.

There is no "victim" in this case, and even if there were an actual 15 year old, judging by the facts presented, she would not be a "victim," she would be a participant.

People never cease to amaze me.

I will tell you this much, I remember what it was like back in the 80's in Chicago. I was hit on by guys in their 30's. At the time, I was flattered. I didn't know they were pedophiles.

1 perv down 50 million to go

Devilsadvocate: The article stated that he could face UP TO 40 years in prison on the charge of “felony use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime” that means that any person who uses a computer to meet up with a minor to have sex and actually succeeds would also face this charge on top of many more for going through with the crime. It never said that he was going to be sent to prison for 40 years most likely it will be much less than that, I just hope he gets locked up for some amount of time, because if there had been an actual 15 year old there do you honestly think he would have not had sex with her? He said that he was going there to meet for sex after all, if I go to the grocery store for groceries I get groceries.

The thought that a person could be jailed for 40 years for agreeing to meet a non existent 15 year old, makes me shudder a bit too. It's the right wing run, way way amuck. While child sexual assault is a serious problem, to warrant a 40 year jail term, one would at least expect an actual victim to exist. Persons who actually commit child assault don't get near that much time. The state has a well trained unit that does this type work. To have every small town cop casting a line on the net, hoping to land a pervert, seems legally precarious to me. Common sense and "reasonableness" seems to have left our society.

Geez, that thought makes me shudder.

I am sure glad Devils and biggirl aren't in charge of our law enforcement. Our children (and possibly small animals) wouldn't be safe.

Devilsadvocate: He was not simply arrested for talking about having sex with her. He talked about it, scheduled it, and showed up for it. So if they discussed bank robberies with someone, scheduled the robbery, and the person showed up with the required equipment (most likely a gun) then I think they would have a pretty good chance of getting a conviction. And by the way our jails are already filled up, because there are too many stupid people in this society.

ConcernedCitizen_aka_Disgusted

Nope not me....

Devilsadvocate, do you post on the Monroe Times site under the same name?

Seems to me Milton cops should be patrolling the streets of Milton not "trolling" the Internet. That aside, if we can arrest a pervert using an imaginary 15 year old girl, why not discuss Bank robberies via the net, then arrest the person for an imaginary bank robbery. We could fill the jails in no time.

And in comes biggirl with another wonderful word of wisdom, since she has a soft spot for pedophiles.

I totally agree with Jim and thekid. I seriously doubt that they'd release the screen name with "5 more" perverts out there that they could have "stung". That wouldn't make any sense at all. Yeesh!

BYW, this loser was coming to Milton with the expressed intention of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. He's 36 years old, for God's sake. What's he planning on doing in a motel room with a 15-year-old?????

My point is that I don't see "ENTRAPMENT".

cutebutnameless: Get a clue; The Gazette reported nothing that wasn't already available to the public if requested. Freedom of information. This is a done deal, move on.

*wasnt*

cutebutnameless, you're wrong about a couple things. Not only am I really a PI, licensed in two states and have been working in this field for over a decade, I have worked several online pedo cases. I do know what I'm talking about. I'm quite familiar with how these cases are run.

You're right in that I don't know EXACTLY what the officer had going on in terms of other investigations. I'm basing my posts on accepted investigation practices in cases like this. Admittedly I'm making an assumption the officer(s) involved followed those practices.

good post jim.

cutebutnameless: if the lacey had 5 other pervs she was workin im gonna go ahead and assume they wouldnt have revealed that info to the gazette. but i guess im assuming there too;)

biggirl: really?? this guys intent want to molest a 15 year old dummy.

biggirl wrote: If I shoot a dummy rather than a real person, do I get convicted of murder. That is, is intent enough? No real person was hurt here, and we have no idea whether one would have been hurt. That makes the whole sting wrong to me.

That's a false analogy. These people aren't getting busted just because they are saying questionable things to someone they believe is underage on the computer. They are actually going out and trying to physically meet with the "child."

To make your analogy work, you'd have to say it like this. If I feel insulted by someone, buy a gun, find the person, then shoot them, only to find out it was a dummy, did I do anything wrong?

Intent is fairly easy to prove. Let's say the guy is told the person to whom he is communicating is underage. He acknowledges that and still says he wants to have sex with her, sets up a meeting with her, even says he'll bring the condoms. Then, he shows up at the agreed upon location with condoms in hand, it is pretty obvious to all involved he wasn't there just to chat about the weather.

JimPI - I think you're far from a "PI (Private Investigator) and again shouldn't ASSUME... I feel I have made a very valid statement. The Gazette and everyone else (including you & I) doesn't know EXACTLY what the police department had going on. Who's to say "Lacey" didn't have 5 other perverts waiting to meet up and now those perverts are reading the Gazette and won't be caught since they read who "Lacey" really is. Now, there could possibly be 5 true victims! I think the screen name should not have been published and should not be in future stories.

If I shoot a dummy rather than a real person, do I get convicted of murder. That is, is intent enough? No real person was hurt here, and we have no idea whether one would have been hurt. That makes the whole sting wrong to me.

cutebutnameless wrote: Why would the police's screen name be published? Now every pervert out there that has been talking to "Laceyredhawk" knows that "Lacey" does not exist and its really the police... It says they were talking since April, so lets ASSUME again, that this pervert was the only one talking to "Lacey"...Yeah, I doubt it... Way to think ahead Janesville Gazette!!!

Actually, in most cases the screen name used by the law enforcement officer is not reused in another case. Further, once the officer begins to work on one particular case, he or she usually doesn't use the same screen name to "talk" with other potential suspects. So, the Gazette did nothing wrong in revealing that screen name.
------------------------
cardtrader wrote: What I do not agree with is the way the police misrepresent themselves entrapping people male or female in these stings. They lead people on and get them to ask for things in such a way to trap them for a crime that maybe they would not have committed if not strung along.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the legal term entrapment. Don't feel bad, many people here seem to toss that word around without having a clue as to what it truly means.

Here's how a case like this works. An officer enters a chat room or something along those lines, obviously using a fake screen name. The officer mentions he or she is, say, a 14 year old girl. Typically, there will be SEVERAL people who will start chatting her up. It will start somewhat innocent - where do you go to school, do you play sports, that sort of thing. Rather quickly though, the conversation will turn to sex. Doing so usually takes absolutely no prompting on the part of the officer.

Look, if you really truly think these cases are often just matters of entrapment, conduct your own research. Create a screen name and go online to a chat room. Put yourself out there as a 14 year old girl who happens to be home from school today for some reason. See how long it takes for you to get hit on.

cardtrader
I think it would depend on who suggested that they meet for sex. If he did then I don't see it as entrapment. If the police officer did after they'd chatted for a period of time then it's walking a fine line. I don't really know how the police conduct themselves in these stings. I assume they identify their age and the individual knows that he is chatting with a minor.

Why would the police's screen name be published? Now every pervert out there that has been talking to "Laceyredhawk" knows that "Lacey" does not exist and its really the police... It says they were talking since April, so lets ASSUME again, that this pervert was the only one talking to "Lacey"...Yeah, I doubt it... Way to think ahead Janesville Gazette!!!

what a slug, a low life, whatever you want to call him, he is. Go to jail do not pass go.

The courts used to hold that there was no crime if the victim did not exist, but that changed in the 1990s. Several state and appeals courts, however, have issued a number of rulings in the last few years returning to the standard that there must be an actual victim. There is a complex relationship between this point and the widely accepted point that the police are allowed to deceive during investigations or interrogations, but must not entrap, that is, provoke an innocent person into committing a crime they were otherwise not disposed to.
.
This is a fluid area of the law and will certainly return to the Supreme Court level again.

I totally agree with the fact that any adult who talks to children with the expectation of having a sexaul relationship should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What I do not agree with is the way the police misrepresent themselves entrapping people male or female in these stings. They lead people on and get them to ask for things in such a way to trap them for a crime that maybe they would not have committed if not strung along. I just think sometimes innocent people might be charged with a crime.

She's 8 years old. These slimeballs have sick minds. Her Mom (my daughter) is rigid when it comes to her contact with the internet, phones, what have you. It scares the crappola outta me. Every generation has to face more creeps. The technology seems to suit the pedophile just fine. Look at all the "eye candy" he gets to shop around for, with these kids misunderstanding that whatever hits the web, is there forever and they could become a target of one of these sicko ba$tard$!

I hope he gets locked up for the maximum allowable sentence. This could have been my grandchild he planned to assault!