Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

But there is one important difference, attorneys for some of the men say, even if the law doesn't recognize it. While 13 actually went to the house -- many carrying condoms -- to meet a child for sex, 11 never did.

"There's a big difference between getting into a car to meet a child for sex and just playing an immoral game" online, said defense attorney Ed Jenks of Mineola, who represents one of the men who didn't go into the house, a West Islip firefighter. "The law needs to recognize that distinction."

But according to police and prosecutors, showing up to have sex with a child may be a powerful piece of evidence in court, but it is not a necessary component of the crime.

"No place does the law say you have to meet," Computer Crimes Det. Rory Forrestal said.

Passed in New York in November 1996, the criminal law for attempting to disseminate indecent material to a minor has three elements, Forrestal said.

A suspect must use a computer, Forrestal said. He must engage in "sexual banter" with someone he believes is a child. And, he has to invite the child to meet him or to engage in sexual activity over the Internet, such as a sexual performance on a Webcam, he said.

Three elements enough

"Once we have all three, theoretically, we could end the case right there," Forrestal said. "Setting up a meeting is a great piece of evidence, but it's not necessary."

Before the Internet, an attempt to meet a child for sex usually resulted in a charge of attempted rape, Forrestal said.

In this case, all of the suspects, who range from 19 to 47 years old and include an actor, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves and the firefighter, met each of the current law's criteria, police said. The actor, the lieutenant colonel and firefighter did not go into the house. One of the men was also charged with possessing child pornography, also a felony.

Babylon attorney Tom Spreer, who represents the firefighter, said the state legislature should consider establishing separate levels of culpability for someone who's "conducting a folly on the Internet, as opposed to someone who's looking for a minor for sex." Regardless of the distinction, cases involving sex crimes against children seldom go to trial because defense attorneys realize it's nearly impossible to create sympathy for their clients.
Newsday By Samuel Bruchey


Do you think all the men should be charged even if many of them did not show up???

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

First off they all got charged with Disseminating Indecent Material to a Minor, which does not require a meeting, it simple means the sent images that were not suitable for a minor...its a poor defense...Sorry

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

their actions were immoral, unethical and illegal. it infuriates me that they cannot face up to what they have done and accept the consequences.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

I don't know if my opinion is going to count. But one of my good friends is one of the men charged here. He did not go to the house and he had no intentions of showing up.

I have been such a mess because I feel like his life is over even if he is innocent because his face has been on the news and in newsday.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Message edited 2/20/2006 2:16:23 PM.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Posted by skew

their actions were immoral, unethical and illegal. it infuriates me that they cannot face up to what they have done and accept the consequences.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

not sure if i am getting the gist of the article..

But i for one think that ANYONE, an adult, talking to a child is SICK SICK SICK

Even more so if you eliciting anything from them on the computer

MORE SO if you go meet them

I am disgusted but the above three should have different penalties to match severity

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

As far as I'm concerned as long as they've met the 3 criteria, all should - at minimum- be charged disseminating indescent material to minors.

Ones that showed up but didn't go in, should get an additional charge but it would include a lot of psychological counseling in addition to the above charge.

The ones that showed up and went into the house, should get all of the above charges plus attempted rape of a minor.

All should have their foreheads tatooed with "potential child molestor" or "child molestor" depending on whether or not they entered the house.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Message edited 2/20/2006 4:59:29 PM.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Message edited 2/20/2006 7:30:14 PM.

Re: Question Of Intent In Sex Case(What Do You Think)

Posted by nrthshgrl

Posted by JBKempf

I don't know if my opinion is going to count. But one of my good friends is one of the men charged here. He did not go to the house and he had no intentions of showing up.

I have been such a mess because I feel like his life is over even if he is innocent because his face has been on the news and in newsday.

for you. I can't imagine how I would feel if this were my friend. I'm sure it's hard for you regardless of whether the public forgives him or not.

eta. If if were me, in order to make my own judgement - I'd need to see what was said in the IMs.