A Fake Person Is a Real Victim – At Least Under the Law
One of the most common criticisms of internet sting operations is that there was never an actual child involved. If the “victim” was really an undercover officer sitting behind a computer screen, can there truly be a victim at all?
The criminal conviction itself is not the surprising part — that question has largely been settled by decades of case law holding that an attempted offense can be prosecuted even when the intended victim never existed. The more interesting question is whether a fictitious victim should continue to carry legal weight years later when determining eligibility for sentencing benefits or exposure to collateral consequences.
Amendment 821 was adopted by the United States Sentencing Commission to provide modest sentence reductions for certain low-risk offenders with no criminal history, reflecting the Commission’s determination that these individuals generally present a lower risk of recidivism. However, the amendment excludes individuals convicted of “sex offenses”.
In United States v. Bryant, the defendant was convicted of attempting to entice a minor after communicating online with someone he believed was the mother of a 10-year-old girl. We all know how that ends up. Of course neither the woman nor the mother existed. They were a law enforcement officer. Years later, Bryant sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the federal sentencing guidelines. He argued that because there was no real child involved, his offense should not be considered a qualifying “sex offense” that would disqualify him from relief.
The court disagreed, taking the same stance with the requested relief under 821 as it does with the conviction. The court noted that federal courts across the country have consistently rejected the argument that an actual child must be involved for a conviction under the enticement statute. The crime, the courts have said, is the attempt itself.
Whether one agrees with that policy or not, the Bryant decision serves as another reminder that under the law, a person who never existed can still function as a “victim” for purposes of criminal prosecution, sentencing and even post-conviction relief. In the eyes of the court, it seems like the fictional person will be following Mr. Bryant for the rest of his life.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still say if a fictitious child victims is sufficient to convict for sexual assault of a minor, then those conducting these stings should be charged with child exploitation or endangerment. That there was no actual child victim there shouldn’t provide any more defense than those targeted.
For profit stings in a for profit country. Not surprising in the least
I disagree that is a ‘sex offense’.
I agree that this form of police procedure is entrapment.
However, if the defendant actually thought he/she was trying to entice a 10 year old, then I agree with enticement of a minor, real or not, but it is certainly NOT a sex offense.
If someone sets out to murder someone/anyone and evidence is found on their social media account, weapons, etc. that that is what they criminally intended to do, then they are a danger to society and should be prosecuted for attempted murder even though no victim ever existed because of criminal intent.
I wonder if this is another one of those Craigslist cases. If those lawyers had focused on the nature of the site the sting operation was conducted on, I think the results of these cases would be different. Take for example, “DoubleList”. This is a site or app that supposedly replaced Craigslist “Casual Encounters”. See this video here to see all the steps someone has to go through to post an ad to solicit men to engage with. This is similar to what the steps were for posting an ad on Craigslist Casual Encounters to solicit adult male strangers to engage with them.
https://youtu.be/VOrELLa4yU0?is=Xj0rbOIUietwhnAE
Think about that. Our government is claiming that kids and parents are going out of their way to access these sites, walking through all of those steps to post an ad to find adult male strangers to then offer kids to those strangers or (if they are supposedly a kid) to engage those adult strangers in online hookup culture, sexual conversations and to invite them to meet for a casual sexual hookup. And nobody is supposed to be confused about those situations presented to them. They should just automatically think that it’s all real and the person they are talking to is not role playing, pretending or lying about anything.
What if lawyers were to just walk juries through what it took those police officers or vigilantes to post the ad they did, to solicit the man they did, and to engage him in the sexual conversation that took place? Wouldn’t people see this differently if they have to think about a 13 year old going out of their way to do all that??
And they also run their sting operations on the HUSH app. Do you know what that is?
This app is designed and meant to be about ANONYMITY. It is assumed that users’ intend to keep their true identity ANONYMOUS. But the government has repeatedly claimed that men who were using this app KNEW that they were communicating with a minor. Those men’s right to engage in those role play conversations (free speech) has been criminalized because the laws that have phrases included like “or believed to be a minor” can very easily be used to criminalize this free speech, and that is exactly what has been happening! These role play conversations can very easily be used to make it look like an adult man intended to meet a minor for sex, when in reality there is no way that man could have known this person’s real identity until he saw them in person.
If the lawyers with those cases focused on the nature of the app and presented that as the defense, they can prove entrapment at the very least. In my opinion, it proves malicious government conduct.
See for yourselves about this app:
https://youtu.be/m5ITxEdE9fA?is=Cdj7nrLBVmFIKDB2
https://youtu.be/-00vZmUKzPw?is=ehATO4Y7oNvLBKNL
https://youtu.be/HXIiKGhWOC4?is=SVV5-_ceuuN8ETW6
This hits home for had no victim as well in my offense it was a sting
Same goes for a teen being sent ai csam on discord and then being charged for possession .. my son is a sex offender because of a discord report made by someone 2 weeks after he turned 18. Even the probation officer said ” no victim” several times.. the state prosecutor decides the victim is every child who could ever exist..but not my child .. my child who was exposed to this ..my autistic son somehow is not a victim he is a criminal. Because I didn’t have 56 thousand dollars all at once, we will pay for life. They know he is harmless they know he won’t ever offend.. he has a little sister he is allowed unsupervised contact with, yet he is on probation 5 years..has a monitor.. and has never even been to public school. A homeschooled youngest of 3 boys who walked into the wrong places and people online. At a time when our state is suing these very companies discord and Roblox for kids being exposed to this, they aren’t protecting kids they are exposing them to this, allowing them to be trained and harmed and then turning them in as soon as they run 18 as criminals. That isn’t protecting kids that’s sacrificing them for PR.