Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

[Konaguy]

Maui Rep. Bertram made some outrageous comments today about stings targetting people soliciting sex online.He claims that it is a imaginary crime .I guess he doesn't have kids or seen Chris Hansen's To Catch a Predator.

[LocalMotion]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

this brings up an interesting question.

Is it a crime to talk about a crime?

If I talk about committing a crime, is that worth getting arrested?

I don't agree with soliciting a minor online, but shouldn't you at least have to catch them showing up like Hanson does in the series?

[Amati]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I don't agree with soliciting a minor online, but shouldn't you at least have to catch them showing up like Hanson does in the series?

Are you referring to Bertram's friend? He DID show up, at the Maui Mall, to meet who he thought was a child.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

this brings up an interesting question.

Is it a crime to talk about a crime?

If I talk about committing a crime, is that worth getting arrested?

You can get arrested for terroristic threatening. Yelling at someone that you are going to kill them is certainly "talk" about committing a crime, isn't it?

I don't agree with soliciting a minor online, but shouldn't you at least have to catch them showing up like Hanson does in the series?

In many locales, it is against the law for an adult to solicit a minor over the internet,....period. One doesn't necessarily have to show up physically in the same space with the minor/decoy to be arrested. In fact, if you watch To Catch A Predator, they sometimes talk about (but don't show) arrests made of individuals who propositioned and sent explicit photos to one of the Perverted Justice decoys online, even though they never showed up at the house. (I believe that sending explicit photos to a minor is a federal crime, even if nothing else is done.)

Of course, the purpose of To Catch A Predator is to capture, on camera, these sexual predators getting caught in the act of meeting someone they think is a 13-14 year old girl or boy. NBC thinks that this makes for compelling TV viewing,... and apparently, the ratings for these segments backs up that observation. But it would be a mistake to assume that one would actually have to physically show up at a meeting site with a decoy to be arrested. If you talk about having sex in a chat room and/or send explicit photos to a law-enforcement official posing as a minor, you have already committed a crime and could be in a world of trouble at that point.

[Walkoff Balk]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Of course, the purpose of To Catch A Predator is to capture, on camera, these sexual predators getting caught in the act of meeting someone they think is a 13-14 year old girl or boy. NBC thinks that this makes for compelling TV viewing,...

Don't these sexual predators have to sign a release form before the show goes on the air? What people will do just to appear on tv?

[LocalMotion]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

You can get arrested for terroristic threatening. Yelling at someone that you are going to kill them is certainly "talk" about committing a crime, isn't it?



In many locales, it is against the law for an adult to solicit a minor over the internet,....period. One doesn't necessarily have to show up physically in the same space with the minor/decoy to be arrested. In fact, if you watch To Catch A Predator, they sometimes talk about (but don't show) arrests made of individuals who propositioned and sent explicit photos to one of the Perverted Justice decoys online, even though they never showed up at the house. (I believe that sending explicit photos to a minor is a federal crime, even if nothing else is done.)

Of course, the purpose of To Catch A Predator is to capture, on camera, these sexual predators getting caught in the act of meeting someone they think is a 13-14 year old girl or boy. NBC thinks that this makes for compelling TV viewing,... and apparently, the ratings for these segments backs up that observation. But it would be a mistake to assume that one would actually have to physically show up at a meeting site with a decoy to be arrested. If you talk about having sex in a chat room and/or send explicit photos to a law-enforcement official posing as a minor, you have already committed a crime and could be in a world of trouble at that point.

I fully understand that it's in the books as illegal, i'm just spurring debate on why is it applied to certain circumstances, but not all?

If I were chatting with someone and told them i wanted to beat the crap out of them, but never followed up or met them in person. Could I be arrested for assault? or intent to assault?

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I fully understand that it's in the books as illegal, i'm just spurring debate on why is it applied to certain circumstances, but not all?

If I were chatting with someone and told them i wanted to beat the crap out of them, but never followed up or met them in person. Could I be arrested for assault? or intent to assault?

Telling someone you want to beat them up or intend to beat them up might possibly be terroristic threatening but not assault or even probably intent to commit an assault. The threatening is the crime. Just like trying to talk someone you think is a minor into meeting you for sex is soliciting a minor, not statutory rape. The soliciting is a crime separate from any actual sex act that may take place. There is a difference between talking about soliciting a minor, as we are doing in this thread, and actually communicating with a minor (or someone you think is a minor) trying to lure them to have sex with you. If someone tries to lure a child over the internet and actually shows up to meet the child, it helps prove that the suspect is the same person doing the luring but I don't think it's a necessary component to the crime of soliciting sex with a minor. Especially over the internet, I can see potential problems in trying to prove exactly who was doing the soliciting (someone else used my computer, it wasn't my computer I share internet addresses with other people, etc.) unless someone is caught actually trying to meet the child at a place arranged in the soliciting.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

If I were chatting with someone and told them i wanted to beat the crap out of them, but never followed up or met them in person. Could I be arrested for assault? or intent to assault?

I got news for you, then. People have gotten arrested for making threats in a chat room or on an e-mail message. Does it happen all the time? Obviously not. But if a complainant is persistant enough and has the chat-logs/documentation to prove it, then law-enforcement would probably have to follow-up on the complaint.

But let's not be naive here. There are certain crimes that law-enforcement takes a greater initiative on to enforce than others. And targeting sexual predators seeking out minors over the internet is one of them. Why? Because children are seen as being vulnerable and powerless to defend themselves against adults who are preying on them.

The assumption is made that while an adult is old enough to make decisions and accept the physical/emotional consequences of having a sexual liaison with another consenting adult, children are not. And the sad fact of the matter is that there are children who have been taken advantage of by predators.

You may not agree with law-enforcement taking the initiative to protect children from online predators. But I (and many others) believe that young children are entitled to an extra level of protection from law-enforcement authorities, as compared to adults. The AMBER alert system is another example of a measure that is reserved for children who are believed to have been abducted and are in danger.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Especially over the internet, I can see potential problems in trying to prove exactly who was doing the soliciting (someone else used my computer, it wasn't my computer I share internet addresses with other people, etc.) unless someone is caught actually trying to meet the child at a place arranged in the soliciting.

Which is why so many of these arrests (where no meeting took place) usually don't rely on chat room transcripts alone, but also use transmitted explicit photos/webcam footage as evidence. You try convincing the judge/jury that it was somebody else using your computer,....when the prosecutor digs out video or pictures of you committing lewd acts.

Where a predator doesn't send smoking-gun evidence like incriminating photos or videos, that is when the police will probably hold off on making an arrest until a meeting with the decoy takes place.

[Random]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

You can get arrested for terroristic threatening. Yelling at someone that you are going to kill them is certainly "talk" about committing a crime, isn't it?

Perhaps, but how often do we mean it? We used the word "kill" very informally in everyday lingo, mostly in cliched phrases like "If we live through this, I'm gonna kill you."

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Perhaps, but how often do we mean it? We used the word "kill" very informally in everyday lingo, mostly in cliched phrases like "If we live through this, I'm gonna kill you."

It seems to turn on intent. Does the person speaking intend to terrorize (or recklessly disregard whether the words could terrorize someone) the person being spoken to or intend to cause people to evacuate someplace or recklessly disregard the risk of causing such evacuation? I think this is why it's illegal to shout "fire" in a theater unless there is actually a fire, for example.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur..._0707-0715.HTM

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

We used the word "kill" very informally in everyday lingo, mostly in cliched phrases like "If we live through this, I'm gonna kill you."

I think it is common sense that if you're ever going to tell somebody you're going to "kill them" in a figurative sense, it had better be to somebody who understands it as such and will not take offense to it. If you're not sure how somebody will react to your use of that expression, the smart thing is not to say it at all.

Getting back to the gist of the thread,....

Joe Bertram is either blinded by friendship..... or he is woefully underinformed on the issue of sexual predators on the internet. What makes it all the more troubling is his role as a state lawmaker serving on the Education Committee. This is a man who helps to craft and shape legislation that has an impact on our keiki. Ideally, you would expect someone in his position will carry out his duties with the best interests of children in mind. But right here, Rep. Bertram has exposed himself as someone with a poor understanding of the psychology/behavior of online predators and would shield his longtime friend, even though he has been caught red-handed at trying to make an inappropriate contact with a 14 year old girl.

Me thinks that House Speaker Calvin Say and the Democratic Caucus should get together and yank Joe Bertram out of the Education Committee.

[Amati]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Don't these sexual predators have to sign a release form before the show goes on the air? What people will do just to appear on tv?

In some cases an accredited news gathering organization does not need a release, maybe they can film the predator show as "news"?

[scrivener]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

What I don't hear is anyone actually addressing the VERY valid position Bertram takes. Yes, it is illegal to entice someone you THINK is underaged, but how constitutional a law is this? Bertram chose his words poorly when he called it an "imaginary" crime, but that is in fact what it is. No child was hurt, and if the transaction had been completed (that is, had the undercover officer on the other end of the computer connection had sex with the suspect), even if the perpetrator THOUGHT the officer was fourteen, no crime would have been committed. The reality would be that two consenting adults were engaged in sex, regardless of what one of them thought about the other.

Translation: Actual sex with someone you think is fourteen is legal. Intended sex with someone you think is fourteen is illegal.

Does this make sense to you? I'm not sticking up for the predators because they are the slimiest of the slimy, but Bertam's got a point and there isn't a thing outrageous about his statement. Once the state is allowed to jail you for what you thought was real but was in fact unreal, we have given it huge power. The only thing keeping me from complete opposition to the electronic enticement laws is that using actual children to lure these slimebags is unethical, yet I agree that something must be done to stop these people before they actually commit the crimes.

It is simply not the clear-cut issue Konaguy wants to make it.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

What I don't hear is anyone actually addressing the VERY valid position Bertram takes. Yes, it is illegal to entice someone you THINK is underaged, but how constitutional a law is this? Bertram chose his words poorly when he called it an "imaginary" crime, but that is in fact what it is. No child was hurt, and if the transaction had been completed (that is, had the undercover officer on the other end of the computer connection had sex with the suspect), even if the perpetrator THOUGHT the officer was fourteen, no crime would have been committed. The reality would be that two consenting adults were engaged in sex, regardless of what one of them thought about the other.

Translation: Actual sex with someone you think is fourteen is legal. Intended sex with someone you think is fourteen is illegal.

Does this make sense to you?

Your translation is wrong. What if the person who says he/she is 14 really is 14 and home alone? Just because an adult has "actual" sex with a 14 year old.... and gets away with it because the person on the other end really is a curious/lonely/troubled teenager, doesn't make it legal, Scriv. Lots of people also get away with shoplifting. Just because they don't get caught doesn't make it legal.

I'm not sticking up for the predators because they are the slimiest of the slimy, but Bertam's got a point and there isn't a thing outrageous about his statement. Once the state is allowed to jail you for what you thought was real but was in fact unreal, we have given it huge power. The only thing keeping me from complete opposition to the electronic enticement laws is that using actual children to lure these slimebags is unethical, yet I agree that something must be done to stop these people before they actually commit the crimes.

So how would you propose this be done? Using actual underage kids as decoys? Following this same logic, police would have to use actual prostitutes (rather than undercover operatives who have no intention of "going all the way" with anyone) in sting operations designed to arrest the johns. I dunno 'bout dis logic.

What I wonder about is: Why do some people have so much sympathy for the predators who get caught in a sting operation, but no sympathy for the thousands of other young children who get taken advantage of? I guess in those people's minds, they are merely nameless, faceless victims. But because an adult predator who is nabbed gets his face publicized in the newspapers, TV, and online registries,... we're supposed to feel sympathy for them because they have disgraced their own name and face in the community? I really don't know about that logic......

And yes,.... despite all the publicity that these sting operations receive, authorities acknowledge that there's so much internet stalking going on that there's no way to catch all the predators. Many of them do carry on sexual affairs with children and won't stop........until they get caught.

Some of them are addicted, like John Kennely. (Please be forewarned that the following MSNBC video is graphic and explicit. Nonetheless, I feel it is something that should be seen by anyone who feels sorry for these predators.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB-9QnGNvxg&NR=1

Awwww. Poor John. Red-eyed with tears now that he has been caught on camera trying to meet a 14 year old boy. He's said he's never done this before. (Right!!! ) A bleeding heart like Joe Bertram would feel sooo sorry for that guy, simply let him go, and tell him never to do it again.

And the next day, this happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOHjI...eature=related

Yes, many of these predators who say they are "sorry" aren't really sorry about what they were planning to do. They are sorry because they got caught. 99.9% of the time, that is the sad truth. Kennely obviously has an addiction to preying on young boys. In his case, the addiction was so acute that he was seeking out another child the day after he got caught. But just because other nabbed predators would exercise more caution the next time around, does it make it any less alarming for parents and any other concerned citizens in the community if they start preying on kids again next week? Next month? Oh yeah, that makes me feel a whole lot better!

Here's a portion of an NBC interview with a police lieutenant and a clinical psychologist. People who have extensive knowledge and experience working with these sexual predators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHnmu8cJrSY

Yeah, bleeding heart Bertram would have bought into any of the lame excuses that a predator gave to him:

1) I've never done this before.
2) I came here, not to have sex, but just to talk to them and protect them.
3) I didn't think I was actually talking to a minor. (Now that you got caught, yeah sure, let's go with that story!)

But if Bertram had the opportunity to confront all of these predators (not just his good friend), he would find out that nearly all of them would give the same excuses for their behavior. And it doesn't matter. Hetero or homo. Family man or single. Pillar of the community or down-and-out. It's always the same. Rare is it for any nabbed predator to fully come clean and admit their intentions. But just because the other 99% are being dishonest or in denial, we're supposed to just forget about it and let it go? Really, Rep. Bertram?