Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

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

I don't think that's correct in this case. Sex with someone who is between the ages of 14-16 years old would only be legal for someone who is married to the teenager or who is no more than 5 years older than the teenager. Otherwise, it's a first degree sex assault. I am assuming Rep. Bertram's friend wasn't married to the teenager he allegedly tried to solicit nor was he under the age of 20. I seem to recall they built in this "step" in the age of consent law to take into account teenagers who may think they've fallen in love (or lust) with each other and thus have sex together but still exclude adult sexual predators from targeting minors.

As to whether it should still be a crime if no child was actually hurt ~ that is an interesting point with child pornograph as well where the porn is computer generated or generated by means other than using actual children. Some argue that no actual child was harmed in producing that kind of child porn while others argue that the harm is in encouraging an interest in child porn and that protecting children from that kind of potential harm is such a serious concern that it outweighs anyone else's "rights" to produce or view child porn even if no child was used to make the porn. I suspect the solicitation law falls on the side that doing all that can be done to prevent children from being targeted sexually outweighs people's "rights" to try to solicit children even if they never meet up with the children.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

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.

According to this bio, Joe Bertram is single. No children are listed.

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=66381

I don't think that's correct in this case. Sex with someone who is between the ages of 14-16 years old would only be legal for someone who is married to the teenager or who is no more than 5 years older than the teenager. Otherwise, it's a first degree sex assault. I am assuming Rep. Bertram's friend wasn't married to the teenager he allegedly tried to solicit nor was he under the age of 20. I seem to recall they built in this "step" in the age of consent law to take into account teenagers who may think they've fallen in love (or lust) with each other and thus have sex together but still exclude adult sexual predators from targeting minors.

The Advertiser says that predator Mark Marcantonio is 52, so there's no need to assume or speculate about his age in this discussion. And I don't see how the state's teenage marriage law is even relevant here. The absolute youngest allowable age for marriage is 15. The undercover cop was posing as a 14 year old girl.

As to whether it should still be a crime if no child was actually hurt ~ that is an interesting point with child pornograph as well where the porn is computer generated or generated by means other than using actual children. Some argue that no actual child was harmed in producing that kind of child porn while others argue that the harm is in encouraging an interest in child porn and that protecting children from that kind of potential harm is such a serious concern that it outweighs anyone else's "rights" to produce or view child porn even if no child was used to make the porn. I suspect the solicitation law falls on the side that doing all that can be done to prevent children from being targeted sexually outweighs people's "rights" to try to solicit children even if they never meet up with the children.

If we as a society will accept the argument that no one should be punished for a crime they were about to commit, but were stopped dead in their tracks by authorities before "anybody was harmed," then should drunk drivers likewise be allowed to escape punishment because so far, they didn't get into any accidents and nobody has been hurt?

Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong in making the following statement: Drivers found guilty of DUI lose their licenses and receive punishment because although their behavior may not have resulted in harm "so far," we as a society decided that we do not want to wait for someone to actually be maimed or killed before we take action against a drunk motorist on the road.

Now, if I'm right in the above statement, why is it so hard for people to accept the same logic as it applies to adults who would misuse the internet in order to attempt to sexually hook-up with an underaged child? Even if it is true that a predator who happens to get caught has never had a sexual encounter with a child,..... do we want to wait for that person to actually commit a crime and then take action against the predator?

Coming down hard on drunk drivers is something that most people seem to understand and agree upon. You don't want to wait for that drunk to kill a victim, because you can't bring that person back to life. Why is it so hard for some of the same people to understand that you likewise don't want to wait for that predator to actually have sex with an underage child? Once a child is sexually assaulted or exploited, they're never the same again.

Or am I dealing with people who have no idea of the tremendous damage and the lifelong effects that sexual abuse has on children and their families?

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Frankie's Market: The second quote you attributed to Konaguy was actually posted by me. Also, I was not saying that Hawaii's marriage law was relevant to the specific case we're discussing, just that the law says that sex with someone between the ages of 14-16 is legal only if one is married to the teenager or if one is less than 5 years older than the teenager. Finally, I am not advocating that soliciting children for sex should be legal.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Frankie's Market: The second quote you attributed to Konaguy was actually posted by me.

You're right about that. (Sheez, how did I misattribute the third quote?)

Also, I was not saying that Hawaii's marriage law was relevant to the specific case we're discussing, just that the law says that sex with someone between the ages of 14-16 is legal only if one is married to the teenager or if one is less than 5 years older than the teenager.

Ok.

Finally, I am not advocating that soliciting children for sex should be legal.

No, you didn't. (Not that I said you ever did, in the first place.)

I was just adding to what you said in your final sentence of that post, presenting the additional argument that we don't wait for a drunk driver to kill somebody before we take action against that person. So why should we wait for a predator abusing the internet to actually exploit an underage child before we take action against that person?

And in case you were wondering, the last sentence in my previous post wasn't talking about you.

[scrivener]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

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.

That's not what I said, and I guess I was really unclear because two of you misinterpreted what I wrote. What I meant was that the suspect meant to have sex with someone he thought was 14 years old. The person he was actually communicating with was an undercover adult. Had he met her and followed through with the sexual act, no crime would have been committed, because the undercover adult was not a child. There IS no child in this scenario, except in the suspect's mind. Of course this is a ridiculous scenario, but what if person A, an adult, has a thing for role-playing and looks young enough to convince someone he or she is 14? If the predator THINKS the person is 14 and lures the pretending adult into a sexual encounter, one of them has committed a crime even though no child was involved.

So how would you propose this be done? Using actual underage kids as decoys?

As I said, the one thing keeping me from being opposed to these laws is that I think these guys should be caught somehow and using actual kids would be unethical. Please, I may have been unclear on my first point, but I think I was quite clear on this one.

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.

Paying someone for the purpose of having sex with him or her is illegal, no matter who the person is. I think prostitution laws need to be tossed anyway, but if they're not going to be tossed, your scenario holds up under the constitution. It is illegal to pay ANYONE for the purpose of having sex, whether the sex is actually had or not (as with Hawaii's ridiculous lap-dancing law). If you pay an undercover officer for the purpose of having sex, you have broken the law. With these undercover online stings, a suspect is being arrested because he thinks someone is underaged when in fact the person is not. This is shaky ground.

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 don't think this is true, and I hope you aren't referring to me. People who commit crimes against children are the slimiest of the slimy, as I already wrote. I have very little sympathy for these bastards, but from the standpoint of the LAW, we cannot just toss people in jail because we think they are slimy. It is not illegal to have desires; it is only illegal to act upon them, and the state has very specific, very clear guidelines regulating how it can catch you doing what you do. These laws are not in place to protect the bad guys, FM, they are in place to protect the innocent; that's you and me. But if we are going to be a democracy and claim equal protection under the law, we have to offer it to everyone and defend it on everyone's behalf, distasteful as that sometimes may be.

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

You seem to be equating sticking up for the constitution and criminals' rights with sticking up for the crime or for the criminal. You have to understand that I want all of these guys to be caught, but I don't want the state to break its own laws in order to do it. Protecting children from predators is important, but we have to be true to who we are as a nation, and that means strict checks and balances upon people in authority.

I don't think that's correct in this case. Sex with someone who is between the ages of 14-16 years old would only be legal for someone who is married to the teenager or who is no more than 5 years older than the teenager. Otherwise, it's a first degree sex assault.

Again, what I meant is that the undercover officer, the person from whom sex was solicited, was old enough for consent. If the officer had carried through with the transaction, real sex would have been had but no crime would have been committed because consenting adults can do whatever they want. Except exchange money.

I am assuming Rep. Bertram's friend wasn't married to the teenager he allegedly tried to solicit nor was he under the age of 20. I seem to recall they built in this "step" in the age of consent law to take into account teenagers who may think they've fallen in love (or lust) with each other and thus have sex together but still exclude adult sexual predators from targeting minors.

You're right about the second part but incorrect about the first. Bertram is saying this was an imaginary crime because there was no teenager. The alleged teenager was an adult.

If we as a society will accept the argument that no one should be punished for a crime they were about to commit, but were stopped dead in their tracks by authorities before "anybody was harmed," then should drunk drivers likewise be allowed to escape punishment because so far, they didn't get into any accidents and nobody has been hurt?

FM made the same leap; I'm trying to say that these other examples are different because a very real threat to other REAL citizens is being forestalled by preventative laws. Let me just say again that I am not opposed to these electronic enticement laws, but if I haven't made it clear that these laws are not cut-and-dried, clearly in the right issues. When you lock up a guy who intended to have sex with children, but if in fact those children did not exist except in his mind, you probably have protected someone, but there is no way to know it, and that is dangerous ground for a society that wants to ensure that the innocent are innocent until they are proven guilty. I am not sure there is a violation of the constitution here, but you, FM, and Konaguy seem to think there is clearly NO violation of the constitution here, or else you are saying that it doesn't matter whether the constitution is being violated or not. Believe me, I want there to be no conflict because I want these guys to be punished. But the more I look at it, the more I see the grey area.

Why is it so hard for some of the same people to understand that you likewise don't want to wait for that predator to actually have sex with an underage child? Once a child is sexually assaulted or exploited, they're never the same again.

What if I think I'm drunk but haven't had any alcohol, then get into a car that's not really a car but a wagon, and isn't on a road but is in a playground? Should I be arrested because I thought I was driving drunk? Of course not. When we keep a drunk from getting behind the wheel, we are actually protecting citizens from harm. These electronic enticement stings are setting up a totally fake scenario from the very beginning; it only exists in the suspect's mind. We catch the guy, yes, and we almost surely do it before he can bring harm to others, but the situation is no more real than a video game or Holodeck scenario. You could easily argue that since I thought I was about to drive drunk, my being arrested beforehand prevents me from actually driving drunk later, since clearly I have no qualms about doing so. But we cannot arrest our citizens this way.

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

scrivener: I think you're not arguing that the police entrapped Bertram's friend but just a straight up, because he didn't get a child as he thought he would, there's no crime. Please let me know if I'm wrong. I do think we have laws preventing people from taking actions that they intend to break the law and that these laws have clearly withstood constitutional challenges and scrutiny. I would argue that if you really thought you were drunk and really thought you were getting into a car to drive drunk (although why you'd think you were drunk if you had no alcohol I dunno but in any event, if you thought you were too impaired to safely drive but decided to drive anyhow), I would want you (hypothetical you not you you) to be charged. I'm not saying you actually would be charged under the current Hawaii law but in my gut I'd want you to spend a little time in jail for making a willful decision to drive impaired and risk everyone around you ~ whether or not you were actually able to effectively drive drunk. I've heard of at least a couple of people in other states who were successfully charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired for just sitting behind the wheel of a car while drunk (in one case, the person didn't actually intend to drive ~ he was just sitting in his car waiting for the drunkeness to wear off. But he was sitting in the driver's seat). and those convictions stuck, to the best of my knowledge. I don't think Hawaii has a law outlawing the intent to drive drunk. But I think we do have laws regarding the intent to cause bodily harm and the intent to cause psychological harm.

Say I intend to kill someone and I arm myself or make a viable plan whereby I could murder the person but when I actually arrive at the place to try to kill the person, the person isn't there or for whatever reason I am unable to murder the person. I think it would still be possible for me to be charged with something stemming from my intent to commit murder even if I didn't get my chance to murder someone. Because we as a society really want to discourage people from trying to kill other people.

All I can say is that I think we (our legislature and at least some parts of our society) made a decision that protecting our children from sexual predators outweighs any rights the predators may have to keep trying to molest children until they are actually caught molesting children. There is no Constitutional right to entice children to try to have sex with them just as there is no Constitutional right to try to murder someone. There is no Constitutional right to take steps in a plan to intentionally break the law. The fact that there was no minor waiting for Bertram's friend and Bertram's friend never got to molest the minor is why he's not being charged with sexually assaulting a minor but since Bertram's friend actually showed up to meet the person he thought was a minor, I think it's pretty clear that this wasn't a game in anyone's mind. He actually intended to molest a child. The part that is real is that he believed he was communicating with a minor and believed he was arranging to meet a child to have sex and still did what he did. For all we know, this isn't the first time he's tried to do this (despite what he has said) and he probably had to fish on the internet for children for at least a while before finding one who was apparently willing to take his bait. The soliciting itself can do harm, the degree of which depends on what he communicated to minors. and we certainly can arrest people for acting to carry out their intent to break the law even if they do not succeed. It would be different if Bertram's friend could prove that he knew he *wasn't* communicating with a minor ~ say your scenario where two consenting adults were role playing that one was a minor but both knew that both were adults and he was making an effort not to contact minors for sexual purposes.

[scrivener]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Say I intend to kill someone and I arm myself or make a viable plan whereby I could murder the person but when I actually arrive at the place to try to kill the person, the person isn't there or for whatever reason I am unable to murder the person. I think it would still be possible for me to be charged with something stemming from my intent to commit murder even if I didn't get my chance to murder someone. Because we as a society really want to discourage people from trying to kill other people.

But what if the person you intended to kill was the Grinch, and you were pissed at him for trying to steal Christmas? Since the Grinch doesn't exist, should you be held accountable for wanting to kill him? The suspect in the electronic enticement case is showing up to have sex with someone who doesn't exist.

There is no Constitutional right to take steps in a plan to intentionally break the law. The fact that there was no minor waiting for Bertram's friend and Bertram's friend never got to molest the minor is why he's not being charged with sexually assaulting a minor but since Bertram's friend actually showed up to meet the person he thought was a minor, I think it's pretty clear that this wasn't a game in his mind. He actually intended to molest a child. and we certainly can arrest people for acting on their intents.

He intended to molest a child who didn't exist. This is all I'm saying. Once we put people in jail for attempting to commit crimes against people who don't actually exist, we are throwing them in jail to prevent them from some future crime that hasn't actually been committed or perhaps even planned. I say it is a grey area and a slippery slope.

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

If I identified a person I thought was the Grinch, I believed without any mental incompetency that the Grinch was a real person, and I made arrangements to murder the person I identified as the Grinch and I in fact showed up somewhere prepared to murder the person I identified as the Grinch, then yes, I still committed a crime even if I was mistaken over the Grinch's identity and the person turned out not to be the Grinch. It's not the same as my sitting in a room hallucinating to myself that I was going to murder a fictional character named the Grinch without taking any real tangible steps to murder someone (although I would definitely need help if I was having such hallucinations *g*).

[scrivener]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Okay, then let's say the suspect in this case DID have sex with the undercover officer. Was statutory rape committed because the suspect THOUGHT the officer was 14 years old?

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Nope, because first degree sex assault for having sex with an underaged person is a crime that doesn't turn on intent. Just as saying that you didn't intend to have sex with an underaged person doesn't get you off the hook, having sex with someone you think is underage but isn't doesn't make you guilty of this crime. Violating our age of consent law is purely factually based on whether you actually had sex with an underaged person. Doesn't matter if you intended to have sex with an underaged person or not. Intent is not one of the elements of this crime. However, intent is an element of other crimes including under the electronic enticement law.

[scrivener]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

All right. Well that was well said. I need to think about this more.

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Sorry, I edited my prior post to include the information below but by the time I hit send, scrivener posted and started a new page so I am making a new post for the new information.

This is the actual law

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur..._0707-0757.htm

§707-757 Electronic enticement of a child in the second degree. (1) Any person who, using a computer or any other electronic device:

(a) Intentionally or knowingly communicates:

(i) With a minor known by the person to be under the age of eighteen years;

(ii) With another person, in reckless disregard of the risk that the other person is under the age of eighteen years, and the other person is under the age of eighteen years; or

(iii) With another person who represents that person to be under the age of eighteen years; and

(b) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony, agrees to meet with the minor, or with another person who represents that person to be a minor under the age of eighteen years; and

(c) Intentionally or knowingly travels to the agreed upon meeting place at the agreed upon meeting time;

is guilty of electronic enticement of a child in the second degree.

(2) Electronic enticement of a child in the second degree is a class C felony. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, if a person sentenced under this section is sentenced to probation rather than an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the terms and conditions of probation shall include, but not be limited to, a term of imprisonment of one year.

So I'm betting the police officer told Bertram's friend that the person was underage and Bertam's friend still went for it thus making him fall squarely into this law.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Scriv, it is because I have respect for your viewpoints that I am engaged in this debate, and I am really, REALLY trying to understand your concerns. But to be honest, there's just some things here that I don't agree with because it won't work in the real world. And there's some other things you talk about that simply goes over my head. Pardon me for my intellectual limitations.

That's not what I said, and I guess I was really unclear because two of you misinterpreted what I wrote. What I meant was that the suspect meant to have sex with someone he thought was 14 years old. The person he was actually communicating with was an undercover adult. Had he met her and followed through with the sexual act, no crime would have been committed, because the undercover adult was not a child. There IS no child in this scenario, except in the suspect's mind. Of course this is a ridiculous scenario, but what if person A, an adult, has a thing for role-playing and looks young enough to convince someone he or she is 14? If the predator THINKS the person is 14 and lures the pretending adult into a sexual encounter, one of them has committed a crime even though no child was involved.

For me, it comes down to this: What would have happened if an adult predator successfully hooks-up with a real 12 or 13 year old who is alone and with no responsible person to intervene? Yes, I know what the defense will be. "I never intended to go through with it." "Nothing happened here. You can't convict me for something that I didn't do." (Yet!) You may accept that as a legitimate excuse. I won't, because in the real world, I know what the results will almost inevitably be. And it isn't pretty.

If that is what will hopelessly divide us on the issue, then so be it.

Paying someone for the purpose of having sex with him or her is illegal, no matter who the person is. I think prostitution laws need to be tossed anyway, but if they're not going to be tossed, your scenario holds up under the constitution. It is illegal to pay ANYONE for the purpose of having sex, whether the sex is actually had or not (as with Hawaii's ridiculous lap-dancing law). If you pay an undercover officer for the purpose of having sex, you have broken the law. With these undercover online stings, a suspect is being arrested because he thinks someone is underaged when in fact the person is not. This is shaky ground.

On further reflection, I don't think using the "prostitution sting" was a good way to illustrate the points I was trying to make. Anytime you use an illustration that clouds the important points,.... mission not accomplished. My drunk driving illustration did a much better job, IMHO.

These laws are not in place to protect the bad guys, FM, they are in place to protect the innocent; that's you and me. But if we are going to be a democracy and claim equal protection under the law, we have to offer it to everyone and defend it on everyone's behalf, distasteful as that sometimes may be.

If that is the case, then we may also have another disagreement that hasn't been touched upon yet. Should a convicted sex offender who has "paid his dues to society" be able to return to the community without registering himself in a sex offender registry? I say, hell NO, because I am all too familiar with stories about pedophiles and predators who simply couldn't resist the temptation to harm children when given the opportunity. Years of counseling and prison time won't straighten out some of these hardcore cases. Those who are concerned about "fairness" and "equal protection" will no doubt disagree with me, and say that you can't paint these sex offenders with a wide brush. I'm sorry, but when it comes to the welfare of our children, we as a society have to err on the side of caution than err on laxness. Their safety, health, and emotional wellbeing are too precious to take a gamble on. And if these convicted sex offenders have a problem with that, then tough! Nobody forced them to commit sex crimes in the first place. If they have trouble finding a good job, then they have nobody but themselves to blame for their lives being screwed up. And if ever I begin to feel sorry for these predators, I always think about their victims and how much their lives have been screwed up. That always gets my sympathies aligned in the right direction.

You seem to be equating sticking up for the constitution and criminals' rights with sticking up for the crime or for the criminal. You have to understand that I want all of these guys to be caught, but I don't want the state to break its own laws in order to do it. Protecting children from predators is important, but we have to be true to who we are as a nation, and that means strict checks and balances upon people in authority.

Wrapping ourselves in the Constitution is nice, but in the real world,..... I dunno. Maybe I've just heard too many sex abuse nightmares. I freely admit that my own views may very well be biased due to the personal experiences of a couple of close friends. Their lives have never been the same once it was tainted by the spectre of molestation.

I am pleased to say that I have blessed with a nurturing, caring family when I was growing up. Be that as it may, my life has not been so sheltered that I'm not able to recognize sexual abuse for the "unique" crime that it is. It taints not only the violator, but it often-times creates a self-imposed stigma on the victim as well. Whether someone was raped or molested, it is a crime that has too often gone unpunished. Why? Because for many victims, trying to press charges against their attacker would be too traumatic for them to handle. As much as I loathe these kinds of criminals and as draconian as you may think I am, even I would not strip them of the constitutional right to a fair trial. If the victim simply can't bring herself to go through with what they need to do in order to carry out a successful prosecution because it would cause too much emotional pain and re-open old wounds, then the criminal can't be convicted, no matter what evidence may otherwise exist. We have no choice but to accept that as "justice."

But if sex offenders use the justice system to their advantage because of embarrassment and shame that so many victims feel for themselves, then pardon me for not shedding a tear when the same justice system shows little mercy for anyone who would misuse a tool like the internet in order to place themselves in a position to start abusing children, whether they actually begin doing it or not.

What if I think I'm drunk but haven't had any alcohol, then get into a car that's not really a car but a wagon, and isn't on a road but is in a playground? Should I be arrested because I thought I was driving drunk? Of course not. When we keep a drunk from getting behind the wheel, we are actually protecting citizens from harm. These electronic enticement stings are setting up a totally fake scenario from the very beginning; it only exists in the suspect's mind. We catch the guy, yes, and we almost surely do it before he can bring harm to others, but the situation is no more real than a video game or Holodeck scenario. You could easily argue that since I thought I was about to drive drunk, my being arrested beforehand prevents me from actually driving drunk later, since clearly I have no qualms about doing so. But we cannot arrest our citizens this way.

You have missed the point of my DUI comparison, which is this: Our govt. has passed laws which have criminalized the mere act of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Why? Because it is a misuse of a tool and could lead to dangerous consequences for other people. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver whose BAC content is just a bit over the legal limit, is it a valid defense for the driver to say that he doesn't deserve to be arrested because nobody knows for 100% certainty if that driver will get home safe or not. If you accept that as a permissable defense, then guess what? The drunk will win and get off scot-free everytime,...... until he kills somebody or himself. But thanks to the efforts of organizations like MADD and SADD, that is no longer the case. You no longer have to hurt/kill somebody in a drinking-related accident to be put behind bars because now, merely driving a car under the influence is in itself a crime.

Likewise, federal and state lawmakers (well, except for maybe Joe Bertram) have come to decide that misusing the internet (i.e. using it to meet underage children with the idea of having sex with them) is also in itself a crime, no matter what the results may be.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I was having a problem with the fact that it appeared the law was based on what the perp thought when we don't have any way to know the difference between what a person thinks and what they choose to role play.

But then:

This is the actual law

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur..._0707-0757.htm

§707-757 Electronic enticement of a child in the second degree. (1) Any person who, using a computer or any other electronic device:

(a) Intentionally or knowingly communicates:

(iii) With another person who represents that person to be under the age of eighteen years; and

(b) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony, agrees to meet with the minor, or with another person who represents that person to be a minor under the age of eighteen years; and

(c) Intentionally or knowingly travels to the agreed upon meeting place at the agreed upon meeting time;

is guilty of electronic enticement of a child in the second degree.

So at this point just role-playing over the Internet is illegal. I suppose that infringes on the rights of two consenting adults, but at least the arrest squares with the law in that we only have to prove what was represented, not with what the guy actually thinks.

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

GeckoGeek: I don't know for sure, of course, but I would think the law would not apply to someone who says "I am under 14" if both parties *know* that the person is in fact an adult and both parties confirm that just like one would probably not be charged with terroristic threatening if you jokingly say to a friend "I'm gonna kill you if xy or z happens" and the friend knows it to be a joke and doesn't press charges.