Does it?
The men caught by Stinson usually claimed at first that they didn't believe they were talking to minors.
Last edited:
Letzgo hunting paedos
- Thread starter butchersapron
- Start date
Does it?
The men caught by Stinson usually claimed at first that they didn't believe they were talking to minors.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yes, I think that kind of thing would make me stop.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Athos
Well-Known Member
Why? What offence has been committed?
Knowing she's of consenting age is quite different from believing she's not, which is a key ingredient of the grooming offence i.e. s.15 Sexual Offences Act 2003:
15
Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.
[F1(1)
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
[F2(a)
A has met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two occasions and subsequently—
(i)
A intentionally meets B,
(ii)
A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or
(iii)
B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,
(b)
A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,]
(c)
B is under 16, and
(d)
A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.
(2)
In subsection (1)—
(a)
the reference to A having met or communicated with B is a reference to A having met B in any part of the world or having communicated with B by any means from, to or in any part of the world;
(b)
“relevant offence” means—
(i)
an offence under this Part,
(ii)
F3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(iii)
anything done outside England and Wales F4. . . which is not an offence within sub-paragraph (i) F4. . . but would be an offence within sub-paragraph (i) if done in England and Wales.
(3)
F5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.]
Hmm. As I read what you've posted, the key point is that, in order to be convicted, the offender cannot reasonably have believed the victim was of consenting age (i.e. 3d above).
Is that right?
But if it is, surely a huge percentage of convictions must rest on confessions. Otherwise why isn't "well she looked 16" a valid defense?
That explains why Stinson gets the guys to incriminate themselves. The only one who didn't, who stuck to his claim that he assumed he was speaking to an adult, was not charged.
The law seems ambiguous to me.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Obviously, a conviction is more likely in the face of a confession. But we don't really know enough of the details of all of these cases to know why the prosecution against the one bloke was dropped. Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would believe his story that he thought she was was over 16 despite her clearly telling him otherwise.
I'm no expert in the caselaw in this area, but I suspect that the requirement of reasonable belief introduces an objective element i.e. even if it a court is convinced that the defendant did believe the person he was traveling to meet was over 16, that belief would still have to be reasonable - hard to make out when the record of the conversation suggests otherwise, notwithstanding how old she might look in a profile picture.
Also, you'll notice that none of these cases could fulfill the requirement at s.15(1)(c), since the person Stinson's targets travel to meet are over 16 i.e. Stinson, albeit they don't realise that. So they must have all been charges as attempted breaches of s.15.
I don't think anyone would believe it. But that doesn't matter, legally speaking. The question is: can it be proved that he committed an offense? And without a confession, I don't see how it could.
The chatroom frequented by the decoys announced itself as for adults only. That provides the grounds to claim that they reasonably believed their correspondent was an adult--even if it is implausible by the standards of common sense.
So as I see it, if these guys hadn't confessed, they wouldn't even have been charged. A law that relies on confessions to get convictions is a stupid law.
The decoys were girls and boys aged 11-15. Is that consenting to you? The guys were in their late 30s and 40s.
No, that was only one example, the guy said he used many other ways to see if pedophiles wanted to hook up with children.
Despite the wibble you are having with law, what do you think this guy is doing that is so wrong?
Nonce attempts to have sexual contact with an underage child, nonce gets busted. What is your problem with that simple fact?
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's not how the law works; just being able to assert something doesn't afford the accused a defence. They can claim what they like, but if the court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt then they'll be convicted. In light of the implausibility of some of their claims, there can be no reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of a confession. This law doesn't rely on confessions, at all; nor is is particularly stupid.
My problem isn't with that fact. My problem is with trying to make a career out of it. That is the act of a scumbag.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I think the point he's making is that, as a matter of fact, the decoys were over 16, albeit that the targets didn't believe that to be the case. And that's why they can only be guilty of the attempted offence, since the substantive one requires them to travel to meet an underage person (not merely someone they believed to be under age).
The only guy who didn't confess was not charged.
That's proof enough for me that the law relies on confessions. Given what we know about how confessions can be secured, that makes it a stupid law.
Athos
Well-Known Member
If that's proof enough for you, then you're incredibly credulous. You know next to nothing of the facts of that case; there might have been all sorts of reasons for the decision not to charge.
The police do the same thing and have loads of convictions, the pig from the pedosquad even talked about it on the documentary.
The decoys were underage, in the eyes of the people wanting to abuse them.
And yes I did watch it, did you see the bit were the police detective said they do the same thing and have had numerous convictions?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Nevertheless,he was right to say that the decoys were over 16 (and you were incorrect to say otherwise).
Athos
Well-Known Member
Not for the substantive s.15 offence they don't; they can only get a conviction for attempt, too.
Pshaw. If you watch the video on his website, it's obvious what's going on. The guy in question was a Tory councillor, he obviously knows the law, and he tells Stinson where to go. The others just stammer and stutter and are easily brought to incriminate themselves.
The really worrying prospect is that this seems to be a law that needs scum like Stinson to be enforceable.
Athos
Well-Known Member
What proportion of convictions for attempted s.15 do you think rely upon Stinson and his ilk?
So why was the guy arrested the next day in the documentary?
I think it was the first or second guy featured. I think they said he got two years.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Athos
Well-Known Member
Athos
Well-Known Member
About your entirely incorrect claim that the decoys were not over 16.
The meaning of life.
Depends what you mean by "his ilk." As I've said, I suspect that all of them depend on confessions, even if they are usually obtained by the police.
In fact, this is true of a huge number of crimes. Never talk to the cops is the lesson.
Similar threads
