Maui Democrat says online sting creat...

Maui Democrat says online sting creates sex crime - News

There are 134 comments on the Honolulu Star-Bulletin story from Apr 3, 2009, titled Maui Democrat says online sting creates sex crime - News. In it, Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that:

WAILUKU>> State Rep. Joe Bertram has argued a friend caught in an Internet predator sting should not be sent to prison for an "imaginary crime." Bertram spoke yesterday in support of Mark Marcantonio, 52, of Maui, who had pleaded no contest to second-degree electronic enticement of a child.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Grand Wizard

Aiea, HI

#94 Apr 4, 2009
whiteright- right on. online enticement is a victimless crime. we should wait until the actual victimization of a child takes place before we go roundin up these so called "pervs". not only that, but chatting is harmless! unless we actually get real children to perform the stings. that would be a valid crime. whitepower!
whiteright

Honolulu, HI

#95 Apr 5, 2009
Grand Wizard wrote:
whiteright- right on. online enticement is a victimless crime. we should wait until the actual victimization of a child takes place before we go roundin up these so called "pervs". not only that, but chatting is harmless! unless we actually get real children to perform the stings. that would be a valid crime. whitepower!
Actually since there is no child, its not enticement. The problem doesn't lie with perv, whose intent is no good, but with the fact that the law says "a child" not that electronic enticement itself is illegal, it's the laws wording, I hate molesters, but the way this type of thing is run, how easy is it to manufacture a crime? They should write the law stating that the intent to entice a minor is itself a crime, then no legal problem occurs. I still don't trust any government agency enough to give police a free hand in "fishing" for possible criminals, everything done on line is recorded and traceable, easy enough to follow a complaint and find the real pervs without trying to get someone talked into a conviction.
Big Hank

Keauhou, HI

#96 Apr 5, 2009
whiteright wrote:
<quoted text> Actually since there is no child, its not enticement. The problem doesn't lie with perv, whose intent is no good, but with the fact that the law says "a child" not that electronic enticement itself is illegal, it's the laws wording, I hate molesters, but the way this type of thing is run, how easy is it to manufacture a crime? They should write the law stating that the intent to entice a minor is itself a crime, then no legal problem occurs. I still don't trust any government agency enough to give police a free hand in "fishing" for possible criminals, everything done on line is recorded and traceable, easy enough to follow a complaint and find the real pervs without trying to get someone talked into a conviction.
And this is the reason that the police cannot stop the drug dealing on Pauahi Street.....Thanks ACLU your doing all of us such justice.
Grand Wizard

Aiea, HI

#97 Apr 5, 2009
Dang, I thought you were trying to point out the loophole so we can all continue our chats. whitepower.
Big Hank

Keauhou, HI

#98 Apr 5, 2009
You go Wizard.....haha
The Truth

Honolulu, HI

#99 Apr 5, 2009
The key problem with the statute as it is written is the part where "a person who represents themselves to be a minor..." strike that and we are playing ball.

Protects the integrity of the law and ensures that police cannot abuse their power.

Aside from that, the law as it is currently written is overbroad in that ANYONE who represents themselves to be a minor could constitute a violation of the statute.

This means as it stands now, that you can conceivably employ citizens to act as government agents. This opens the door up to all kinds of abuses, since citizens (such as some presenting their ruthless disregard for civil rights in this thread) could target specific people (co-workers that they don't like for example) without regard for the law.

The solution is simple, remove the "anyone who represents themselves as a minor" and you've closed the part where abuse can occur, and you've still preserved the integrity of the law. As it's worded currently, the law was DESIGNED with entrapment and undercover stings in mind, not the prevention of ACTUAL crime.

And mandatory 10 years? Don't even get me started on that.
Grand Wizard

Honolulu, HI

#100 Apr 5, 2009
I agree with this law. Nobody under the age of 8 should be subjected to online enticement. But I also agree that the wording needs to be changed. Because that would be downright dirty to get entricked by your neighbor.
Big Hank

Keauhou, HI

#101 Apr 5, 2009
Especially if its a dude pretending to be a chick.....that is wrong in itself.
Da real Truth

Aiea, HI

#102 Apr 5, 2009
Do your research on how many juveniles are sexually assaulted by adults EVERY DAY!!! Yes...EVERY DAY...These are victims who are FOREVER ruined. These crimes are perpetrated by individuals who rely on the fact that the victims will NOT report the crimes, or are too young and ignorant to report the crimes. Real live on-line Enticement happens EVERY DAY. "A person who represents themselves to be a minor," the police, are NOT too afraid or too ignorant of the law to be able to testify in court. There's no entrapment going on. If you, as an adult, even TALK to a 14-year-old on-line,let alone talk about sex, you know you're doing something wrong. Then making the overt acts of making a date then actualyy traveling to the date site to meet....You ARE a child molestor. With this law, there are now adult, law enforcemnet officers able to speak and testify against the molestor. The only thing that is being "imagined" by THE TRUTH is the so called "abuse" by law enforcement...It's NOT happening. 10 years??? Don't get me started...these guys have a preference for teen age girls...just like any other sexual preference...it aint gonna go away...they ALWAYS are gonna have that preference!!!
The Truth

Honolulu, HI

#103 Apr 5, 2009
No one has made any representation that child abuse is a real and serious issue. The question is how do we curb the occurrence of online enticement while protecting civil liberty?

Furthermore, how does the law--as it is currently implemented--address the concern? It is obviously designed as a deterrent to other would-be perpetrators, rather than a direct remedy to actual abuse. How effective is this deterrent? It is impossible to tell. You have two types of cases here... one involving an artificial victim, the other involving a real victim.

You cannot argue that because online enticement "occurs every day" that it is acceptable for police to use any means necessary to catch would-be perpetrators. The argument is thus:

1) online enticement is a real crime when an adult and victim is involved

2) online enticement without a victim is a simulated crime that is designed to entrap individuals based on predicting the intent and behavior of another human being

Rather than focus any effort on the first example, police have set up enforcement based on the second one. They aren't even trying to curb REAL enticement. They are simply going for the low-hanging fruit (which is easier for them to do).

This is like starting a Save the Homeless Foundation when your own children are at home starving and diseased. Law enforcement is completely ignoring the real crime, and only simulating the opportunity catching the easy ones (most if not all enticement perpetrators have no other criminal tendencies).

Did it ever occur to you why so many otherwise law-abiding, church-going, and family-oriented people are the ones that are caught up in the headlines on these charges?

It is because they exercised poor judgment and were drawn into an opportunity to commit a crime. You can sit here all you want and play the angel, but if you could steal a million dollars today and were told you would never get caught, I would be very interested in seeing how you handled that.

There is no point in me predicting how you would handle a situation like that because A) I could never prove that you would take the money, nor B) you could never say with any certainty that you would not. How then can the law predict what is in the heart and mind of a person? It's just not possible. You never know what people are thinking and to use the law to attempt to do that is so far beyond a free society that it frightens me. If it does not frighten you either, then you cannot be taken seriously in this debate.

No one has doubted the damage done by REAL online enticement, but manufacturing enticement cases from fictitious characters to make headlines and justify federal dollars is just plain wrong.
Blues

Kapolei, HI

#104 Apr 5, 2009
The IRS creates crime
alice

Pahoa, HI

#105 Apr 5, 2009
computer geeks are out of control.
Poi Boy

AOL

#107 Apr 5, 2009
Can Bertram imagine this????????
Killa Wiffa

AOL

#108 Apr 5, 2009
Why do we have such ignorant elected officials???????? Because ignoramuses elected them!!!!!!!!
Rubba Slippa Man

AOL

#109 Apr 5, 2009
Markie will get his due in prison!!!!!!!! Can you say extra large????????
alice

Pahoa, HI

#110 Apr 5, 2009
true
kapena

United States

#111 Apr 5, 2009
Didn't vote for Bertram last time and definitely won't next time. In fact, I'm going to work hard to ensure this fruitcake doesn't get elected again.
daniwitz13

Kaneohe, HI

#112 Apr 5, 2009
What many of you don't understand about this law is your concerns about the children. What you should know is that when caught in this sting, he will get 10 ydrs. mandatory for not touching or seeing any children. Those that do rape and molest get 1 yr. It makes the sting guy wish he did meet-up with a real live girl and did something to her and get only 1 yr. Amazing how our law works. Since his a doer instead of just thinking about type, in one yr. he can do it again faster. Think about it.
daniwitz13

Kaneohe, HI

#114 Apr 5, 2009
This law cannot be fixed with one change. It is top to bottom beginning to end front to back all wrong. Nothing in it is logical. Every Item can be taken apart with no leg to stand on. Also not factored in is the cost of incarceration. There are many reports of over crowded prisons, sure if they keep on "manufacturing" criminals that do no "real" crime. This is your money at work (lost)
JJardine

Honolulu, HI

#116 Apr 5, 2009
My comfort is knowing that the statute is morally and legally correct, that the legislature will not change it, that the trial courts agree, the appellate courts will confirm it, and that the mob (the electorate) has every desire to make the punishments harsher. I am further comforted by the fact that those on this site who oppose it are in the extreme minority.

Heck, I might as well add that God is on my side too! ;)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kihei Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pukalani Music Selection (Sep '12) Jul 19 Musikologist 11
News Hawaii Gov. Ige will let bill extending Oahu's ... Jul 1 Bozobama 5
News Maui Residents Brace For Tsunami (Feb '10) Jun '15 u never know where 3
News Maui Superferry Ruling a Blow to Company, a Vic... (Oct '07) Jun '15 Treetop rider 3
News Hawaiian Islands Weather details & Aloha Paragr... Jun '15 Treetop rider 2
Rudeness (Mar '14) Jan '15 SoontoRetire 3
News Hawaii homes not among top 10 (Sep '09) Dec '14 Bmused Artwork 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kihei Mortgages