Finding Out about Sex Crimes, In a Court of Law

A MIDDLE CLASS MIDDLE AGED man sits in his American man cave, staring at a computer monitor, typing a bit, then staring again. Downstairs, his wife is watching Kim Kardashian analyze the meaning of true love. Both kids, a teenager and an eleven year old, are in their rooms, doing who knows what. Hubby needs to get to bed soon; a busy day at the law office beckons. But the chat is too promising to curtail at the moment. The pictures are absolutely enchanting. She's a real beauty, though only fifteen, she says. They've been talking for awhile, and its reached the steamy stage. They both have each other's X rated pictures. He finally logs off, and tells his wife he's going to step out for a quick cup of coffee, then swing by the office to check on some papers his secretary should have ready by now. Sometimes attorneys at law keep strange hours, but he can sleep in a bit in the morning. Upon arriving at the agreed meeting place in the mall, he is greeted not by a bright and shiny teen aged girl, but by two officers in full uniform, and a pair of detectives. They quickly explain the situation to him, read him his Miranda rights, and slap on the handcuffs. That's where the fun really begins. The officers clearly do not like him, and on their way downtown even mockingly call him by his screen name, "big dog". The female detective , a woman in her forties, refers to herself by her screen name, "sugar thighs". They all have a good laugh, except the man in handcuffs. His job now is to salvage the pieces, pull himself together, and plan a strategy. He's a good criminal defense lawyer, so he should be able to do something. He simply cannot accept the fact that his life has been ruined by his own bad judgment. Maybe he will find a way to claim entrapment, but that seems unlikely; in case law, that defense is no longer working. The laws have been strengthened and tightened. The prosecutor will allege stalking a minor, because the make believe girl was only fifteen. But how could he have been stalking a minor, when the undercover cop was in reality an adult, well into adulthood? The defendant will allege that entrapment is relevant in this case, because the "girl" started the conversation, made all the moves, and he just went along passively, never expecting anything to come of it. Besides, he knew all along, he contends, that the real iddntity of the teenager was a far older person, because her way of speaking was simply too mature, too sophisticated. He figured it was a muc holder woman, having some fun, and he even suspected that a cop might be trying to trap him, and he thought he might just have a little of his own fun, trapping the trapper. The prosecution will alledge that child stalking is the relevant issue, because the defendant thought he was talking to a child. But, the defendant will contend, exactly how can the prosecutaion, or anybody possibly know what he was thinking? His actions were the actions of a man who suspected he was being toyed with, and was determined to find out who was doing the toying, to give whoever it was a taste of their own medicine. He will seek to create reasonable doubt. It'll be a very tough thing to swing; with all the records available, every scrap of conversation, is there any way he can possibly succedd in convincing anyone that he spent several weeks using explicit sexual language onlie to a person he secretly believed to be an officer of the law, or someone other than who she claimed to be? Is this reasonable? He'll find out in due course, in a court of law.