Detective Michele Deery, who trolls for Internet predators from her office, in Media, Pennsylvania. Photograph by Gasper Tringale.
I don’t normally make a post and simply tell you to go read someone else’s story, but in this case I’ll make an exception. Vanity Fair recently published a fascinating story chronicling the efforts of a detective to bring in an online predator. The article covers both sides of the story and highlights the gap between what someone has done and what someone might do given the right circumstances.
Although the author is clearly trying to make the accused predator, whom she calls “J,” look like the victim. It’s hard to tell what his real intentions were when he offered to have sex with a woman and her two fictional pre-pubescent daughters. After he was arrested by police he says he only wanted to have sex with the mother, which is convenient to say after the fact. I’ll leave it up to you whether you think he is guilty or not.
Really, what I find fascinating about the whole case is that it illustrates how much these types of cases rely on what police and prosecutors believe the predator’s intentions to be. As you’ll see in the article, J didn’t actually do anything, or commit any act. Essentially he was arrested for what prosecutors thought he would do, not what he actually did. It makes me think about what the world would be like if that mentality were applied to other crimes, not just suspected sex offenders.
To read the article in its entirety, click here: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/sexual-predators-200912
Search your neighborhood crime map at CrimeReports.com
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Well I’m sure you’ve seen the Minority Report.
I don’t believe it’s fair to prosecute one based solely on what police thinks your intentions were. Besides, cops will be tempted to provoke potential criminals to commit crimes they maybe weren’t going to commit. There’s a lot of room for error there.
It gets dicey trying to be the Thought Police.