The ol' Prostitution/Entrapment Question

[pwned123]

What is the name of your state? North Carolina

I'm sure most of you know of Craigslist. I made a post under the 'm4w' category that I was looking for a willing 'partner.' This was NOT in that other part of Craigslist listed as 'Erotic Services.'

Well, a few hours later I received an e-mail from a woman asking, 'would you be willing to compen$ate for this?'

I had no intentions of actually going through with this - but I humored myself to see where it led. I believe my exact reponse was, 'Hmm, what are you looking for?' I didn't get a response, so I wrote back, 'How much are you looking for?' This she replied to and started to ask what it was I was specifically interested in.

She side stepped exacts for a few moments but finally gave me a number.

Obviously prostitution is illegal, but would this be considered entrapment? I had no intention of looking for prostitutes and as far as I'm concerned, I was solicited by her in my sad attempt to find a legal method of finding that sort of activity.

Would even talking about this online through e-mail put me in any legal danger - or is this the sort of thing that has to be done in person? Like I said, I had no intention of actually going through with anything illegal but was curious where it could have potentially led. She seemed like such a 'nice' ho too. Very courteous, lol.

Any thoughts?What is the name of your state?

[Some Random Guy]

You discussed sexual acts. You discussed compensation. Afer she broke off conversation, you re-contaced her to again offer compensation. And to top it off, you did all of this in e-mail where there is a nice written record of your activities.

Find another hobby, because "innocent ho price-checking" isn't one that judges recognise as a valid defense.

[racer72]

Entrapment involves being coerced or forced to perform an illegal act, none of that happened. You replied to everything in your on free will. Guilty as charged.

[fairisfair]

so who arrested you? The cyber police?? Robocop??

[Bretagne]

OK, so entrapment is an affirmative defense. This means that the burden is on you to prove up all of the elements of the defense in order to be not guilty of a crime.

The most important element of the entrapment defense is that you must have been induced to do something [i]which you would not have done but for the inducement. For example, if an extremely attractive undercover agent asks you to sell her a joint, and you are not a drug dealer, but you are also ugly and desperate and haven't gotten laid for quite a while, you might ask around and find someone to sell drugs in the hopes that you will get lucky. If you can prove to the judge that, but for the agent hitting on you and wanting a joint, you would not have committed the criminal act, then you have a viable affirmative defense.

In your case, (assuming the woman is a State's agent) considering that you started the initial post on Craig's list and responded twice with respect to payment, it will be hard for you to establish entrapment.

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by Bretagne

OK, so entrapment is an affirmative defense. This means that the burden is on you to prove up all of the elements of the defense in order to be not guilty of a crime.

The most important element of the entrapment defense is that you must have been induced to do something [i]which you would not have done but for the inducement. For example, if an extremely attractive undercover agent asks you to sell her a joint, and you are not a drug dealer, but you are also ugly and desperate and haven't gotten laid for quite a while, you might ask around and find someone to sell drugs in the hopes that you will get lucky. If you can prove to the judge that, but for the agent hitting on you and wanting a joint, you would not have committed the criminal act, then you have a viable affirmative defense.

In your case, (assuming the woman is a State's agent) considering that you started the initial post on Craig's list and responded twice with respect to payment, it will be hard for you to establish entrapment.

so what gives him the affirmative defense? being ugly, or being desperate? or must he be both? and what is the inducement, her attractiveness, or his ugliness? and wouldn't those circumstances exist in every situation that the ugly and desperate encountered in his day to day life? would that mean that he could NEVER be found guilty, and yet would always have the ugliness card to play? I am by the way, just messing with you. Which I would never do in a normal situation, but I am desperate. LOL

[MyHouse]

:d :d :d :d :d

[pwned123]

well i'm not ugly - desparate living in a new area? yes.

to clarify - i made a 'post' in an area that is supposed to be for other people looking for the same thing. there is a specific area of that site where. .... yes people do post that are looking to pay or get paid. i didn't do that. someone from that area specifically e-mailed me about it.

don't worry - i did not, and do not intend on meeting that person for an illegal encounter. i was just curious about the situation.

i guess i've watched too many 'To Catch A Predator' shows where i think anyone online is now a cop (I'm not a predator, but prostitution is obviously illegal and Craigslist has already had some newsworthy sting ops)

i was under the impression that they would never solicit a person online - and that the conversation has to be started by the offender. but then again, that was trying to catch child predators, not someone who may/may not have paid for sexual favors.

online seems like a harmless area - but i guess if that conversation had taken place on the streets, i'd probably be in jail.

[racer72]

i was under the impression that they would never solicit a person online - and that the conversation has to be started by the offender.

Wrong on both counts. Police in my area have been using Craigslist to bust both hookers and johns. Some of the ads were done with the express purpose of nabbing both. It doesn't matter who initiates the conversation, all the john has to do is suggest an offer of an exchange of money for sex and he/she can be busted.

[Just A Guy]

Law enforcement officers must be aware of their limitations during a sting operation to avoid later accusations of entrapment. An undercover officer working as a prostitute, for example, cannot initiate a conversation leading to the customer's solicitation offer. A defendant arrested for solicitation of a prostitute could claim that the undercover officer was flirtatious or made physical contact before identifying herself as a prostitute. An argument could be made that the solicitation was based on the officer's behavior, not on the defendant's intention to commit a crime.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Just A Guy

Law enforcement officers must be aware of their limitations during a sting operation to avoid later accusations of entrapment. An undercover officer working as a prostitute, for example, cannot initiate a conversation leading to the customer's solicitation offer. A defendant arrested for solicitation of a prostitute could claim that the undercover officer was flirtatious or made physical contact before identifying herself as a prostitute. An argument could be made that the solicitation was based on the officer's behavior, not on the defendant's intention to commit a crime.

flirtatious or physical contact do not cause a person to offer money nor do they infer the one flirting is willing to accept or seeking financial compensation in exchange for sex.

the undercover officer could grab the john by the cajones and as long as she did not make any overtures concerning payment, she is not entrapping the john. Now, if the john were arrested for having sex with a married woman (problematic in some states), or anything else, then, entrapment would be a viable defense but not for prostitution.