Internet stings directed at pedophiles: A study in philosophy and law
- Joseph S. Fulda
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This article is published under rules given in “Multiple Publication Reconsidered,”Journal of Information Ethics 7 (Fall 1998): (2)47-53 and “Multiple Publication Reconsidered II,”Journal of Information Ethics 15 (Spring 2006): (1)5-7 and is substantially revised from 15Widener Law Journal 47 (2005), per refereeing, and also has an additional final section. The article is intended to, in Sections I and II, flesh out and put within a metaphilosophical framework the theoretical argument first made in 2002 in “Do Internet Stings Directed at Pedophiles Capture Offenders or Create Offenders? And Allied Questions” (Sexuality & Culture 6(4): 73–100), with some modifications (See note 14). Where there are differences, I stand by this version as the final version of the argument. Section III addresses three experimental or empirical studies which might be thought to contradict or confirm the data of the 2002 study. Section IV compares what we have done with the one other jurisprudential argument made by Summer 2005. Section V discusses why, despite the evidence and the arguments, these sting operations are popular with prosecutors and the public alike. Section VI comments on why my empirical study dating to 2002 does not appear to have gained wide acceptance, and what, if anything, can be said about this.
- Demetriou C., & Silke, A. (2003). A criminological Internet ‘sting’: Experimental evidence of illegal and deviant visits to a website trap, 43British Journal of Criminology 213. CrossRef
- Fulda, J.S. (2002). Do Internet stings directed at pedophiles capture offenders or create offenders? And allied questions,Sexuality & Culture 6(4), 73–100.
- Fulda, J.S. (2005). Internet stings directed at pedophiles: A study in philosophy and law, 15Widener Law Journal 47.
- Hernandez, A.E. (2000). Self-reported contact sexual offenses by participants in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Sex Offender Treatment Program: Implications for Internet sex offenders (presented at the 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (Nov. 2000), unpublished (i.e., no proceedings)). Used by permission.
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002).
- Kansas v.Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).
- Langan, P.A., Schmitt, E.L., and Durose, M.R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (: Offender characteristics; Sentences and criminal records; Comparison to other offenders; Rearrests and reconvictions; Rearrests for sex crimes against children),Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 198281.
- O’Neil, T. (2001). Police begin patrolling cyberspace for sexual predators; Training is increasing, cooperation is growing among agencies here,St. Louis Post Dispatch, March 11, 2001, p. C1.
- People v. Masterson, 798 N.E.2d 735 (2003).
- Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1999). Entrapment in the Net?, 1Ethics & Information Technology 95. CrossRef
- Tur, R.H.S. (1978). What is jurisprudence?, 28The Philosophical Quarterly 149. CrossRef
- Vranas, P.B.M. (2005). The indeterminacy paradox: Character evaluations and human psychology, 39Noûs 1.
- Worth, R. (2001). Jeanine Pirro’s sting: Visiting chat rooms to chase pedophiles,New York Times, July 15, 2001, Section 14WC, p. 1.
- Internet stings directed at pedophiles: A study in philosophy and law
Sexuality & Culture
Volume 11, Issue 1 , pp 52-98
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links