Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 52–98 | Cite as

Internet stings directed at pedophiles: A study in philosophy and law

  • Joseph S. Fulda
Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fulda, J.S. (2002). Do Internet stings directed at pedophiles capture offenders or create offenders? And allied questions,Sexuality & Culture 6(4), 73–100.Google Scholar
  3. Fulda, J.S. (2005). Internet stings directed at pedophiles: A study in philosophy and law, 15Widener Law Journal 47.Google Scholar
  4. 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the 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (Nov. 2000), unpublished (i.e., no proceedings)).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.Google Scholar
  5. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002).Google Scholar
  6. Kansas v.Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. People v. Masterson, 798 N.E.2d 735 (2003).Google Scholar
  10. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1999). Entrapment in the Net?, 1Ethics & Information Technology 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tur, R.H.S. (1978). What is jurisprudence?, 28The Philosophical Quarterly 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vranas, P.B.M. (2005). The indeterminacy paradox: Character evaluations and human psychology, 39Noûs 1.Google Scholar
  13. Worth, R. (2001). Jeanine Pirro’s sting: Visiting chat rooms to chase pedophiles,New York Times, July 15, 2001, Section 14WC, p. 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph S. Fulda

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations