One of the problems with the Internet age is that it enables unusual forms of private action within the criminal justice system. Among the most notorious of the private involvements is that of organizations like Perverted Justice which use sting-type operations to target potential sex criminals. However, because these organizations are private, they are able to "entrap" persons in ways that police are barred from doing. Via the Suits and Sentences Blog (HT: How Appealing), we see a summary of a recent Judge Posner opinion about the growing problems created by "private entrapment":
But the really intriguing part of United States v. Morris, decided Dec. 5, was that Morris was raising a new defense in this age of Internet pervs and vigilantes. It seems the case law with Internet identity mistakes all revolves around law enforcement officers posing as minors or potential victims. Morris, apparently for the first time, was claiming the law didn't cover his circumstance since the fictional Kandice character was originally created by a private individual, Mrs. Runningwolf. Therefore, he says, he should be able to raise the defense that he was mistaken about Kandice's age.
Though this defense was judged frivolous by Posner, he used the opinion to discuss trends like Internet vigilantism; about which, Posner acknowledges, there may be "legitimate concern." Private sting operations, Posner adds, "may become even more common now," and he cites from a study noting the nature of the Internet "permits private entrapment to become rampant." But in the end, Posner notes that "there is no defense of private entrapment" and declares that if the law wants to deter private stings it should ban them outright rather than by "letting another guilty person, the object of the successful sting, get away with his crime."
Which raises the question: when might the Perverted Justice scheme of Internet sex-stinging go too far and prompt legislation to corral private vigilantes?
I see a difference between a tip and a sting. It is simply good citizenship to provide a tip to the police about a law breaker. But I have always felt that what PJ does is out of line and is in fact illegal (although no police person is going to arrest someone for illegal behavior from which he benefits).
Posted by: Daniel | December 09, 2008 at 12:29 AM
That link to the opinion is broken (tmp) but here it is.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-2329_002.pdf
Posted by: George | December 09, 2008 at 03:50 AM
Thanks, George. I've fixed the link.
Posted by: Corey Rayburn Yung | December 09, 2008 at 11:10 AM