[Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 20 22:06:33 PDT 2010
My reading comprehension is fine, thank you for your concern.
I'm not discussing this case anymore, I've moved on to discussing this
particular law. I realize he pleaded guilty, blah, blah, blah. I don't
know enough about the particulars of the case to be able to say one way
or the other if the sentence was just. But this law as it stands sounds
to me like thought crime. I'm against thought crime especially when
it's made it into our current laws.
If they were eavesdropping (legally) on a conversation between a minor
and an adult, then I could see it. But if there was no actual person
involved who was under the age of 16 then no law should have been
broken. Compare this to an undercover cop selling drugs to the person.
Buying certain drugs is illegal whether or not you buy them from an
adult or a child, or a policeman or a citizen. "Enticing" an adult is
not a crime, so they went and made it one based on the belief of the
person doing the enticing so they could perform just these kinds of
sting operations.
That's thought crime, and I don't like it. Just because it's a law does
not make it right.
Paul
Art Deco wrote:
> Perhaps you missed this two times:
>
> "A Moscow man who *pleaded guilty* to enticing a child over the
> Internet..."
>
> "Kendall W. Heustis, 40, *pleaded guilty* to the charge in Latah
> County District Court in mid-April."
>
> '"It's been a long two years," Heustis said. "I've learned a lot from
> it. *A lot of things happened because of what I did on the computer*,
> and I'm paying the price for it."'
>
> 18-1509A.Enticing of children over the internet -- Penalties --
> Jurisdiction. (1) A person aged eighteen (18) years or older shall be
> guilty of a felony if he or she knowingly uses the internet to
> solicit, seduce, lure, persuade or entice by words or actions, or
> both, a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years *or a person
> the defendant believes to be a minor child under the age of sixteen
> (16) years* to engage in any sexual act with or against the child
> where such act is a violation of chapter 15, 61 or 66, title 18
> <http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm>, Idaho Code.
>
> There was no claim by Heustis that he thought other than he was
> communicating with a 13 year old child. He pled guilty, meeting the
> elements of I.C. 18-1509A (1).
>
>
> W.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2010 9:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
>
>
> The question of the legality of this defense in this case aside,
> how is
> this not thought crime? If the defendant claimed that they did not
> believe that the person they were corresponding with was really a
> 13-year old girl but decided to "go along with it" for the excitement
> such a fantasy might give him, how would they be able to determine
> otherwise?
>
> Paul
>
> Art Deco wrote:
> > "A Moscow man who *pleaded guilty* to enticing a child over the
> > Internet..."
> >
> > Heustis was represented by Chuck Kovis, a very able trial/defense
> > attorney. If the argument you presented given the evidence
> presented
> > at court really raised a reasonable doubt, it is highly probable
> that
> > Kovis would have earned a not guilty plea.
> >
> > Here is the statute:
> >
> > 18-1509A.Enticing of children over the internet -- Penalties --
> > Jurisdiction. (1) A person aged eighteen (18) years or older
> shall be
> > guilty of a felony if he or she knowingly uses the internet to
> > solicit, seduce, lure, persuade or entice by words or actions, or
> > both, a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years *or a
> person
> > the defendant believes to be a minor child under the age of sixteen
> > (16) years* to engage in any sexual act with or against the child
> > where such act is a violation of chapter 15, 61 or 66, title 18
> > <http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18.htm>, Idaho
> Code.
> > (2) Every person who is convicted of a violation of this section
> > shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a
> period not
> > to exceed fifteen (15) years.
> > (3) It shall not constitute a defense against any charge or
> violation
> > of this section that a law enforcement officer, peace officer, or
> > other person working at the direction of law enforcement was
> involved
> > in the detection or investigation of a violation of this section.
> > (4) The offense is committed in the state of Idaho for purposes of
> > determining jurisdiction if the transmission that constitutes the
> > offense either originates in or is received in the state of Idaho.
> >
> >
> > I think this matter of virtuality has been before an appellate
> court
> > before and has withstood a challenge.
> >
> > Notice in my comment I said "attempting to entice a *virtual *13
> > year-old girl"
> >
> > W.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> > *To:* Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> > *Cc:* Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:35 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
> >
> >
> > I don't know what to think about this. If "enticing a child"
> > means that
> > he was setting up a time and place to have sex with a person he
> > thought
> > was 13, then I'm glad they caught him. But there is an
> interesting
> > twist to this, though. What he was charged with doesn't sound
> > like it
> > would be a crime if there was no minor involved. Since there
> > wasn't an
> > actual minor involved, then this means that they are
> charging him for
> > thinking that there was a 13-year old on the other end of the
> > wire. Did
> > they just cross over into thought crime territory? I don't
> know.
> > Did
> > he really believe she was 13? People lie about their age
> and gender
> > online all the time. What if he thought he or she was someone
> > pretending to be 13 and that thought excited him? Does
> "enticing a
> > child" cover other aspects that don't involve actual
> meetings for
> > sex?
> > In other words, were they just "talking dirty" to each other?
> >
> > Anyway, I just thought that was an interesting aspect of this
> > case. You
> > guys can go back to bashing Judge Stegner now.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Art Deco wrote:
> > > When are we going to get a district court judge that takes
> sexual
> > > crimes against children seriously enough to give sentences
> that
> > > promote deterrence and demonstrates to the community that
> sexual
> > > crimes against children are not to be tolerated?
> > >
> > > Thirty days soft jail time and five years of basically
> meaningless
> > > probation is hardly an appropriate sentence for attempting to
> > entice a
> > > virtual 13 year-old girl into a sexual encounter.
> > >
> > > Who is the greater threat to the well being of the
> community? A
> > > single offense offender or a judge that gives many lenient
> > sentences?
> > >
> > > Wayne A. Fox
> > > 1009 Karen Lane
> > > PO Box 9421
> > > Moscow, ID 83843
> > >
> > > waf at moscow.com <mailto:waf at moscow.com>
> <mailto:waf at moscow.com> <mailto:waf at moscow.com>
> > > 208 882-7975
> > >
> > >
> > > Man gets jail time in Internet crime case
> > >
> > >
> > > Heustis sentenced to five years probation, 30 days
> in jail
> > >
> > > By Christina Lords Daily News staff writer
> > >
> > > Posted on: Saturday, June 19, 2010
> > >
> > > A Moscow man who pleaded guilty to enticing a child over the
> > Internet
> > > was sentenced by 2nd District Court Judge John Stegner to 30
> > days in
> > > jail and five years probation Friday.
> > >
> > > Kendall W. Heustis, 40, pleaded guilty to the charge in Latah
> > County
> > > District Court in mid-April.
> > >
> > > He faced a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a
> fine of
> > $50,000.
> > >
> > > The charge was in relation to an undercover law
> enforcement sting
> > > conducted by the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon
> > between
> > > April and July 2008. The investigating officer was a member of
> > > Oregon's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
> > >
> > > The officer posed as a 13-year-old girl from Oregon, and
> Heustis
> > > exchanged explicit information through chat rooms and Web
> > cameras with
> > > the undercover officer during that time.
> > >
> > > "It's been a long two years," Heustis said. "I've learned
> a lot
> > from
> > > it. A lot of things happened because of what I did on the
> computer,
> > > and I'm paying the price for it."
> > >
> > > During the sentencing, Michelle Evans, senior deputy
> prosecuting
> > > attorney for Latah County, asked for 10 years probation and a
> > 90-day
> > > jail sentence.
> > >
> > > "I think that it's appropriate to impress upon Mr. Heustis
> ... the
> > > seriousness of what he did," she said.
> > >
> > > Evans said it was fortunate Heustis was chatting with an
> undercover
> > > detective instead of an actual victim during the incidents.
> > >
> > > Heustis must register as a sex offender and complete sex
> offender
> > > treatment at Valley Treatment Specialties in Clarkston.
> > >
> > > The computer he used during the enticement incidents, which is
> > in the
> > > possession of the Moscow Police Department, must be forfeited,
> > and he
> > > is not allowed to use the Internet except for purposes
> congruent
> > with
> > > this probation requirements.
> > >
> > > Under the terms of his probation, he is not allowed to be
> alone
> > with
> > > anyone under the age of 18 and cannot frequent any city
> parks or
> > > schools where children may be present.
> > >
> > > Heustis is prohibited from consuming alcohol, but Stegner said
> > Heustis
> > > would still be allowed to enter some bars to be able to
> continue
> > > playing drums in his band.
> > >
> > > He was sentenced to pay $100 in court costs.
> > >
> > > Latah County has never pursued an enticement case like
> this before,
> > > Evans said.
> > >
> > > *Christina Lords *can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext.
> 301, or by
> > > e-mail to clords at dnews.com <mailto:clords at dnews.com>
> <mailto:clords at dnews.com>
> > <mailto:clords at dnews.com>.
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list