Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"To Catch a Predator" Rabbi Sentenced In Internet Sex Sting

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:16 PM
Original message
"To Catch a Predator" Rabbi Sentenced In Internet Sex Sting
Edited on Mon Dec-04-06 01:24 PM by madmusic
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A Maryland rabbi ensnared in a nationally televised sex sting was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison Friday for attempting to have sex with a person he believed was a 13-year-old boy.

David A. Kaye, 56, of Rockville, Md., was convicted in September in federal court of enticement and traveling across state lines to engage in illegal sexual conduct.

Most of the evidence came from a televised sting on "Dateline NBC" that was conducted in conjunction with an Internet watchdog group called Perverted Justice.

A Perverted Justice member posing as a 13-year-old boy met Kaye in an online chat room in August 2005, and Kaye solicited sex acts. When Kaye drove to what he thought was the boy's home in Herndon, Va., he was instead confronted by a television reporter and camera crew and admitted he was there for "not something good."

http://www.examiner.com/a-430976~Rabbi_gets_6_5_years_i...


This is far better than having a father come home and catching him with his 13-year-old son. In rage, he might shoot him or something. A jury would probably go light on the father, and in a way, that's understandable. But that would be double hell for his kid.

This whole program still strikes me as sleazy though. If you watched the recent one on last night, you know that the Perverted Justice decoys often repeatedly contact the men after the initial contact and pretend to be "eager for sex," because psychologists told them that was normal. Is it really? Or is it an excuse to borderline entrap? If it is normal, could "To Catch a Predator" help put those ideas in some kid's heads? Some of the chats are weeks or months long, as well. So how long does this eager trolling take before the decoy convinces the man to go to the house? And how many gazelles seek out lions to play with? No, can't believe it's normal at all and anyone who thinks they are really chatting with an eager teen is an idiot. What's more, will this really act as a deterrent? That's how they justify what they are doing. Is "To Catch a Predator" really our knight in shining armor or will "normal" teens "eager" for sex and eager adults become more sly?

The problem with the show is that it is like a Nancy Grace prosecution where only her side of the case is evidence. Like all reality shows, everything that doesn't support ratings is cut. The chats are sealed so we can't know for sure how Perverted Justice goes about doing this. It's like the new child pornography case: secret evidence. We may or not not object if we did knew how these chats come about, and we may think even if it is entrapment, so what, it's worth it to get these guys. We do know that Perverted Justice has a big financial incentive to "catch predators" and for that reason alone could step over the line. Should we care?

My guess is that if these televised stings were after something far more common, say, "To Catch a Cheater" on incomes taxes, the objections would be far and wide. No ratings there, though, so no worries.

Just because these "predators" asked for it, that doesn't mean we have to agree with the process, and I don't like the idea of secret evidence at all. Think Jose Padilla.

EDIT: Padilla
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Aye, there's the rub (no pun intended)
Is the rabbi going to jail for what he did or what he THOUGHT he was going to do? Thought crimes... very scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. More than that...
Conspiracy to rob a bank is a crime, I think, even if they change their mind when they get to the bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I thought absent a crime, there was no conspiracy.
Any criminal lawyers care to check in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JacksonWest Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Conspiracy is a crime
if there are actions done in furtherance of the conspiracy(in most jurisdictions). For example, If you and I met for coffee and discussed how we could kill Ronald McDonald by switching his regular coffee with Folgers Crystals and Arsenic, not a crime. If I went out and bought Folgers Crystals, and you bought Arsenic-we're looking at a conspiracy charge.

However, that's mostly academic. Most conspiracy cases are usually charged after the crime has been committed. It is sometime difficult for a Jury to convict on "plans" and no action. This is at the local level though. Federal Prosecutions are typically more elaborate. It is more common to find a conspiracy case at the federal level when there is no "fulfillment" of the crime. RICO cases, financial cases, and the occasional drug case.

Often, a prosecutor will neglect to charge conspiracy even when there is on. The elements of a conspiracy, or mens rea, are always different from the actual crime. Often this can lead to jury confusion and an acquittal-so it's not worth the risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Thanks. Very informative. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. That too is scary.
Should people who consider killing someone but decide not to be charged with intent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. If someone sits outside you house
with your picture and a rifle and considers killing you it is illegal. They do not have to shoot you to be breaking the law.

It is illegal to meet a minor with the INTENT to have sex with them.

Conspiracy is just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. It's not thought
It's actions he took. You can think about anything you want. At least so far. But when you put those thoughts into action...

It's like if you allowed to friends you were going out to blow up a dam fedral bildin' and went down to the Home Depot and stocked up on fertilizer, motor oil, and a timer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. If he puts together a bomb and makes his way to the building, OK.
But, in the meantime, you've just got a guy who made a purchase at Home Depot.

Bottom line, I'm not one who wants to see this country become an efficient dictatorship where "the trains run on time," if you get my drift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JacksonWest Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. There was action on his part.
It's not a thought crime-although it treads a fine line. His action was going to the home of a perceived minor to engage in sexual activity. It would be treated as an attempt, or a solicitation-which are both crimes.

The statute must read that the perp thought that the intended victim was underage-despite the fact that there was no underage person.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Here is another case that definitely is NOT entrapment
Edited on Mon Dec-04-06 04:32 PM by madmusic
29 Appeal from judgment entered on July 28, 2005, in the United States District Court for
30 the Southern District of New York (Leisure, J.), convicting defendant of traveling in interstate
31 commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with an individual that defendant
32 believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), and for using a
33 computer, the Internet, and a telephone in attempting to persuade, induce, and entice an
34 individual who has not attained the age of eighteen to engage in illicit sexual activity in violation
35 of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b).

U.S. v. Brand


Good and recent summary of the law. And I didn't know the government could induce a suspect into enticing a Perverted Justice undercover, so evidently pretending to be "eager" isn't illegal. It would still be interesting to know how many, if any, of the claimed busts were actually entrapments but we never heard about it.

edit sp

EDIT again. Source:
To Catch a Predator . . . Or To Entrap Him?
U.S. v. Brand, 05-4155 (2nd Cir., Oct. 19, 2006)

When it comes to sexual predators who lurk online, theres a fine line between catching them and entrapping them, as this Second Circuit appeal shows. Thirty-six year voice instructor Matthew Branch (screen name "Tempoteech") met 13-year old Sara in AOLs "I Love Older Men" chatroom. The two became fast friends, with Brand proposing to give her voice lessons and marry her when she turned 18. Sara then introduced Brand to her friend Julie, and the conversation between Brand and Julie became a bit more explicit. The two eventually arranged to meet at the Port Authority bus terminal in New York City.

But if Datelines "To Catch a Predator" has taught us anything, its that Sara and Julie were really adults posing as teenagers. "Sara" was actually a private citizen who trolls the internet for men like Brand and then passes them on to FBI agents, who then collect evidence for criminal charges using internet personae like "Julie." So when Brand showed up at the Port Authority terminal with condoms in his car, he was arrested. The jury didnt buy Brands entrapment defense, and he was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, Brand argued that his entrapment defense should have carried the day. Specifically, he pointed to the fact that it was "Julie" who broached the subject of sex. And it was "Julie" who contacted Brand after a canceled meeting to goad him into setting up their fateful Port Authority date. But the Court rejects his claim. It explains that Brand may be able to show that the government induced him to commit the crime, but this is irrelevant if Brand was predisposed to commit it. Here, Brands "prompt response" to Julies overtures shows that he was "ready and willing to commit the crime charged and awaiting a propitious opportunity to do so." After rejecting Brands remaining challenges, the Court affirms his conviction.

// posted by Robert Loblaw @ Thursday, October 19, 2006 1 comments links to this post

http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2006_10_15_appel...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. What gets me about this is that many of those captured claim they
have watched the specials in the past and still take their chances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. One guy even saw someone being arrested before he walked in!
And still, he went in the house anyway.

That's not just stupid... that's a damn powerful compulsion acting on some of those people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. What I want to know is:
Is he, as expected, a rapeblican? Need to know before I post him on my wall of shame...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. I blame the Secular-Progressive's War on Religion
If the rabbi thought the boy was 13, then according to his religious beliefs, he was a man.

Someone notify The Alliance Defense Fund!

Religion is under attack!

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. Quickly looking him up on The Google
Edited on Mon Dec-04-06 01:50 PM by IanDB1
Lost In Lima Ohio- The Blog: 11/2005 - 12/2005
Google Cache of Rabbi David A. Kaye's previous employer lists his ... a homosexual and should complete a dissolution from his wife next week. ...
http://lostinlimaohio.blogspot.com/2005_10_16_lostinlim...

Case of Rabbi David Kaye (Potomac, MD; Rockville, MD; San Antonio, TX)
Rabbi David A. Kaye has been a Jewish educator for 30 years. ... Kaye acknowledged that he frequently had homosexual encounters with people he met in online ...
www.theawarenesscenter.org/kaye_david.html

Chaptzem Blog!
Rabbi David A. Kaye, 55, vice president of programs for PANIM: the Institute ... So, now you are saying that this filthy $#@&^%&%^$ homosexual degenerate ...

<snip>

Rabbi David A. Kaye, 55, vice president of programs for PANIM: the Institute for Jewish Leaders and Values, resigned this week after disclosing that he might be featured on a national television news program, according to a statement released by the organization's president, Rabbi Sidney Schwarz.

More:
http://chaptzem.blogspot.com/2005/11/rabbi-teacher-lose...

Perverted-Justice.com - The largest and best anti-predator ...
UPDATE - SEPT 6, 2006: Rabbi David A. Kaye was convicted of both counts ... sorry for this guy for being "outed" as a homosexual, remember lines like this. ...
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=REDBD

PANIM: the Institute for Jewish Leaders and Values
http://www.panim.org


In this issue of Kol PANIM, we feature the increasingly controversial issue of gay marriage. From a Jewish values perspective, this is a particularly interesting issue. More conservative elements in the Jewish community cite well known biblical and other traditional Jewish sources in explaining their opposition to gay marriage, while those on the liberal side of the spectrum point to the Jewish concern with justice, fairness and compassion as bolstering their arguments in favor of such unions. However you feel about gay marriage, I hope that this issue of Kol PANIM will encourage you to think seriously about the way in which Jewish values might inform your decision, and also to recognize that those on the other side are acting on their ideals as well.

L'shana Tova,
Rabbi Sid Schwarz

http://www.panim.org/kolpanim/KolPSept04.html

It looks like Panim is fairly Liberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Is there some homophobia in his sentence?
Could be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. The chats are not sealed and can be viewed on the website.
Pretty clear cut cases from what I read. These pedophile slime should be removed from society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. No, no, no....
Only chats in evidence though the courts are real evidence. Got a link for one of those?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. How's Foley the Page-turner doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. the problem is that there are predators and how many kids did Kaye
have sex with before he got caught?

I saw the episode and to be honest these guys were all looking for some action with a kid.

They made a trip to a suburban home to have sex with a kid and many of them brought the requested items from the "fake kid"..including alcohol.

You know I don't like the idea of thought crimes either but, these men all showed up...no one went to their home and offered them money to have sex with kids...these guys were trolling for it.

Hell the one jackass got caught twice trying to have sex with a kid...it was just surreal and pathetic and scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yes, that is a problem
But as always, there is another side to the story. And scroll down here to Sting Gone Bad.

The assumption to justify it all is that they must be serial pedophiles, but most of their judges didn't find that to be true and didn't sentence them accordingly. That's why real Justice isn't a TV spectacle.

Even the mayor of Murphy is accused of being a pedophile because he objects to the sting in his town. The witch hunts didn't end until those in charge were accused.

Just because a cause is a good one, that doesn't by default mean the zealots carrying it out aren't profit mongering freaks with a KKK gene or two.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC