Comments on: Seriously, that’s a crime?

By: Hunter

Hunter — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:02:35 +0000

Hawxhurst was initially arrested by local Ohio cop in connection with an FBI task force operation. The entire deal was set up by the FBI task force. Local authorities cannot conduct undercover operations outside of their jurisdictions without federal assistance. Hawxhurst traveled from Tennessee to Ohio to have sex with a 14 year-old girl. The fact that he is married with children only adds additional outrage to his disgraceful conduct. He delivered his 23 year old son to a new life in Chicago and then pulled this stunt on the way home. Now the Son has given up that opportunity to come home and take care of his devistated mother. Hawxhurst is a dirtbag and deserves more than he will get.

By: _Jon

_Jon — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:33:48 +0000

A co-worker or my brother was recently arrested for attempting to have sex with a minor.
My brother overheard other co-workers lamenting that the cops shouldn’t be “wasting time” and “setting up” guys like that. Their conversation ended when my brother interrupted and informed them that he had a 12 year-old daughter and that he was glad the cops went after that guy.

I don’t know which is more disturbing – they guy trying to setup the sex, or the guys defending the pervert.

I do know that it is a lot harder to be objective when the potential crime hits so close to home.
Regardless of your political leanings, protecting one’s family can make a lot of laws seem like a “good idea”.

By: Les Jones

Les Jones — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:24:13 +0000

Ravnwood: yep, the Mann Act has been around forever.

XRLQ: boooo.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:40:56 +0000

The article mentions no commerce in this case.

There’s some pretty old case law stating that commerce is intercourse. Then again, there wasn’t much of that on this trip, either.

By: GunGeek

GunGeek — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:15:36 +0000

I believe that part of the whole situation here is that it looked like this guy was going to get off free and clear because he pointed out that there never was any underage girl- therefore he could not be charged with the earlier charges of luring/attempting/whatever with a minor. The person at the other end was an adult, so he wasn’t guilty. So, they figured out that there was a law at the federal level that prohibits crossing state lines with the “intent” of having sex with a minor.
To my IANAL mind, he could now say that he never actually intended to have sex, that he was just going to try to talk the lady into changing her ways or helping her out so that she wouldn’t be pimping out her daughter or whatever. Act shocked that anyone would even consider the possibility that he would go through with it and all. No more intent, no more crime.

By: Ravenwood

Ravenwood — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:31:32 +0000

PS: I’m pretty sure that they are mostly state statutes, not federal.

By: Ravenwood

Ravenwood — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:29:52 +0000

Those types of laws date back to the old days where it was (for the sake of the argument) legal to have sex with a 14 year old in Alabama but not Georgia. So people would transport the minor across state lines so that they could have sex and not be breaking the law.

States got wise, and passed laws to prevent it. In Virginia, for instance, I believe it is illegal to cross state lines with a minor without parental consent (regardless of your intentions).

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:02:27 +0000

Metulj,

The article mentions no commerce in this case. Please, keep up.

By: Metulj

Metulj — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:55:04 +0000

Long established that crossing state lines with intent to commit crime brings the feds into play. Crossing state lines with the intent to distribute drugs is a federal crime. I think it’s the commerce clause in the Constitution, but Uncle only cares about the parts of the Constitution that suits him.

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:30:57 +0000

Note… I realized that my last statement was ambiguous… I mean that it shouldn’t be a federal crime, but instead be a state crime (I’m not nearly so “enlightened” to think that what Mr. Hawxhurst intended to do should be legal).

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:29:23 +0000

Honestly, I kind of like seeing the whole “crossing state lines” in federal crimes. Granted, it’s a power grab by the feds, but it at least respects that the states have some power, and that the feds arne’t to be involved in intrastate matters.

However, I’m open to persuasion that it shouldn’t be made a federal crime in the first place…