This is just sick!

[MagnoliaApples]

Has anyone heard about the Edmonton case about a guy named Craig Chuckman who was aquitted in a chat luring case?

The guy was 32 and he was using the internet to link up with a 12 year old girl from Ontario through one of those chat sites. He told her he was 17 and she told him she was 13 and they engaged in discussions of a sexual nature. They later exchanged phone numbers wherein he called her and in the conversation he told her he wanted to perform oral sex on her. The girl panicked and hung up and told her father who in turn contacted the police. Lagare ended up being charged under the Internet Luring Law and inviting a child to touch him for a sexual purpose.

After weighing the evidence, the judge, Justice John Agrios decided
" I simply cannot find any resonable indication that the accused was grooming or luring the child" adding, "the legislation is clear in that the communication must be for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence....(of) sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching."

But he said that the internet chat transcripts were only "intimate conversation" and while " morally reprehensible," were not illegal.

So, basically, what the judge is saying is that it's okay, legal to talk dirty to 12 year old children on the internet, so long as it remains "merely' explicit, sexual talk. As one article says, this could give the green light to perverts to continue talking dirty to kids on the internet because it is within their legal right to do so.

I personally can't believe this judge!?

This 32 year old guy lied to this kid and said he was 17! Even though she lied about her age and said that she was 13. That's still a 13 year old kid!! He's 32. If that doesn't scream pedophile, what does????
He called her at home and told her he wanted to have oral sex with her! Isn't that an invitation to sexual touching??
I know that if a guy says to me that he wants to have oral sex with me this leads me to a choice, in this matter being - yes, i want this to happen or no, i don't.

I'm sorry but i think this guy totally crossed the line and should have have been thrown in jail.

 

[glossprincess]

Yeah, thats totally screwed up! But then at the same time, what about the girl?! She should've known better than to a) engage in sexual conversations with someone she doesnt know and b) give her number to a stranger. She was really asking for it and its just lucky that nothing worse happened!

The man's a sicko for sure! But technically, he didnt do anything illegal.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Poor Behaviour Not Unlawful

I would agree, MagnoliaApples, that the conduct of Craig Chuckman in relation to this situation was quite disturbing, and I would argue should not be repeated given the circumstances. However, I would concur with the decision of the judge in this case — while his conduct was reprehensible, in terms of the morals of the situation, he didn't do anything that would be, in my opinion, unlawful.

 

[MagnoliaApples]

I see what you ppl are saying but how long do you think it would have taken before something illegal did happened?

My guess, hypothetically, if the phone call didn't freak the kid out, how much do you want to bet that he would of been have been making flight arrangements to Edmonton?

 

[HTO]

There's no reason why a twelve year old "should know better". Children, people in fact, only "know better" after they've been taught that something is threatening to their well-being.

Her parents may not have talked to her about sex and the risk of internet luring.

The judge is making a big mistake. At the very least, the man should have paid a fine and given a warning.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

I see what you ppl are saying but how long do you think it would have taken before something illegal did happened?

Ok, following that line of reasoning, we should automatically give people tickets as soon as they get their licences. I mean, everyone, at some point in their lives, violates traffic law. Even if it is by accident, we as a society cannot be too safe.

Did the guy go to meet her? No. If the Crown wanted to charge him with sexual harrassment, that I can see. But all he did was initiate a phone call.

 

[nelk]

Is that not called intend?

Not just accidentally playing with the compy and by random choice
assembling whatever messages, or?

As a parent I would be well advised to educate my kids for sure,
but this incidence should trigger some sort of action; if not penalty at least some counsel sessions or other aprobiate measures.

Didn't I talk about sinfullness (in the faith thread) potentially leading into evil deeds?

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Poor Behaviour

However, nelk, no court in Canada would issue arbitrary warnings or counseling sessions on the basis of "sins" — only on contraventions of the law.

 

[Johnny Utah]

The internet is becoming more dangerous for children as online predators are everywhere. In the US there's a group called perverted- jutice.com who pose as young children to seek out online predators like this guy. NBC's Dateline joined them luring these predators to a home where they think a 13 year old girl is there to have sex with them when it's really Dateline and the police waiting to arrest them.

Maybe a group like perverted-justice.com is needed in Canada..

Where did this guy meet the young girl, on Yahoo?

 

[nelk]

If as a parent I see wrong with my offspring; should I turn my head away and pretend all is fine?
In my understanding that would make me guilty.
It is nether caring or loving on the parents part.

Parallel this to a government ,our "Vater Staat".
I would expect a balanced point between the extremes of total liberal anarchy and an 1984 Orwellian scenario.

Hindsight of course is allways 20/20 on many criminal cases where red flags showed up, but had been ignored.
Just think about the Mayerthorpe murders.

Our western societies moving right now on very thin ice; look whats happening.
While some freedoms and rights are expanded our basic living conditions are under major attack und the future does not look that great.

But cheer up before we kick the bucket :roll: :wink:

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

I see what you ppl are saying but how long do you think it would have taken before something illegal did happened?

Ok, following that line of reasoning, we should automatically give people tickets as soon as they get their licences. I mean, everyone, at some point in their lives, violates traffic law. Even if it is by accident, we as a society cannot be too safe.

Did the guy go to meet her? No. If the Crown wanted to charge him with sexual harrassment, that I can see. But all he did was initiate a phone call.

Please, LRG, what the hell does a friggin' 32 year old want with a 12year old!!! He's the one who called her in the first place knowing full well that she was a kid and then told her he wanted to do sexual things with her!

Give me a f**king break! What do you think he wanted to do, just be friends???? You;ve got to be F88ked up to go there.

And NO, he didn't actually see her. Probably because he was caught before he could even make that step!!

Please!!!!

 

[FiveParadox]

MagnoliaApples, you are suggesting that persons should be convicted based on suspicion and circumstances, rather than facts. That is not how the administration of justice is conducted in Canada, and I would hope that we never move in that direction.

 

[Jay]

The internet is becoming more dangerous for children as online predators are everywhere. In the US there's a group called perverted- jutice.com who pose as young children to seek out online predators like this guy. NBC's Dateline joined them luring these predators to a home where they think a 13 year old girl is there to have sex with them when it's really Dateline and the police waiting to arrest them.

Maybe a group like perverted-justice.com is needed in Canada..

Where did this guy meet the young girl, on Yahoo?

I saw that the other day.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Is that not called intend?

Prove that he actually wanted to go over to her house and do that. Prove that he wasn't just being creepy.

Magnolia, take a deep breath. We are having a discussion are we not? Chill.

And see my above response. He probably did stop because he was caught. But, no matter how you feel, you cannot convict someone on the basis of what would have probably happened. You know the whole thing about being innocent until proven guilty. Fortunately that applies to child molesters too.

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

MagnoliaApples, you are suggesting that persons should be convicted based on suspicion and circumstances, rather than facts. That is not how the administration of justice is conducted in Canada, and I would hope that we never move in that direction.

No, that is not what i'm saying. However i do feel that this a completely different ball of wax! Pedophilia is just wrong and it has only gotten worse. Have you heard about what is going on with these internet pedophile rings? It's sick!! It's a huge problem.

I do think that any adult who knowingly engages in sex talk with a child - 12 years old!! - should face some form of concequence.

This is not a the same as the piddly argument that LRG brought up that -

"We should automatically give people tickets as soon as they get their licences. I mean, everyone, at some point in their lives, violates traffic law."

-This doesn't even compare! Does that mean that, everyone, at some point in their lives, treads the line of pedophilia!! Hell No!Give me a friggin' break! I can't believe that you can't see the difference between these two issues!

The guy was 32. She was 12. Even if she told him she was 13, she's still a kid! He called her on the phone and told her he wanted to perform oral sex on her!

I really hope that you ppl are not saying that it's okay for an adult to do that.

I'm saying NO ONE should talk to a child that way! Ever!

And anyone who does, should feel some legal consequences for that AND get some serious help!

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Sex Discussions with Adults

MagnoliaApples, I would agree insofar as that it should be unlawful for persons to engage in such discussions (to a degree of a crime such as pedophilia and the like); however, as it stands, that is not the current case and, therefore, we cannot ask the judge to "create" a law for the purpose of adjudicating based on such a "fabricated" measure.

Perhaps we should urge our Members of Parliament, then, to amend An Act respecting the Criminal Law, to provide for a provision such as "Any one who, in Canada, engages in intimate discussions of a sexual nature with anyone one who is under the age of consent," or something such as that?

 

[LittleRunningGag]

It isn't a different "ball of wax." The point is, that regardless of the crime, you cannot convict a person based on intent. You can only convict someone based on their actions.

As far as the phone call, I have already said that the Crown should have charged him with a sexual harrasment charge. Which is all it is. And you cannot prove otherwise.

If the Crown chose the incorrect charge that is their fault, not the judge's. The judge is only there to render a verdict, not do the job of the Crown.

Maybe if you read the entire post, instead of just getting heated, you would be able to make a calm, reasoned argument.

 

[Sassylassie]

I would not allow a chid of that age un-restricted access to the internet. I don't have children but my sisters do and they monitor the internet activities of their children vigorously. The internet is a powerful tool for the pervs.

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Re: Sex Discussions with Adults

MagnoliaApples, I would agree insofar as that it should be unlawful for persons to engage in such discussions (to a degree of a crime such as pedophilia and the like); however, as it stands, that is not the current case and, therefore, we cannot ask the judge to "create" a law for the purpose of adjudicating based on such a "fabricated" measure.

Perhaps we should urge our Members of Parliament, then, to amend An Act respecting the Criminal Law, to provide for a provision such as "Any one who, in Canada, engages in intimate discussions of a sexual nature with anyone one who is under the age of consent," or something such as that?

Yes I agree with you. It just surprises that a law like that isn't in place already. If the system was doing their research they would know that in the studies concerning pedophiles and the 'grooming' process they use on kids show that sex talk is how it all begins. This guy was totally going along the pattern of a classic Internet Sex Crime. First they engage in sexual conversation on the internet. Then it progresses to telephone calls which leads to actual encounters which then could lead to all kinds of crimes, where sexual molestation is just one crime out of the many that can been committed that situation. It's gruesome!

I'm completely disappointed with the system!

As i'm sure alot of parents are, as well!

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

It isn't a different "ball of wax." The point is, that regardless of the crime, you cannot convict a person based on intent. You can only convict someone based on their actions.

As far as the phone call, I have already said that the Crown should have charged him with a sexual harrasment charge. Which is all it is. And you cannot prove otherwise.

If the Crown chose the incorrect charge that is their fault, not the judge's. The judge is only there to render a verdict, not do the job of the Crown.

Maybe if you read the entire post, instead of just getting heated, you would be able to make a calm, reasoned argument.

FYI LRG - The Crown has disagreed with Justice Agrios's interpretation of the law and has appealed.

So, like i said, this is a different ball of wax and i certainly disagree with the judge's and your interpretation of this particular law!