Wednesday, July 1, 2009

'Intent' and the Silveri verdict

No one is arguing that what former state trooper Albert Silveri III was doing online was creepy.

But it apparently was not illegal.

Delaware County Judge Frank Hazel Tuesday returned a verdict in the case against Silveri, who had spent several hours on the stand in his one-day trial detailing – often graphically – his activities in the cyberworld.

Silveri had opted for a jury before Hazel instead of taking his chances with a jury of his peers. Good choice.

It’s hard to hear Silveri’s testimony, in which he freely admits conversations with a woman he believed was a mother offering to set him up with her young daughters for a sexual liaison.

Silveri says it was all a fantasy, that he never actually intended to go through with any of his perverse online chats.

And for proof he notes that even though he set up several meetings with an online “mom” who turned out to be an undercover officer, he didn’t show up for any of them.

On a legal basis, there was no crime, hence Hazel’s verdict.

But “not guilty” is not all the judge had to say. He blasted the former trooper’s actions, even if they were just a part of his online “fantasy.”

“These aren’t fantasies,” Hazel said. “These are far beyond that.” The judge suggested that Silveri is in need of professional help, which his attorney says he is getting. Hard to argue with that.

Silveri is no longer working as a trooper. For that I suppose we can all be glad, although I now wonder what kind of case he would have if he decided to get his old job back.

But I remain intrigued by this burgeoning cyberworld and the undercover officers who prowl it.

Whenever we have interviewed these officers, they have admitted it is fairly depressing work, akin to shooting fish in a barrel. They log into a chat room, and in no time they are getting online proposals.

Too often it’s the same thing, a guy interested in having sex with her and her children.

A meeting is set up, the suspect shows up, and is arrested.

That seems to be the key difference from the Silveri case.

It all revolves around intent. The fact that he never showed up for any of the rendezvous that he had set up with the undercover officer means – at least legally – that he had no intent of going through with it. I notice in his testimony, however, that Silveri did indicate that he at least did drive past one meeting point. But he never pulled in.

So here’s what I’m wondering. Some pervert sets up one of these meetings, pulls into the convenience store parking lot expecting to meet a mom and her young daughters, and is instead greeted by the undercover officer and her pals. The fact that he showed up indicates his intent to go through with it.

So what happens if his response is, “Yeah, I’m here, and my intent is to walk into the store and buy a cup of coffee.”

I’m told this kind of challenge already has been offered and failed.

I’m trying to figure out exactly what the suspect is guilty of, other than talking dirty online.

I also wonder about what the officers say about their work, about how easy it is to lure these guys in. And I wonder if that’s the case, then how much of this is going on that is not caught.

And one other thing. Exactly when are these guys going to realize that you really have no idea who that person on the other end of the chat line is, and who might actually be waiting for you should you actually show up for one of these meetings.

My guess is Hazel’s ruling is going to be wildly unpopular with most people, even while it is legally correct.

When it comes to setting up these kinds of deals with kids, even if there is no “intent,” most people have a few “intents” of their own.

And not all of them are legal either.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home