Fenring, sorry you're really muddling things up here. Kids buying alcohol is specific enough a circumstance that its handled with its own provisions. It's not the attempt to buy that is illegal, it's the sale itself and the use of a fake id in connection with the transaction. If a kid without a fake id walks up to the bar and orders a drink, its the bar who's in trouble not the kid.
In this case, the fake id isn't relevant to the supposed legal violation. In other words the kid can only buy the alcohol by presenting a falsified document, there's no indication that anyone would have to present an id to buy fetal parts. They had to present it to get to a meeting. It's completely anciliary to the "crime" in question.
Right, but don't forget the argument being put forward is that it wasn't really their intention to procure illegal substances, they only solicited purchase of it to see if PP would comply.
The substances are not illegal, nor is procuring them, the only illegality is buying them for more than cost. Is there any evidence that they in fact put money on the table to buy the parts?
If this is the case being made then the actual transfer of materials isn't that relevant compared with the attempt itself. When a minor tries to buy booze, he's already broken the law.
See prior, but this is not generally true. The seller is the one required to comply with the law, the minor's crime is using the fake id to make the purchase.
If the guy behind the counter at a convenience store was an undercover cop and a kid flashed a fake ID the kid would already be guilty. It's not like the cop would actually hand over the bottle and then tell the kid "aha!"
But that's because using the fake id to buy booze is what's illegal. That's the whole point of the original summary I was trying to put in. The fake id's here are used incidentally and not as a required part of the "illegal" transaction. They could have done the whole thing without the id's at a coffee shop. You can't separate them out in the kid's buying booze scenario.
The point is that you can claim any intention you want when attempting to procure, but when you say you didn't really want to actually obtain the thing it becomes somewhat irrelevant as a defence unless you can prove a journalistic background or assignment.
What you're getting at is the question of whether its a strict liability style standard (it happened, and doesn't matter why) or whether you have to have an intent. The shading of intent is what separates one crime from another all over the legal code. And here its even a further step removed, because
it isn't a crime to procure fetal parts, and to pay for them. Essentially the "crime" here is trying to get someone to agree to accept extra money over and above what they are allowed to take, how does that even work? Did PP quote their costs of provision and the "buyer" come back with a higher price? No they tried to get them to admit that the were selling the parts for a profit. What's the crime they committed again?
Likewise, solicitation of a prostitute is also illegal, and in no way does a person have to actually go back to their place, sleep with her, and then pay in order to be guilty.
Well yes
solicitation is actually illegal. That doesn't mean that all crimes are two sided, sometimes you get a crime and for the "other" side all you can get is an "aiding and abetting" charge, sometimes the other side is itself illegal as well.
Asking for the service is already a crime regardless of intent, and I don't think cops would take the defence of 'journalist!' too seriously unless you had creds to back it up.
Well, accept of course that its doubtful that "asking" without an intent to actually buy is actually a crime. Does anyone know if its the sale or purchase or both that is illegal here?
As far as a healthy press goes, again, we're talking strictly about semi-legal or illegal activity for undercover purposes. I could accept that there would be leniency for the press in this regard, but I doubt very much you want universal leniency for such laws under the weird premise that 'anyone is a journalist if they say they are.' The point isn't about protecting shady operations from undercover investigation; it's about verifying that whomever is doing that investigating is actually in the reporting business and is versed in journalistic ethics.
What we're talking about it, this time, is whether those with a legitimate interest in falsifying their identity (like journalists, but not like underage kids) should face felony charges for preparing and using documents to protect that identity. There's no question that if they used the documents to commit a crime, like filing for someone else's tax refund, to gain entry to a government building, or to obtain an official driver's license, they'd be going outside the scope of a legitimate use.
But showing it to prove your fake name to building security so you can goto a meeting someone intentionally scheduled with "fake you"? Doesn't seem unreasonable. Think of the impact of a contrary rule in a world where you have to show id to get past the lobby of every building (already that way in many cities). All you'd have to do is invite someone to your office to avoid any risk they were an undercover journalist.
