Brian Doyle, 56, former deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, was sentenced to five years in prison Friday after pleading no contest to charges that he sent sexually explicit messages over the Internet to Florida sheriff’s deputies.
Doyle will also have to serve 10 years of probation and register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
On April 4, Doyle was arrested on charges of child solicitation and transmitting harmful materials to a minor. The minor, however, did not actually exist.
“I am profoundly sorry for everything. How I feel inside can’t be described,” Doyle told Circuit Judge J. Dale Durrance. . . .
Prosecutors said Doyle, of Silver Spring, Md., wrote graphic descriptions of sexual acts in online chats with a 14-year-old named “Ashlynne,” who was actually a character created by sheriff’s detectives. — Associated Press
As I have said before, this sort of sting operation skirts very close to the line between catching real criminals and entrapment, and in my opinion, crosses the line. Doyle has done nothing here except engage in a fantasy, something many people do. Under Florida law, however, this thought crime will get you thrown in prison. Florida doesn’t require there to be an actual victim in such cases.
Never share your fantasies with anyone via instant messages. You never know when the person on the other end will be a cop with no real criminals to go after who’s looking to take down a “child predator.” Next it’ll be S&M practitioners. Then gay people. Then anybody who fantasizes about anything other than the missionary position.
Certainly, people should not be having sex with children. People also shouldn’t be having sex with police, either…
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
BelchSpeak
Nov 20, 2006
Solicitation for sex with a person that you know is underage or has said that they are underage is a crime. It is not a fantasy as you wrongly assert. Nor is solicitation of a minor the equivalent of a “thought crime.” Thinking about it is one thing, but typing out messages to entice a child for sex is taking an action.
And no, sex with minors is not the same thing as homosexuality or S&M. And saying that cops that protect children from internet predators “have no real criminals to catch” is absurd and misguided.
Michael Hampton
Nov 20, 2006
“I’m 14! Fuck me hard, baby!”
Congratulations, now YOU are a sex offender.
I have no problem with locking up people who victimize children. The whole point here is that this guy did NOT.
And if you want to say he did, then where is the victim? You can’t produce one because there isn’t one.
BelchSpeak
Nov 20, 2006
You dont have to have a victim to have a crime. Society has banded together and decided that people who prey on children should not be free to do so. I am not sure which is worse- your grasp of the legal system or your moral relativism in equating child predators with adult gay relationships.
Michael Hampton
Nov 20, 2006
It’s your lack of morals I’m pointing out. A “crime” without a victim is no crime at all, and making it so is nothing less than tyranny.
I grasp the legal system quite well, which is why I’m pointing out the absurdity of convicting someone for a complete and utter fantasy.
The legal system is full of absurdities, and to just blindly follow it as if it were a good thing is morally reprehensible.
As for “society,” it did no such thing.
BelchSpeak
Nov 20, 2006
So because you declare it to be “truth” that there must be a victim for a crime to exist it must be so? Wrong. Try that with a judge and see what they say. You can cry tyranny all the way to jail until you are hoarse.
Michael Hampton
Nov 20, 2006
I don’t care what “a judge” says. His actions speak for themselves.
Michael Greco
Nov 20, 2006
Michale Hampton might be poor at explaining his reasoning, using absurd correlations and such, but the fact remains here that this is a clean cut case of entrapment. The guy’s a sick SOB, but the fact remains he was set up, and regardless of what you may or may not believe, entrapment in this country is illegal.
Thanks for coming out.
BelchSpeak
Nov 20, 2006
Michael, you couldnt be more wrong about your idea of what entrapment is. If the cops held a gun to his wife’s head and said you must solicit a child online or I will shoot her, that would be entrapment. A willing criminal is not entrapped by approaching an undercover officer to buy drugs, stolen property and soliciting underage children online.
You can wish for it all you want, and while you are wishing, you should try for a pony too. Before you try to pass yourself off as a lawyer, try doing some research.
Definition of entrapment according to wikipedia:
“For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, a widely held misconception similar to the idea that police officers must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say “yes” if asked if they are a police officer.”
HonkyMoFo
Nov 21, 2006
Belchspeak-
“Inducing” someone to commit a crime is not the same as “coercing”, which is what you described in your previous post. Go look up the definition if you don’t believe me. If you want an actual judge’s opinion on why this is entrapment, I suggest you read “Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws” by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.
HonkyMoFo
Nov 21, 2006
And while we’re on the subject, using Wikipedia as a legal reference is about as effective as wishing for ponies. If you can find any case law that references it, be sure and share it with the rest of us.
BelchSpeak
Nov 21, 2006
The cops didnt “induce” Doyle either. It was not entrapment.
HonkyMoFo
Nov 21, 2006
Entraptment: a law-enforcement officer’s or government agent’s
inducement of a person to commit a crime, by means of fraud or undue persuasion,
in an attempt to later bring a criminal prosecution against that person." [Black's
Law Dictionary, 7th Ed]
Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the
purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable
thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation
of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to
his legal injury. [Brainerd Dispatch Newspaper Co v. Crow Wing County, 196
Minn. 194, 264 N.W. 779, 780.]
Fraud: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether
by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment
of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive
another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
[West's Encyclopedia of American Law. The Gale Group, Inc, 1998]
The police are not allowed to break the law in order to enforce it.
Michael Greco
Nov 21, 2006
HonkyMoFo, I have to thank you for posting all that as I’m at work and didn’t have time to answer to the childish banter. Obviously someone here knows how to read and interpret the laws.
I hate Wikipedia, it makes every ignorant asshat on the internet think they are experts on any given topic because they have the capacity to cut and paste. Thanks for learnin’ me belch. You have done me a great service.
BelchSpeak
Nov 21, 2006
Hmmm…. nifty definitions. You left one out- “Sting.”
So I guess you want everyone nabbed in sting operations to go free? Despite their lawful convictions by the judiciary?
He got caught in a sting operation, plain and simple. Doyle didnt even protest! He knew he was busted. What’s your problem with putting sex offenders behind bars? You want molested children first?
Nov 21, 2006
Orange County Weekly - The Blotter » My Favorite Sex Offender
HonkyMoFo
Nov 21, 2006
I knew that “lt’s for the children” would have to come out
here sooner or later. It’s as inevitable as death and taxes.
The key aspect here is that there was no victim. In the absence of a victim,
(even a societal victim) there is no crime. Had the police not fraudulently generated
a victim there is no evidence that Doyle would have actually had the opportunity
or disposition to commit this crime.
This is specifically different than a sting operation where the police receive
a tip about a man hiring a hit man, a man actually sending illicit e-mails to
a real 14-year old girl, or someone attempting to fence stolen goods or sell
dangerous contraband. In those cases there is clearly an actual victim or victims.
This case is similar to the famous attempt to entrap John DeLorean. DeLorean
wasn’t trying to sell any contraband. The police set up a sting to induce
DeLorean into buying drugs–drugs that actually didn’t exist. DeLorean
wasn’t looking to buy drugs, but the police used his dire financial situation
to create a crime for him that we would not otherwise have been disposed to seek
out. DeLorean was acquitted of all charges.
As to Doyle’s mental feelings of guilt, I can’t comment. People say
a lot of different things when they’re desperate and their entire
life is on the line. If I was facing a sentecing judge because some prosecutor
had stacked charges against me (based on a fraudulent police tactic) and forced
me into a plea deal, I’d
probably be acting pretty remorseful too. Doyle might even really feel guilty,
as he knew he shouldn’t have been propositioning a 14 year old girl.
Except that he didn’t actually do that, did he?
He propositioned a police officer who posed as a 14-year old girl in an attempt
to lure vulnerable men into doing something that they may have fantasized about,
but might otherwise have never had the opportunity to do. The key word there
is opportunity. It’s not illegal to fantasize about crime. Had the police
not fraudulently created a crime it’s not only possible, but statistically
unlikely, that Doyle would have actually had the opportunity to find a willing
and encouraging victim. There is no evidence that he actually ever chatted
or e-mailed a real underage female. In fact, at one point he gets confused
as to who he’s conversing with because he’s speaking to another
undercover officer posing as a teenager.
One begins to wonder if there are any potential victims at all, or if the teen
chat rooms of America are stocked full of either undercover police officers
or vigilantes like Perverted Justice.
Peter Jones
Nov 22, 2006
A couple of key facts to this case that were not mentioned in the
article or subsequent posts. Doyle sent sexually explicit pictures of
himself to someone he thought was a minor. Investigators found child
porn on Doyle’s personal computer. Doyle used government computers to
send sexual explicit comments to the “girl”. Doyle held a top secret
government security clearance and his reprehensible actions were not
only a violation of his clearance but they could have been used by a
terrorist to blackmail him. All things considered, I’d say he got off
pretty easy with a 5 year sentence.
Dec 05, 2006
BLOGical Thoughts » Monday, 20 November, 2006
Patricia Kay
Dec 08, 2006
Hello,
I actually knew Brian many years ago when he was at TIME magazine (I was just beginning my writing career), and he was the nicest man in the world… sort of brotherly, extremely helpful and had a great personality. If asked, I would describe him as a very good person, and a loyal friend.
Of course, learning of all that has happened is upsetting (to say the least). People can judge, but he is obviously someone who needs help. At the risk of having everyone on this site slam me, I am going to keep him and his family in my thoughts/prayers.
Anonymous
Sep 02, 2007
intrapment!!!!!!!!
Dora
Nov 02, 2007
My father has been accused of internet child pornography by Homeland Security and is now in jail facing a federal sentencing of 5 years. This man is a good person, very passive, was married to a manipulative women since 1990 who separated him from his family, had a child with him and has been using this child ever since as blackmail against him, she divorced him around 2001 and married another man. He still had no control of his finances and was handing over his whole retirement to the ex-wife, so he was in a dire financial state, and being told he would be able to see the “baby” unless he forked out the money. So basically has been through a lot of trauma, has suffered epileptic seizures these past few years and memory loss. He served in the Vietnam War and was just getting ready to start receiving his disability and veterans benefits. About a year after he returned from the war and married my mother he was diagnosed with diabetes which contributes to the above said medical condition. I am just getting back in contact with my dad and I feel like there is something wrong with this picture. I’m trying to put the pieces together. He has admitted guilt, but it still doesn’t feel right for this 59 year old battered and broken man to be put in jail for 5 years!!!! My mother was married to him for 11 years and their divorce was for her reasons at the time, but they have come to be friends now and she vouches for his being a caring man and that the picture being presented in black and white on the case file is not the man that she knows my dad to be. I myself am a victim of child sexual abuse, but not by my father he has always been a kind and loving dad to me. My dad told me very simply that he got addicted to internet porn and that led to the child porn because he was curious when it popped up. The internet creates a strange fantastical virtual reality environment and I do not feel that my father should be put in jail for 5 years for being curious and engaging in looking at images online. He is not a predator and has not done any harm to anyone. For him now to have to be labeled a sex offender and possibly not be able to see his own grandchildren seems a little excessive to me, let alone the danger of him being in jail with actual criminals. I would like to know what is being done to shut down the real predators and people that are putting these images out there in the first place, those are the predators. This is creating an extremely sensitive legal environment involving our personal freedom. It has gone this far for me that I am ready to stand up and do something about it, my dad’s hearing is on November 28th. I’m hoping that you will offer up all your objective comments, pro, con, positive, negative to help me get a handle on this situation. I appreciate your time!!!!
lee
Nov 04, 2007
hello Dora,
something similar also happened to my father. he looked at child pornography online after stumbling across it via other websites. he himself was abused (by very *religious* grandparents i would add) as a child and due to this wanted to hassle people that distributed the pictures he had seen. he went into a chatroom and pretended to be someone else and offered to meet up with an FBI agent (who was also pretending to be someone else). he did so, he says, to inconvenience the man because it was a 4 hour drive for the FBI agent and 2 hours for my dad (to the agreed upon location). he stood the guy up (obviously), but a few weeks later, he was arrested for owning illegal pictures of a minor engaged in sexual activity. as with your situation, my father never abused me when i was a child.
i don’t want to alarm you anymore than i’m sure you already are, but my dad did receive 5 years in federal prison. my father was also in his late 50s when he was arrested. i fluctuate between being so angry at him for being that dumb and also angry at the government for wasting taxpayer money to set up these “sting operations” when they can’t even find a real criminal (who is actively abusing children or pets or doing coke, whatever) to save their lives. i wish the best for you and your family.
Dora
Nov 12, 2007
Lee, thanks for your response. Seems like the longest month of my life, yet it flew by, I can completely relate to the fluctuations. Do you have any advice on the type of prison to recommend my father be put in to the judge? From your own experience with the same issue I would again appreciate any advice. I have concerns, obviously, for his well-being. Thanks for sharing…
mr. kenney
Dec 23, 2007
how is it legal for an officer to issue a ticket for an underage drinker,just because that drinker said they were at the persons house but thats not where they were picked up.And second is it legal for an officer of which you have a bad history with,to sit in someones drive a couple down from your and just wait for people to leave your house because the officer is assuming that that person is drunk,with no actually facts.Please help me figure this out