This paper examines the legal impossibility that exists when Law Enforcement introduces evidence of a violation of law. Where Law enforcement creates hyper-real entities and uses these entities as actual real victims to prosecute cases involving computer crimes. The courts, prosecutors and juries fail to understand that a symbolic character across the computational medium, the umwelt is not and cannot ever become real simply because law enforcement claims so.
Reality can only exist within the realm where we as humans exist. Hyper-reality remains at a realm that only our minds can imagine. The umwelt is that area that buffers reality from hyper-reality. Television exemplifies this argument, a person watching television can only become so involved with his/her favorite show and no matter how involved the person is - it can never cross that medium that separates them from that show. The Hypothetical Detective claiming to have understood the intentions of the suspect across that medium is only deceiving himself.
Umberto Eco has been quoted as saying…”The battle for survival as a responsible human in the communication era is not to be won where communication begins, but where it ends. When Law enforcement takes it upon itself to ensnare an individual and fails to define full intent and preparation within the semiosis cycle it becomes a legal impossibility.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Abstract
Legal Impossibility
Conclussion
References
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to explore the legal implications and the concept of "legal impossibility" when law enforcement agencies use hyper-real symbolic entities in sting operations to establish intent and preparation for computer crimes, arguing that such artificial constructs fail to meet the requirements of real-world criminal law.
- The intersection of semiotics, cognitive systems, and law enforcement practices.
- The nature of "hyper-reality" versus real-world existence in digital environments.
- Legal challenges regarding the definition of criminal intent and preparation.
- The critique of using artificial symbolic entities as evidence in criminal prosecution.
- The necessity for the legal system to better integrate semiotical understanding into judicial processes.
Excerpt from the Book
Legal Impossibility
A hypothetical; forty-five year old Hispanic male is arrested on August 8, 2004, charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault. He is accused of attempting to solicit a 17 year old female over the internet. In actuality it is a fifty-plus year old detective Bruce Steven Marshall who passes himself off as a sixteen year old Molly Shaw, who is deaf and home alone for the summer, seeking an older male to befriend her. A typical online sting operation!
Detective B.S. Marshall in an effort to go covert onto the inter-net he creates a symbolic entity an object called Molly Shaw, his object/entity is created for the sole purpose of deceiving older males into believing he (Marshall) is an underage female. Law enforcement and or Detectives create such entities to deceive another through a computational medium.
At the time, unknown to Detective B.S. Marshall, the 45 year old Hispanic male, in actuality is a technologist working for a school district. Investigating a porn pop up issue, when the technologist commences to investigate the source of the porn he realizes that a principal who owned and operated the P.C. with the porn had actually made contact with the Detective posing as Molly Shaw. When the technologist uses the unit on his home network, his computers are infected by a Trojan which Marshall launches. At which point the technologist wants to find out the I.P. information of the person controlling his network. At this point the technologist also creates an entity known as Mr. Texas, 33 years old body builder attached to U.S. Army’s 160th SOCOM, employed by Black Water Security and State Department. The hyper-real diorama both Marshall and the technologist create is nothing more than an umwelt. Yet our criminal justice system chooses to prosecute?
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the core argument regarding the legal impossibility of prosecuting computer crimes based on hyper-real entities created by law enforcement.
Abstract: The abstract outlines the fundamental referential fallacy, arguing that symbols used in computational mediums do not equate to real-world criminal intent or occurrence.
Legal Impossibility: This section provides a detailed hypothetical case study to illustrate how undercover sting operations create artificial environments that lack sufficient legal grounding for criminal charges.
Conclussion: The conclusion reiterates that juries and prosecutors often fail to understand semiotic complexities, leading to uninformed verdicts and the need for a re-evaluation of legal standards regarding evidence.
References: This section lists the academic and legal sources utilized to support the arguments throughout the paper.
Keywords
Semiotics, Legal Impossibility, Law Enforcement, Hyper-reality, Computational Medium, Intent and Preparation, Criminal Solicitation, Symbolic Entities, Semiosis Cycle, Referential Fallacy, Cognitive Systems, Digital Evidence, Judicial Process, Umwelt, Online Sting Operations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this paper?
The paper argues that law enforcement's use of artificial, symbolic characters (hyper-real entities) in online sting operations fails to establish actual criminal intent or preparation, rendering such prosecutions a legal impossibility.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the application of semiotics to criminal law, the limitations of digital evidence, the definition of reality versus hyper-reality, and the cognitive processes juries use when interpreting digital interactions.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The goal is to challenge the current legal practice of prosecuting individuals based on interactions with non-existent, law-enforcement-created personas, advocating for a more sophisticated legal understanding of semiotic systems.
Which scientific method is utilized?
The author employs a cross-disciplinary approach utilizing semiotic theory, philosophy of language (Peirce, Eco), and cognitive systems analysis to critique legal procedures in digital environments.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the mechanics of "umwelt" and hyper-reality, discusses the "referential fallacy," and provides a detailed hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how law enforcement and suspects create competing symbolic entities.
What are the key terms characterizing this work?
Keywords include Semiotics, Legal Impossibility, Hyper-reality, Computational Medium, and Referential Fallacy.
How does the author define the "referential fallacy" in this context?
The referential fallacy is the flawed assumption that simply because an object or character appears to exist within a digital communication, it carries the same reality and truth values as an object in the physical world.
What specific advice does the author offer to the legal system?
The author suggests that judges, prosecutors, and juries need a deeper understanding of semiotics to evaluate digital evidence effectively and proposes that the legal profession should introduce new rules of evidence specific to semiotic environments.
- Quote paper
- Pedro Malodorus Diaz (Author), 2010, Semiotics of Law: Intent and Preparation with in a Semiosis Cycle, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/204378
