To Catch a Predator

[billydkid]

I know this has been discussed before and I apologize if this is nothing new, but I am sure that I am not the only one who has misgivings about this program. First, how is this not entrapment? These guys may get exactly what they deserve, but it seems like we make a special effort to entice and then ruin these guy's lives, whereas perpetrators of other crimes where people are actually harmed seem to get off much more easily and earn much less of our contempt. I'm not saying that actual child abuse is not a real crime - but in these particular cases there is not yet a victim. Yes, these guys did intend to have sex with an underage person, but a person who might have actually succeeding in harming a person - no one goes out of their way to ruin every single aspect of their existence.

My neighbor came over with a petition to keep sex criminals out of our town - never mind that it is widely believed that her husband was overly "affectionate" with their daughters when they were growing up - but why this special status versus, say, someone who may have merely murdered or assaulted a person. Put an old lady in the hospital and steal her money,- yeah, you deserve a chance to redeem yourself, but have sex with someone not of legal age and you don't even deserve to have a place to live. I'm not an apologist for this sort of behavior and the people who do it are criminals, but I don't understand this special obsession.

Also, the crime these men on that show would have committed had they had the chance would have been legally identical to that of an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girl friend (or vice verse). There's an obvious element of confusion here. I think it is obvious that no real crime has been committed when an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old - particularly when you consider that a 14 year old can marry in a number of states. Why is it that sex has this special, poisoned place in our national consciousness? And I wonder, is it really identical in awfulness for an adult to have sex with a sexually mature, but underage person as it is for an adult to have sex with, say, a toddler or someone who is not yet sexually developed? I find it distasteful too, this notion of a grown person having sex with an immature, but sexually mature person. (The girl who drives me up the wall is 42, so no, I'm not personally interested in teenagers.)

[Lonewulf]

It's an issue more ruled by emotion more than anything else. It's also hard to really get a meaningful discussion out of it, for that very reason.

[Magyar]

I don't know the specific show you are referring to, but the ones I have seen were showing that the kids these men intended to meet are 14 and under.

Every show I've seen and group that is involved with doing this on the internet, never uses entrapment and go out of their way to inform the "target" that the person they're talking to is 12, 13, 14 years old. Yet your poor "victims" insist on continuing explicit sexual discussions and setup a meeting for sex.

In addition, every professional agrees that treatment for sexual predators has an effective cure rate of about zero, and at the same time a recidivism of nearly 100%. So, since we decided that we can't put them into prison for ever, telling the neighbors kids is the next best thing.


Why you ask is this different treatment necessary vs other criminals? Simple - these predators pray on the most vulnerable victims in our society in the most vicious way! Unlike other criminals they are virtually guaranteed to do the same crime again. There is no treatment, rehabilitation or cure for this desease(and yes I consider it a desease first and a crime second) .

[quixotecoyote]

In addition, every professional agrees that treatment for sexual predators has an effective cure rate of about zero, and at the same time a recidivism of nearly 100%. So, since we decided that we can't put them into prison for ever, telling the neighbors kids is the next best thing.


Why you ask is this different treatment necessary vs other criminals? Simple - these predators pray on the most vulnerable victims in our society in the most vicious way! Unlike other criminals they are virtually guaranteed to do the same crime again. There is no treatment, rehabilitation or cure for this desease(and yes I consider it a desease first and a crime second) .

This is a myth. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is nowhere near 100% and no expert says it. Plenty of pundits, politicitans, and moral crusaders say it, so i can understand your confusion.
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf

Also, please note th OP did not refer to the sex offenders as victims, so there was no need to put that word in quotes.

[skeptifem]

remember that thread about the weird wedding esque virginity pledge cerimonies? where daughters get all gussied up to pledge to their dads that they wont sleep with anyone until marriage? I think its the same thing, a weird idea that fathers somehow own their daughter's virginity. the hysteria is always over strangers, which i personally dont understand, its much more likely a family member or friend will abuse a child.

however I do find sexual relationships involving teenagers and someone much older to be inherently abusive and wrong.

[Piggy]

In addition, every professional agrees that treatment for sexual predators has an effective cure rate of about zero, and at the same time a recidivism of nearly 100%.

The recidivism rate is nowhere near 100%.

I'm on your side on this one, but please, it doesn't help to throw around false figures.

[Piggy]

There is no treatment, rehabilitation or cure for this disease.

We don't know as much about this as you seem to believe we do.

It would help if it weren't so hard to get funding to do better research. But politically, it's unpopular to vote for funding that an opponent can point to in the next campaign and claim that you wanted to coddle child molesters.

"Disease" is an odd word. Especially when we're not talking about pre-pubescent or pubescent kids. When you get into that territory, you're definitely talking perversion.

But biologically, is it surprising that some males above the age of 21 want to have sex with females in their teens? Not at all. Most of the world, throughout our history, wouldn't bat an eye at that, in fact. And certainly, from an evolutionary perspective, it's about as shocking as cows eating grass.

But I still believe that our culture has a right to set its own laws, and that in contemporary America it is perfectly correct to forbid sex between adults and young teens. Sadly, some Romeo-Juliet couples have been caught in those laws, and many of the Romeos have had their lives ruined simply for fooling around with a girl a couple of years younger than themselves. But states are coming around now with more age-difference criteria to protect against that.

[Piggy]

I don't understand this special obsession.

Don't you, though?

It's a perfect blend of button-pushing. It's the Happy Meal of scandal. You get your sugar, your salt, your fat -- 3 things that make all our "get that" lights go on -- in one package. Who could resist?

But in this case, we have sex, protection of our children, hunting, and gossip.

4-in-1, baby!

Those are serious buttons. Trust me, I work in media, and if you want eyeballs, that's a tough combo to beat.

So the network that produces and airs the show does it because people will watch it, which means advertisers will pay them money.

People watch it because they are drawn to gossip, to sex, and to a hunt-and-capture (and in this case, they know they're going to get paid off, and the quarry will be someone they can feel good about seeing captured -- a person threatening a child).

It really is as simple as that.

[Number Six]

I think To Catch A Predator does a pretty good job. These guys are trying to commit a pretty heinous crime. All the fake kids are 13-14. Most of the adults are at least mid 20s, many much older than that. They go trolling on the Internet for young kids, meet (what they think is) a young kid, talk very dirty with them, sometimes send naked pictures of themselves and then arrange to go to the house and have sex with them. Yes, I feel a bit bad for them when it turns out they are so busted but dang, they are in the process of doing something very, very bad.

They all say they've never done it before and that they weren't going to do anything and I feel bad the small percentage for which that is true but I suspect that most of them have every intention of doing something and many have probably done it before. It's gotten to the point where that show has been on so many times and a lot of the guys that do it now admit they've seen the show and they decided to come anyway. It seems those guys literally can't stop themselves from trying to have sex with kids. I say do whatever is necessary to stop them.

[Piggy]

Yes, I feel a bit bad for them when it turns out they are so busted but dang, they are in the process of doing something very, very bad.

I can't feel bad for them at all.

I've seen the show a couple of times. One guy showed up with duct tape, rope, tools, and knives.

Like you say, these guys know what they're doing, and they're putting a lot of effort into it. They're not just some guy sitting around the house thinking, "Man, I'd love to get me something young and soft like when I was back in high school", then tossing off and going to bed. No, these guys are prowling for it, acting on it.

They take advantage of kids who are making bad decisions -- or so they think. They look for kids who are vulnerable, who appear to be affluent, precocious, and alone.

I got no sympathy.

[slingblade]

And one guy showed up naked. Maybe more than one, but I remember the one naked guy chasing the cat around the house.

Naked man.

Chasing the cat.

:hypnotize

[JamesDillon]

And one guy showed up naked. Maybe more than one, but I remember the one naked guy chasing the cat around the house.

Naked man.

Chasing the cat.

:hypnotize

I hope the cat was de-clawed.

[EvilSmurf]

I think To Catch A Predator does a pretty good job. These guys are trying to commit a pretty heinous crime. All the fake kids are 13-14. Most of the adults are at least mid 20s, many much older than that. They go trolling on the Internet for young kids, meet (what they think is) a young kid, talk very dirty with them, sometimes send naked pictures of themselves and then arrange to go to the house and have sex with them. Yes, I feel a bit bad for them when it turns out they are so busted but dang, they are in the process of doing something very, very bad.

They all say they've never done it before and that they weren't going to do anything and I feel bad the small percentage for which that is true but I suspect that most of them have every intention of doing something and many have probably done it before. It's gotten to the point where that show has been on so many times and a lot of the guys that do it now admit they've seen the show and they decided to come anyway. It seems those guys literally can't stop themselves from trying to have sex with kids. I say do whatever is necessary to stop them.

...and have well over 200 arrests doing it without a single case thus far resulting in a dismissal or acquittal, and many men convicted.

Also, the ages of the fake kids actually range between 10 (no, that is not a typo, there have been cases of men wanting to meet ten and eleven year olds for sex) and 15.

[skeptifem]

"I came here to warn them about the dangers of online predators" is my favorite excuse. they always have condoms and beer when they say that.

[Kerberos]

"I came here to warn them about the dangers of online predators" is my favorite excuse. they always have condoms and beer when they say that.

They wanted to warn them about safe sex and responsible drinking as well.

[skeptifem]

They wanted to warn them about safe sex and responsible drinking as well.


ahaahaha!

Ive been a pj fan since way before the show aired. I think people believe its entrapment sometimes because they dont understand how it works. they basically just sit there in a chat and wait for someone to message them with their age and sex on their profile.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I'm surprised that some vigilante-type hasn't used this scheme to lure one of these guys somewhere remote and kill them.


Also, my understanding is that if the undercover officer offers to sell you drugs, that is entrapment. If you seek out the officer and offer to buy drugs, that's not entrapment.

[Piggy]

I'm surprised that some vigilante-type hasn't used this scheme to lure one of these guys somewhere remote and kill them.
How do you know it hasn't happened?

Also, my understanding is that if the undercover officer offers to sell you drugs, that is entrapment. If you seek out the officer and offer to buy drugs, that's not entrapment.
Essentially, entrapment consists of influencing someone to commit or to attempt a crime which it is not otherwise apparent they would have attempted to commit.

It's possible, in theory, to entrap someone into a drug buy without offering to sell them the drugs.

[billydkid]

I don't know the specific show you are referring to, but the ones I have seen were showing that the kids these men intended to meet are 14 and under.

Every show I've seen and group that is involved with doing this on the internet, never uses entrapment and go out of their way to inform the "target" that the person they're talking to is 12, 13, 14 years old. Yet your poor "victims" insist on continuing explicit sexual discussions and setup a meeting for sex.

In addition, every professional agrees that treatment for sexual predators has an effective cure rate of about zero, and at the same time a recidivism of nearly 100%. So, since we decided that we can't put them into prison for ever, telling the neighbors kids is the next best thing.


Why you ask is this different treatment necessary vs other criminals? Simple - these predators pray on the most vulnerable victims in our society in the most vicious way! Unlike other criminals they are virtually guaranteed to do the same crime again. There is no treatment, rehabilitation or cure for this desease(and yes I consider it a disease first and a crime second) .Hold on a second. I never said I sympathized these people and I specifically they are probably getting what they deserve. Please don't respond to what you want to think I said, rather than to what I actually did say. Never did I refer to the guys caught as "poor victims". I actually came in here this morning to say that I watched the show last night (the first time I ever really watched it.) and got the same creepy feeling of facination watching these these people crumble as their lives fell to pieces as everyone else does. And I wanted to say that, yes, after watching, my feeling is that these guys get everything they deserve. Sadly, other people who do things just as and or even more atrocious often do not.

[Magyar]

Piggy - Ok, perhaps a 100% was a bit of hyperbole, but what your studies do not take into acount is the fact that the average peodphile has dozens if not 100s of victims before/between actual convictions

I ahve this book and found a link here
http://books.google.com/books?id=aMTFUx8xwMMC&pg=PA81&ots=4W7l4TC7du&dq=average+number+of+victims+before+a+pedophiles+i s+convicted&sig=k1HTkJ-QwTQHvPQlm-nOZswYxFE#PPA81,M1

Some important quotes, "Colorado study of a sample of imprisoned sex ...
sex crimes for an average of 16 year before being caught". So the number of re convicted sexual offenders are is not a realistic number to use to determine recivitism.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. No politician is going to spend money on this kind of research and thus the tools and resources available are pethatic. Should there be more, ABSOLUTELY, but until then this works.

Billy - sorry took your tone the wrong way. I guess my point is that these people are different from your average mugger.

[Kerberos]

Piggy - Ok, perhaps a 100% was a bit of hyperbole, but what your studies do not take into acount is the fact that the average peodphile has dozens if not 100s of victims before/between actual convictions

I ahve this book and found a link here
http://books.google.com/books?id=aMTFUx8xwMMC&pg=PA81&ots=4W7l4TC7du&dq=average+number+of+victims+before+a+pedophiles+i s+convicted&sig=k1HTkJ-QwTQHvPQlm-nOZswYxFE#PPA81,M1

Some important quotes, "Colorado study of a sample of imprisoned sex ...
sex crimes for an average of 16 year before being caught". So the number of re convicted sexual offenders are is not a realistic number to use to determine recivitism.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. No politician is going to spend money on this kind of research and thus the tools and resources available are pethatic. Should there be more, ABSOLUTELY, but until then this works.

Billy - sorry took your tone the wrong way. I guess my point is that these people are different from your average mugger.

I'm highly sceptical of you source your source. The ability of various incompetent or fraudulent psychiatrists to conjure up ridiculous numbers of sex offences is well documented. I would very much like to see any real evidence for the alleged fact that each paedophile molests dozens let alone 100s of children before they’re convicted the first time.

[Piggy]

Piggy - Ok, perhaps a 100% was a bit of hyperbole, but what your studies do not take into acount is the fact that the average peodphile has dozens if not 100s of victims before/between actual convictions

I ahve this book and found a link here
http://books.google.com/books?id=aMTFUx8xwMMC&pg=PA81&ots=4W7l4TC7du&dq=average+number+of+victims+before+a+pedophiles+i s+convicted&sig=k1HTkJ-QwTQHvPQlm-nOZswYxFE#PPA81,M1

Some important quotes, "Colorado study of a sample of imprisoned sex ...
sex crimes for an average of 16 year before being caught". So the number of re convicted sexual offenders are is not a realistic number to use to determine recivitism.
You can't extrapolate universal conclusions from a sampling of pedophiles who were caught, sentenced, and sent to jail.

That said, although I don't have the numbers, pedophiles do have an inclination to serial offense, simply because the kids they molest grow out of their "age of attraction". If they want to continue to have the kind of sex they enjoy, they need "new" kids.

What's really frightening me right now in my area (US extreme southeast) is that a few high profile cases are driving draconian legislation which, the politicans say, will monitor all sex offenders and prevent them from living or working near areas where kids congregate (even bus stops).

2 problems with this.

First, we already don't have enough people and money to keep track of the really hardcore 10-20% of the offenders who cause the most damage. If the laws change so that these departments are taxed with attempting to track them all, we're bound to have less resources devoted to the worst cases.

Second, the housing laws effectively force all sex offenders out of the state (a pass-the-buck strategy reminiscent of the Catholic Church priest scandal), or back into the woods or onto the streets or into enclaves like remote motels where they can form communities -- which is not where you want them.

I get sick when I hear these blowhards shouting about "protecting our children" while waving legislation that's bound to make things worse.

[skeptifem]

Also, my understanding is that if the undercover officer offers to sell you drugs, that is entrapment. If you seek out the officer and offer to buy drugs, that's not entrapment.


No, and contary to another rumor they do not have to tell you they are police officer if you ask.

My friend won on entrapment before. He was on private property with an open beer and the officer was on public property, the officer said 'come over here' and my friend did it, and got an open container ticket. THATS entrapment. If a cop shoves illegal drugs in your pocket (or threatens you if you dont take them, something like that) and arrests you for possesing drugs, thats entrapment. Simply asking you if you want to purchase drugs is not. Pretending to be a kid in a chat room and doing nothing to initiate a meet up is not entrapment. thats the great thing about perverted justice. they just sit there in local chats, and pervs do all the rest. The perverts have to iniate the meet ups and sexual talk, otherwise they wont be arrested, so pj does a lot to make sure that they can get these people arrested.

[schplurg]

I hope the cat was de-clawed.
I don't

[Piggy]

If a cop shoves illegal drugs in your pocket (or threatens you if you dont take them, something like that) and arrests you for possesing drugs, thats entrapment.
Actually, that's not entrapment, that's planting evidence. A cop can go to jail for planting evidence. For entrapment, usually the case will simply be tossed out. The victim can sue if he likes, I reckon, for damages.

Simply asking you if you want to purchase drugs is not.
It might be. Uncercover cops can't go around approaching people randomly, proposing to help them commit crimes. So if a plainclothesman goes up to some guy at a bus stop, gets into a conversation, befriends him, then flashes some coke and says, "Hey, man, I dunno if you're into this, but it looks like the bus is late and no one's around... wanna do a toot?", that's entrapment.

Pretending to be a kid in a chat room and doing nothing to initiate a meet up is not entrapment. thats the great thing about perverted justice. they just sit there in local chats, and pervs do all the rest. The perverts have to iniate the meet ups and sexual talk, otherwise they wont be arrested, so pj does a lot to make sure that they can get these people arrested.
Exactly. As long as the set-up mark is not initiating the activity, and the perps are out there trolling for victims, no entrapment.

[Darat]

I've only seen clips of these programmes being in the UK; whether what they do is OK or not for me would be formed on whether the police and other legal authorities supported the action or not.

However what I don't understand is how it can be popular TV (I'm assuming it is?), I just can't see why people would want to watch something like this.

[ChristineR]

I said this on one of the other threads. I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to fall for this. Does anyone seriously believe 14 year old girls hang out in chat rooms looking to meet ugly old men?

Which brings up another question. Are they really expecting to meet 14 year old girls, as opposed to say, a grown up woman pretending to be a 14 year old girl? Could they just be curious about what they find? Is there any proof that they would have actually had sex with the 14 year old there actually turned out to be one?

[Skibum]

I've only seen clips of these programmes being in the UK; whether what they do is OK or not for me would be formed on whether the police and other legal authorities supported the action or not.


I would assume they do support it, considering they are waiting outside to arrest them as soon as they walk out of the house.

However what I don't understand is how it can be popular TV (I'm assuming it is?), I just can't see why people would want to watch something like this

I rather enjoy watching those scumbags get publicly exposed, slammed to the ground, hauled off and charged, and have their lives ruined.

I enjoyed watching the prominent doctor call his wife to bail him out of jail.

"Umm, I really messed up, can you come bail me out of jail"
"I'll tell you about it when you get here, don't bring the kids"

[Piggy]

However what I don't understand is how it can be popular TV (I'm assuming it is?), I just can't see why people would want to watch something like this.

The atmosphere is pretty scary over here in some ways, as far as this kind of programming goes.

The "law enforcement as entertainment" thing really got off the ground several years ago when Fox network came on the air. Their anchor shows were a lowest-common-denominator sitcom called "Married, with Children", and a reality show called "Cops" which played footage of cops chasing and arresting people.

Then John Walsh got into the game with "America's Most Wanted". He'd become a media figure after spearheading child recovery and location ventures after his son Adam was kidnapped and killed.

The attraction of Cops was, again, the thrill of the hunt, the knowledge that someone was going to get caught, the danger, the fact that it was real footage.

With AMW, they'd air the salacious stories, which are always a good sell, complete with dramatic reenactments, then people could phone in with tips, and you could tune in next week to see who'd been nabbed.

I lived in Florida at that time, where a lot of fugitives go because it's warm and there's a lot of coastline and a large transient population to blend in with. There was always a Florida connection somewhere in each episode.

One time, AMW aired a show about a guy who was tending bar while the episode played above his head in the club where he worked.

That kind of real-life tie-in and "wow" factor is hard to beat.

Again, it's a powerful formula.

But "Cops" bothers me because it's just hunt and chase, law enforcement as entertainment. There's something kinda 3rd Reich about that, to me.

[Skibum]

Is there any proof that they would have actually had sex with the 14 year old there actually turned out to be one?


I think usually they ask them to bring condoms, to help prove intent.

[ChristineR]

I think usually they ask them to bring condoms, to help prove intent.

Ah. I guess that helps. I have to admit I have never actually watched this show.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

How do you know it hasn't happened?


Essentially, entrapment consists of influencing someone to commit or to attempt a crime which it is not otherwise apparent they would have attempted to commit.

It's possible, in theory, to entrap someone into a drug buy without offering to sell them the drugs.


If it's happened, I haven't heard about it. I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

No, and contary to another rumor they do not have to tell you they are police officer if you ask.

My friend won on entrapment before. He was on private property with an open beer and the officer was on public property, the officer said 'come over here' and my friend did it, and got an open container ticket. THATS entrapment. If a cop shoves illegal drugs in your pocket (or threatens you if you dont take them, something like that) and arrests you for possesing drugs, thats entrapment. Simply asking you if you want to purchase drugs is not. Pretending to be a kid in a chat room and doing nothing to initiate a meet up is not entrapment. thats the great thing about perverted justice. they just sit there in local chats, and pervs do all the rest. The perverts have to iniate the meet ups and sexual talk, otherwise they wont be arrested, so pj does a lot to make sure that they can get these people arrested.


My argument was that these sex offenders are not being entrapped. Let's look at it this way; if you are not a pedophile and someone in a chatroom, especially one that is known to be sexually explicit in nature, announces that they are twelve years old, your response would likely be to either tell the child that they should leave, or ignore them. If you engage the child, or decoy posing as a child, in inappropriate dialogue, you are committing a crime. My understanding is that the decoys do not initially approach anyone, rather they simply make known their age and wait for offenders to approach them.

[Piggy]

If it's happened, I haven't heard about it. I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas.

Don't worry. You don't need to give anyone any ideas. I don't know if it's happened a'la TCAP yet, but there are cases of men murdering other men based on suspicion that they were child predators. Michael Anthony Mullen, Jon Edington, and Robert Fontanez, for example.

On the Web, cyber-vigilantes like EHAP, Se7en, and Internet Combat Group are reportedly scouring and hacking online CP trading sites and passing info to law enforcement. I guess it's possible that some folks in organizations like that, or outside of them, could get their own ideas about how best to ensure that justice is served.

Hatred for people who harm little kids is pretty strongly engrained in our species, not surprisingly. What concerns me about the current environment is that the strident political rhetoric, draconian laws, philosophy that it's ok to punish all sex offenders for the rest of their lives, media hype which distorts people's ideas about their own risk, and desensitization to hunt-and-capture by private parties as well as law enforcement through "reality" entertainment and sting journalism... it creates an environment of hysteria rather than reasoned action. And that's when people start "getting ideas".

[Piggy]

In case anyone's interested, some Bureau of Justice recidivism stats (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism):

Sex offenders

* On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
* The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
* An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
* Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
* Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.

Child victimizers

* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.
* Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.
* Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.

[Piggy]

If you engage the child, or decoy posing as a child, in inappropriate dialogue, you are committing a crime. My understanding is that the decoys do not initially approach anyone, rather they simply make known their age and wait for offenders to approach them.
Yeah, pretty much.

A good way to think of it is that cops can't go around creating crime, drawing people into crime, or grooming people to commit crimes. The intent to commit the crime must pre-exist on the part of the accused.

I gave the bus-stop example of entrapment above. What is not entrapment, though, is for a cop to hang out in a seedy area looking a helluva lot like a drug dealer, and responding to folks who approach him looking for something illegal.

By the same token, if a person is online scouring chat rooms for kids, engaging in explicit sexual talk with them, sending nude photos, and proposing to provide them with drugs and alcohol and have sex with them, the behavior itself is illegal -- even if no child is actually reading the chats or receiving the pictures.

It's illegal to attempt to entice a child to have sex, just as it's illegal to attempt to extort someone, commit murder, blow up a building, break into a house, or steal a car.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I know this has been discussed before and I apologize if this is nothing new, but I am sure that I am not the only one who has misgivings about this program. First, how is this not entrapment? These guys may get exactly what they deserve, but it seems like we make a special effort to entice and then ruin these guy's lives, whereas perpetrators of other crimes where people are actually harmed seem to get off much more easily and earn much less of our contempt. I'm not saying that actual child abuse is not a real crime - but in these particular cases there is not yet a victim. Yes, these guys did intend to have sex with an underage person, but a person who might have actually succeeding in harming a person - no one goes out of their way to ruin every single aspect of their existence.

It's not entrapment. They are not coerced into committing a crime, they are simply given the opportunity to commit a crime.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

My neighbor came over with a petition to keep sex criminals out of our town - never mind that it is widely believed that her husband was overly "affectionate" with their daughters when they were growing up - but why this special status versus, say, someone who may have merely murdered or assaulted a person. Put an old lady in the hospital and steal her money,- yeah, you deserve a chance to redeem yourself, but have sex with someone not of legal age and you don't even deserve to have a place to live. I'm not an apologist for this sort of behavior and the people who do it are criminals, but I don't understand this special obsession.

I agree that sex criminals are shunned in our society more so than other people who probably do more harm. I do believe that once a Sex criminal has served their time they should not be continued to be punished after serving their time but precautions should be made to still prevent them from committing another crime which they are often likely to commit.

Also, the crime these men on that show would have committed had they had the chance would have been legally identical to that of an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girl friend (or vice verse). There's an obvious element of confusion here. I think it is obvious that no real crime has been committed when an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old - particularly when you consider that a 14 year old can marry in a number of states. Why is it that sex has this special, poisoned place in our national consciousness? And I wonder, is it really identical in awfulness for an adult to have sex with a sexually mature, but underage person as it is for an adult to have sex with, say, a toddler or someone who is not yet sexually developed? I find it distasteful too, this notion of a grown person having sex with an immature, but sexually mature person. (The girl who drives me up the wall is 42, so no, I'm not personally interested in teenagers.)

No. The age of consent in most states in America is 16-18. A 18 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend isn't statutory rape because there must be at least a 3 year difference for even the minimum penalty and increases as the age difference increases.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't know the specific show you are referring to, but the ones I have seen were showing that the kids these men intended to meet are 14 and under.

The ages used in Dateline rage from 11-15.

Every show I've seen and group that is involved with doing this on the internet, never uses entrapment and go out of their way to inform the "target" that the person they're talking to is 12, 13, 14 years old. Yet your poor "victims" insist on continuing explicit sexual discussions and setup a meeting for sex.

That's because they are obsessed and driven by the urges.

In addition, every professional agrees that treatment for sexual predators has an effective cure rate of about zero, and at the same time a recidivism of nearly 100%. So, since we decided that we can't put them into prison for ever, telling the neighbors kids is the next best thing.

True.


Why you ask is this different treatment necessary vs other criminals? Simple - these predators pray on the most vulnerable victims in our society in the most vicious way! Unlike other criminals they are virtually guaranteed to do the same crime again. There is no treatment, rehabilitation or cure for this desease(and yes I consider it a desease first and a crime second) .

True.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This is a myth. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is nowhere near 100% and no expert says it. Plenty of pundits, politicitans, and moral crusaders say it, so i can understand your confusion.
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf

Also, please note th OP did not refer to the sex offenders as victims, so there was no need to put that word in quotes.

Your link gives a number of around 35%. This number could be a lot higher because sometimes the criminals aren't ever caught. Moreover, The urges and the potential for recidivism remain. Other rates range as high as 67% for re-arrest and nearly 5% within the first few years of their release. Sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be re-arrested for a sex crime than non-sex offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm surprised that some vigilante-type hasn't used this scheme to lure one of these guys somewhere remote and kill them.


Also, my understanding is that if the undercover officer offers to sell you drugs, that is entrapment. If you seek out the officer and offer to buy drugs, that's not entrapment.

Nope. If a "reasonable person" would avoid committing the crime and the officer only gives you the opportunity to do so then it's not entrapment.

[quixotecoyote]

Your link gives a number of around 35%. This number could be a lot higher because sometimes the criminals aren't ever caught. Moreover, The urges and the potential for recidivism remain. Other rates range as high as 67% for re-arrest and nearly 5% within the first few years of their release. Sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be re-arrested for a sex crime than non-sex offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

I don't see where your link supports your numbers. Could you quote?

[qayak]

Sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be re-arrested for a sex crime than non-sex offenders.

Okay . . . non-sex offenders should NEVER be re-arrested for a sex crime!

I bet you can say that a thief is far more likely to be re-arrested for theft than a sex-offender is.

[ponderingturtle]

This is a myth. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is nowhere near 100% and no expert says it. Plenty of pundits, politicitans, and moral crusaders say it, so i can understand your confusion.
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf

Also, please note th OP did not refer to the sex offenders as victims, so there was no need to put that word in quotes.

Well why is urinating in public such a serious crime? Such things will get you labeled as a sex offender in some states.

The problem is that sex offender is a really really broad term. You are looking at one small section of it and claiming that all those labled as sex offenders fit it.

[Darth Rotor]

To Catch a Predator (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_media.asp?fsID=122):

Stand at the departure end of the runway with a really big, kevlar, butterfly net.

[Kerberos]

Okay . . . non-sex offenders should NEVER be re-arrested for a sex crime!

I bet you can say that a thief is far more likely to be re-arrested for theft than a sex-offender is.
Don't get me wrong I appreciate pointless nitpicks as much as the next guy, but a non-sex offender can be re-arested. That he or she is re-arrested for a sex crime this time doesn't mean it's not a re-arrest.

[boooeee]

Don't get me wrong I appreciate pointless nitpicks as much as the next guy, but a non-sex offender can be re-arested. That he or she is re-arrested for a sex crime this time doesn't mean it's not a re-arrest.

I think his point that was that this was a pretty misleading statistic. Of course a released sex offender is more likely to me arrested for a sex crime than a released non-sex offender. In the same way that a released check forger is more likely to be arrested for check forgery than a released sex offender. That doesn't mean that check forgery has a high rate of recidivism.

Unless I am misreading the summary of the findings, the "four times as likely" statistic doesn't mean much. Here is the actual text from Dustin's link:

# Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
# The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
# Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
# Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
# Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

[volatile]

I just watched some of these episodes on YouTube. Now, don't get me wrong, most of these guys got what was coming to them and it was clear that it wasn't entrapment as I understand the term.

But could someone explain to me the legal nuances of this case?

NNtiEMIPNE4

He "chickened out", refused to go, if we believe his testimony, "several times", but the decoy encouraged him...

I have little sympathy for the guy as it was obvious he did go to that house with at least the slight thought of sleeping with a minor, but isn't the entrapment line getting a little blurred there?

[EvilSmurf]

He "chickened out", refused to go, if we believe his testimony, "several times", but the decoy encouraged him...

I have little sympathy for the guy as it was obvious he did go to that house with at least the slight thought of sleeping with a minor, but isn't the entrapment line getting a little blurred there?

His lawyer has every right to present entrapment as a defense in his trial. I don't think it will be very successful since the decoy didn't force him to drive 40 minutes to the house or anything.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't see where your link supports your numbers. Could you quote?




Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I just watched some of these episodes on YouTube. Now, don't get me wrong, most of these guys got what was coming to them and it was clear that it wasn't entrapment as I understand the term.

But could someone explain to me the legal nuances of this case?

NNtiEMIPNE4

He "chickened out", refused to go, if we believe his testimony, "several times", but the decoy encouraged him...

I have little sympathy for the guy as it was obvious he did go to that house with at least the slight thought of sleeping with a minor, but isn't the entrapment line getting a little blurred there?


No. By definition if a "reasonable person" could avoid committing a crime in those same circumstances then it's not entrapment. If a "reasonable person" would not spend several days having sexual conversations online with an underage person then it can't be entrapment no matter how much the police provide the opportunity to commit the crime.

[volatile]

No. By definition if a "reasonable person" could avoid committing a crime in those same circumstances then it's not entrapment. If a "reasonable person" would not spend several days having sexual conversations online with an underage person then it can't be entrapment no matter how much the police provide the opportunity to commit the crime.


Is that still the case even though he explicitly refused to commit the crime and the decoy encouraged him to, despite his reservations? One could argue that without the extra prompting, he never would have showed...

[quixotecoyote]

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

Yup there it is, misread your initial claim.

[Kerberos]

No. By definition if a "reasonable person" could avoid committing a crime in those same circumstances then it's not entrapment. If a "reasonable person" would not spend several days having sexual conversations online with an underage person then it can't be entrapment no matter how much the police provide the opportunity to commit the crime.

What does that mean exactly? I mean couldn't a reasonable person avoid commiting most serious crimes under most circumstances that doesn't involve putting a gun to his/her head?

ETA: I checked out an article (http://slate.msn.com/id/1003657/) from a magazine called slate, which contradicts you. It says:
In most states, a successful entrapment defense requires the defendant to prove three things:

1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.
2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime. Courts have traditionally maintained a high burden of proof for inducement. Simply affording the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime does not constitute inducement. For inducement to be proved, officers must have used coercive or persuasive tactics.
3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so. If an undercover cop bought cocaine from a person carrying a kilogram of the drug, the seller could not plead entrapment, even if coercion were involved in the sale, since his intent to sell was clear. Most courts also allow a defendant's predisposition to be demonstrated through prior conduct or reputation.

Seems to me that the case volatile mentions might meet this definition, depending on the details.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is that still the case even though he explicitly refused to commit the crime and the decoy encouraged him to, despite his reservations? One could argue that without the extra prompting, he never would have showed...


If some random person on the internet claimed to be a 13 year old girl and asked me to chat sexually with her I would simply ignore the person. I would block the person from sending me anymore messages. Maybe a stern warning about soliciting strangers online and then "click", bye-bye. That's because I'm a reasonable person.

The fact that the police prompted the person isn't relevant. Prompting is often used in police work. You have to remember that the decoy's NEVER initiate the conversations. It's always the perps.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What does that mean exactly? I mean couldn't a reasonable person avoid commiting most serious crimes under most circumstances that doesn't involve putting a gun to his/her head?

ETA: I checked out an article (http://slate.msn.com/id/1003657/) from a magazine called slate, which contradicts you. It says:
In most states, a successful entrapment defense requires the defendant to prove three things:

1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.
2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime. Courts have traditionally maintained a high burden of proof for inducement. Simply affording the defendant the opportunity to commit the crime does not constitute inducement. For inducement to be proved, officers must have used coercive or persuasive tactics.
3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so. If an undercover cop bought cocaine from a person carrying a kilogram of the drug, the seller could not plead entrapment, even if coercion were involved in the sale, since his intent to sell was clear. Most courts also allow a defendant's predisposition to be demonstrated through prior conduct or reputation.

Seems to me that the case volatile mentions might meet this definition, depending on the details.

None of those 3 criteria meet these circumstances from "TO catch a predator". The perpetrators always initiate the conversation with the decoy's. That in itself is a crime.

[Kerberos]

None of those 3 criteria meet these circumstances from "TO catch a predator". The perpetrators always initiate the conversation with the decoy's. That in itself is a crime.

More than one crime might be commited. It's probably more serious to actually go have sex with a 12 year old or whatever, than it is simply to chat about it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

More than one crime might be commited. It's probably more serious to actually go have sex with a 12 year old or whatever, than it is simply to chat about it.

That's true, but they never charged them with statutory rape.

[Piggy]

No. By definition if a "reasonable person" could avoid committing a crime in those same circumstances then it's not entrapment. If a "reasonable person" would not spend several days having sexual conversations online with an underage person then it can't be entrapment no matter how much the police provide the opportunity to commit the crime.
I think you may be slightly misunderstanding the "reasonable person" standard.

If it can be established that the defendant in this case had a sexual attraction to minors, but had no clear intent to follow up on that attraction, but was "groomed" by law enforcement (or their agents) and enticed into acting on those urges, then you have a case for entrapement.

It's like the bus stop example. Suppose I'm an ex-junkie, waiting for a bus. If an undercover cop is hanging out at the bus stop looking to get into conversations and steer those conversations toward drugs, and I happen to be there and get to talking about my experience in rehab, and he continually steers the topic back to my drug of choice and how great the high is, and despite my efforts to maintain that it's not worth it and it's best to stay clean, he continues to massage the conversation, then when no one else is around he pulls out a little bag of smack and says, "Hey, man, you can't honestly tell me you wouldn't like a little taste of this"... in that case, a good lawyer could make a pretty solid argument for entrapment.

So it's possible that, in the case of a reluctant perp in a chatroom, an argument could in fact be made that the perp was "groomed" and entrapment occurred.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think you may be slightly misunderstanding the "reasonable person" standard.

If it can be established that the defendant in this case had a sexual attraction to minors, but had no clear intent to follow up on that attraction, but was "groomed" by law enforcement (or their agents) and enticed into acting on those urges, then you have a case for entrapement.

It's like the bus stop example. Suppose I'm an ex-junkie, waiting for a bus. If an undercover cop is hanging out at the bus stop looking to get into conversations and steer those conversations toward drugs, and I happen to be there and get to talking about my experience in rehab, and he continually steers the topic back to my drug of choice and how great the high is, and despite my efforts to maintain that it's not worth it and it's best to stay clean, he continues to massage the conversation, then when no one else is around he pulls out a little bag of smack and says, "Hey, man, you can't honestly tell me you wouldn't like a little taste of this"... in that case, a good lawyer could make a pretty solid argument for entrapment.

So it's possible that, in the case of a reluctant perp in a chatroom, an argument could in fact be made that the perp was "groomed" and entrapment occurred.


Except from what I've read and heard about Dateline, They never initiate the conversations and they never initiate the direction of the conversations. The perp does it all. They just put out the bait and they bite.

[Piggy]

Except from what I've read and heard about Dateline, They never initiate the conversations and they never initiate the direction of the conversations. The perp does it all. They just put out the bait and they bite.

From the clip that was posted, I can't tell if there was entrapment in that case or not. I'd have to see the entire set of transcripts from the chatroom.

But if this guy was just out chatting, getting his jollies by some dirty talk, and in fact had declined to make a meet, but was egged on by the agent and actively encouraged to overcome his reluctance and go through with a "date", with the promise of sex... then yeah, I say the guy was entrapped.

[Segnosaur]

I said this on one of the other threads. I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to fall for this. Does anyone seriously believe 14 year old girls hang out in chat rooms looking to meet ugly old men?


You know, you do raise a good point...

These people most likely did have the intention of doing something illegal (and thus prosecution should be valid). However, how many of these guys actually had any chance of meeting a REAL 14 year old? (Did anyone from the show admit that they had previously met and had sex with 14 year olds from the internet in the past?) Or are these guys just very desparate (and pathetic), who desire to have sex with children but don't have a hope of following through?

Not that I necessarily have sympathy for these guys. But, law enforcement resources are not unlimited, and time spend going after the people who may have the desire but no real opportunity to engage in illegal activity means less time available to go after the more dangerous criminals (including sex offenders and others).

[latent aaaack]

Is anyone else concerned at what this show says about our culture, that on a major news network one of the most invested-in prime time shows is basically a public pillory who's only point is directing attention and generating hatred towards criminals? This kind of show has migrated beyond fox (Cops, which I like) where it was unabashedly presented as a form of entertainment, to an actual news channel where it's presented as some kind of investigative journalism. It's not investigative journalism and doesn't give the viewer any additional info about their world at all, but instead does the job of law enforcement and is furthering the roman colosseum type of atmosphere that's taking over most media.

[nicepants]

Pretending to be a kid in a chat room and doing nothing to initiate a meet up is not entrapment. thats the great thing about perverted justice. they just sit there in local chats, and pervs do all the rest. The perverts have to iniate the meet ups and sexual talk, otherwise they wont be arrested, so pj does a lot to make sure that they can get these people arrested.

Here's the thing that gets me. It's illegal to have an explicit conversation with a minor, right? Is that what these guys are being busted on? Because regardless of what the profile said, they were chatting with a decoy, not a minor. Perhaps if the law was intent.

The other thing, in some cases the police are going to the houses of the perps, and arresting the ones who didn't show up! This doesn't sound quite right to me.

[EvilSmurf]

Here's the thing that gets me. It's illegal to have an explicit conversation with a minor, right? Is that what these guys are being busted on? Because regardless of what the profile said, they were chatting with a decoy, not a minor. Perhaps if the law was intent.

The other thing, in some cases the police are going to the houses of the perps, and arresting the ones who didn't show up! This doesn't sound quite right to me.

The laws are clear. They are written with language to the effect of "a minor, or someone the perpetrator believes to be a minor". By your logic police wouldn't be able to conduct prostitution stings, since the women are cops, not really prostitutes or drug stings since it's not actually marijuana, it's oregano etc.

[nicepants]

The laws are clear. They are written with language to the effect of "a minor, or someone the perpetrator believes to be a minor". By your logic police wouldn't be able to conduct prostitution stings, since the women are cops, not really prostitutes or drug stings since it's not actually marijuana, it's oregano etc.

If it's about belief, then I understand...however

If a cop hits me up online and offers to sell me marijuana, and I agree to meet said cop for the purchase, but never actually go, I don't think there's any case for an arrest, yet that's what's happening to some of these guys (the ones who didn't ever leave their homes)

[EvilSmurf]

And by your logic, if a cop hits me up online and offers to sell me marijuana, and I agree to meet said cop for the purchase, but never actually go, I could be arrested since I said I would in the chat.
From The FAQ of Perverted Justice
To the people who like to make that claim, let's deal with an analogy real quick. Pretend that there is a twelve year old sitting in a park dancing around and asking older males for sex. Yes, that extreme of a situation. What should the male say? Yes, or no? Is the prospect of an underage kid so irresistible that we now consider a willing underage kid to be so persuasive that a male can't do anything but say yes? Get real.

So are the files we post "entrapment"? No. Not on any level. First, entrapment is a term created and judiciated against law enforcement officials. We are not law enforcement officials. Secondly, these people IM our names first. We don't IM them. They choose to say the things they say, to agree to the things they agree to, and to give their phone number for the verification call. Entrapment is a situation where you go out of your way to entice a citizen as law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise would not commit. For example, if a department sent around female police pretending to be prostitutes to knock on the doors of private citizens offering sex, that's entrapment. We don't do the figurative "knocking on doors." Rather we sit, wait, and allow them to knock upon our online "door." And when they do, they're in for a surprise. As the law states regarding entrapment, the defense fails when it can be shown that the person being charged had a predisposition to the crime in question. Nobody can argue who knows anything about the law in any honest fashion that those we get arrested are not predisposed to attempting the crime they do.

[Segnosaur]

The laws are clear. They are written with language to the effect of "a minor, or someone the perpetrator believes to be a minor".

In that case, how do you know someone who engages in such a chat actually believes the person is really a minor?

Remember the old saying... "On the internet, nobody really knows your a dog". A person could end up talking with someone posing with a minor, and suspending their disbelief for the purpose of engaging in fantasy. The fact that they didn't follow through should be an indication that they strongly believed the person was an adult (although not necessarily a cop) and played along for fun.

[King of the Americas]

WHAT IF...

A 20 year old shows up, AFTER pretending to be a 53 year old male online, and says to the actress, "How old are you really?"

Then he begins to state his case, "I 'thought' this was a whole fantasy thing, and never thought any of it was real. I thought the person I was online with was doing the same thing 'I' was, pretending to be someone I wasn't."

The he says, if I'd KNOWN that it was a 13f I was talking with, I wouldn't have done it. I only took part in this because I thought it was someone PRETENDING to be a minor...!?!?

---

I gotta say, I think it would be difficult to make a case against ME, if 'I' were to stumble into such a mess.

I mean, if there was no 'actual' minor involved in ANY of the things I was envoloved with, then how can you be charged with the intent to violate a minor? If thereis no minor, how can there be a crime?

[Billdave2]

The thing that really bothers me about these stings is that they are drawing all these predators to somebody's neighborhood. Do you think they go door to door and say "Hey we are going to be luring perverts to your neighbors house to arrest them, you might want to keep your kids inside for awhile"? I am just waiting for one of these creeps to go to the wrong house and some tragedy occur.

[King of the Americas]

WHAT IF...

A 20 year old shows up, AFTER pretending to be a 53 year old male online, and says to the actress, "How old are you really?"

Then he begins to state his case, "I 'thought' this was a whole fantasy thing, and never thought any of it was real. I thought the person I was online with was doing the same thing 'I' was, pretending to be someone I wasn't."

The he says, if I'd KNOWN that it was a 13f I was talking with, I wouldn't have done it. I only took part in this because I thought it was someone PRETENDING to be a minor...!?!?

---

I gotta say, I think it would be difficult to make a case against ME, if 'I' were to stumble into such a mess.

I mean, if there was no 'actual' minor involved in ANY of the things I was envoloved with, then how can you be charged with the intent to violate a minor? If thereis no minor, how can there be a crime?

[Segnosaur]

WHAT IF...

A 20 year old shows up, AFTER pretending to be a 53 year old male online, and says to the actress, "How old are you really?"

Then he begins to state his case, "I 'thought' this was a whole fantasy thing, and never thought any of it was real. I thought the person I was online with was doing the same thing 'I' was, pretending to be someone I wasn't."

The he says, if I'd KNOWN that it was a 13f I was talking with, I wouldn't have done it. I only took part in this because I thought it was someone PRETENDING to be a minor...!?!?

Not sure if it would work... The fact that he actually took the effort to meet means that he was sufficiently interested in going outside 'fantasy'. If they claimed they thought the person wasn't a minor, then they'd have to also justify who they thought they were talking to (given the fact that the '13 year old girl' could not only be of the wrong age, but also the wrong sex.) Could they honestly claim "I didn't think it was really a 13 year old girl, but I also didn't think it was a 50 year old guy, or 90 year old grandmother'.

Either that, or the suspect would have to be very un-pickey about who they are interested in.

[Lisa Simpson]

I don't think it matters what you are pretending to be. Once you start talking dirty with someone that appears to be underage, you are in trouble.

[nicepants]

Not sure if it would work... The fact that he actually took the effort to meet means that he was sufficiently interested in going outside 'fantasy'. If they claimed they thought the person wasn't a minor, then they'd have to also justify who they thought they were talking to (given the fact that the '13 year old girl' could not only be of the wrong age, but also the wrong sex.) Could they honestly claim "I didn't think it was really a 13 year old girl, but I also didn't think it was a 50 year old guy, or 90 year old grandmother'.

Either that, or the suspect would have to be very un-pickey about who they are interested in.

But if they didn't even show....I have a hard time with that.

[Segnosaur]

I don't think it matters what you are pretending to be. Once you start talking dirty with someone that appears to be underage, you are in trouble.

That is definitely true. I wouldn't be suprised if people get convicted simply because the 'fantasies' they have are so repulsive to the average civilized person.

Of course, the question is:

- Rationally (despite what the law says), should the person be in trouble

[Segnosaur]

Not sure if it would work... The fact that he actually took the effort to meet means that he was sufficiently interested in going outside 'fantasy'. If they claimed they thought the person wasn't a minor, then they'd have to also justify who they thought they were talking to ...
But if they didn't even show....I have a hard time with that.

True... but I think KotA was referring to a specific case... where someone DOES show up, but claims he met because he was still assuming it was "just a fantasy" (based in part because they lied about their own age).

[volatile]

There's also the added issue that at least one of the perps featured in the TCAP episodes claims he was wary of coming, but that the "minor" encouraged him to come meet her when he got cold feet, and even to engage in sexual discussions in the first place.

That really does start to seem like entrapment to me.

There are a lot of these on YouTube for anyone interested.

[quixotecoyote]

Some of them do border on entrapment, but good luck making that defense if you're a pedophile.

I do not understand how they can arrest people who didn't show up, unless there going for 'lewd acts' or some similar BS.

[King of the Americas]

What if the person showed up and said, "I KNEW I wasn't speaking with a REAL 13f, that is why I said those things. I'd never say those things to a REAL 13f...!"

I mean, the guy was correct the whole time, there was NEVER a 13f, to begin with.

How could he be charged, if everyone involved was lying, and KNEW the other was lying???

And what of my original point of, how can there be a crime against a minor, if there was NO MINOR involved from the start???

[Lisa Simpson]

Some of them do border on entrapment, but good luck making that defense if you're a pedophile.

I do not understand how they can arrest people who didn't show up, unless there going for 'lewd acts' or some similar BS.

Their argument is since the men have to get in their car and drive to the location, they are not entrapped. They could have turned around at any point. I think in one episode though, state law said that just talking dirty was a crime and didn't have to show up or enter the house. It probably differs from state-to-state how far the men have to go for it to be a crime.

[nicepants]

Their argument is since the men have to get in their car and drive to the location, they are not entrapped. They could have turned around at any point. I think in one episode though, state law said that just talking dirty was a crime and didn't have to show up or enter the house. It probably differs from state-to-state how far the men have to go for it to be a crime.

Not quite at ANY point. Some of them turn around before reaching the house, or drive by it without stopping. They are then pulled over and arrested.

[Beth]

Interestingly enough, an in-law of one of my in-laws got caught up in something similiar. I'm not sure what the on-line conversations consisted of, but he did agree to meet an underage girl. He was in his late teens at the time, so it didn't seem creepy to me that he was interested in a 14 year old. After he drove to the location, for some reason he decided against stopping and started to drive away. It was a cul-de-sac and the police stopped him from leaving and arrested him. I think he eventually got off, but it cost his dad and step-dad something like $80,000 in legal fees. I don't know, but it doesn't seem like he was much of a danger to anyone and arresting someone for driving to the location but not stopping seems completely wrong but totally in line with arresting the guys who don't show up.

[slingblade]

KotA, I watched the latest Dateline last night, which they did in New Jersey.

The chats are available at Perverted Justice. If you have the stomach for it, you can read them.

And they depict portions of the chats on the broadcast. Often, the men will ask, sometimes repeatedly, "Are you really 14?" The decoy always insists he or she is, indeed, that age.

The police read the chat logs, often viewing the chats in progress. If they thought the guy was "just fantasizing with a fellow consenting adult," why would they even try to arrest him? If that were provable from the chat, the case would be thrown out, so why bother?

Besides, that isn't their excuse. Last night, I don't think many of the men tried to claim they didn't know she was a kid. Maybe a couple, but they dropped that like a hot rock as soon as they were told "but we have the chat logs. We know you thought she was 14." The most common excuse was "we were just talking--I would never really do any of that."

Which is why in some states, it is illegal to even "just talk" about having sex with a minor, or someone you think or believe is a minor.

[Art Vandelay]

I wonder if there's a distinction between talking with a minor about having sex, and talking about having sex with a minor. That is, if I meet a seventeen year old girl on the internet, and I make arrangements to have sex with her after her next birthday, is that illegal?

[EvilSmurf]

I wonder if there's a distinction between talking with a minor about having sex, and talking about having sex with a minor.

Yes, there is a big distinction there Art.

[strathmeyer]

Some points of fact:

There are attempted crimes: when a police officer sells someone a bag of flour, it is attempted drug possession. When someone shoots a dead body they think is alive, it is attempted murder.

A number of stings will involve a minor in some way, such as typing out a sentence and getting the minor to hit enter; haven't hear about this recently or involving what is currently being discussed.

Corruption of a minor is a crime.

[EvilSmurf]

Some points of fact:

There are attempted crimes: when a police officer sells someone a bag of flour, it is attempted drug possession. When someone shoots a dead body they think is alive, it is attempted murder.

A number of stings will involve a minor in some way, such as typing out a sentence and getting the minor to hit enter; haven't hear about this recently or involving what is currently being discussed.

Corruption of a minor is a crime.

AFAIK The Dateline stings do not involve minors in any way.

[King of the Americas]

slingblade,

In the example I present, BOTH chatters are lying, and while both also know the othe ris lying, neither says anything in the chat about it, that's what makes the fantasy feel real. Everyone stays in character...

Upon arrival, the 21 yea old who was pretending to be 53, asks the decoy, "How old are you really?"

Out comes Chris Hansen, "Why don't you have a seat? Who are you hear to meet?" he begins.

"A 19 year old pretending to be a 13.", the preditor responds.

"Wait, a second, here in the chat logs, it shows you to believe she is 13?", Mr. Hansen retorts.

"It also show that I am 53, which I am not, also. I thought this was a fantas sex set-up, where everone pretends to be someone they aren't!? Am I wrong? Was that REALLY a 13f, I was talking to!?!?"

---

This show constantly blows my mind.

There isn't just 'one kind' of preditor that shows up, from one age group. Doctors, police men, firemen, you name the occupation, they have shown up. Many of them saying, "I knew this was a set-up, I kept telling myself that all the way here."

Which tells me, that this is the one thing that a lot of men just CAN'T TURN DOWN, even under the threat of arrest.

If a teenage girl shows an interest in giving her virginity to you, men leap at the chance, from 20-53 (53 was the oldest guy I have seen show up).


Let this be a lesson, if a 'girl' wants to have sex with you, tell on her, and call her the little trap-ladden hussy that she is! If fact, accuse her of being an undercover cop, and run away and tell other people who and what she is.

Just recently, an old school chum of mine was dismissed from his position, as an instructor, at our home town private school.

It seems that one of his previous student's 'friend' reported to her counselor that her friend had a sexually inaproperiate relationship with this teacher. The Diocese reported it to his current employer, who asked him if it was true, to which he answered, "Yes." And was thereby dismissed.

This guy was a 'good guy' growing up. I played against him and with him, on several sports teams, card games, rolling dice. This guy didn't cheat, and was always one to help a guy out, and never one to kick him while he was down. He would often times volunteer for the job no one else wanted to do, and he was involved in church work, being an alter boy, not unlike me.

I respect this guy, and would put him on my list of nobel people in my life...

And then this???

I seriously think there MUST be some temptations, that people just can't pass up.

[MortFurd]

King of the Americas:
There's a LOT of things I couldn't pass up. Sex with an underaged girl is one of the ones I sure as hell WOULD pass up.

The guys doing this have something wrong with them that they can't pass it by. That's wrong. They go looking for opportunities, and that's worse. They think to themselves "it's got to be a setup," and go anyway. That isn't just perverted, it's stupid.

[King of the Americas]

Look, I agree with you.

Stupid, perverted, totally brainless move, you name it...

And yet, these people are EVERYWHERE, they are teachers, soliders, ministers, doctors, and even cops!

I think more people are capable of this, than anyone knows or thinks...

[Segnosaur]

In the example I present, BOTH chatters are lying, and while both also know the othe ris lying, neither says anything in the chat about it, that's what makes the fantasy feel real. Everyone stays in character...

Upon arrival, the 21 yea old who was pretending to be 53, asks the decoy, "How old are you really?"

Out comes Chris Hansen, "Why don't you have a seat? Who are you hear to meet?" he begins.

"A 19 year old pretending to be a 13.", the preditor responds.

Again, the problem with your argument is that he'd have to justify why he believed the girl was 19 (as opposed to a 50 year old male construction worker named Bubba or a 65 year old grandmother, or whatever). Claiming you thought the person was 19 was a pretty big assumption.

As for the guy lying about being 53 instead of 21, the prosecution could point out that such lies are used by guys all the time... men often claim to be older/younger/etc. in hopes that by the time they meet the person will overlook the lie.

[skeptifem]

Interestingly enough, an in-law of one of my in-laws got caught up in something similiar. I'm not sure what the on-line conversations consisted of, but he did agree to meet an underage girl. He was in his late teens at the time, so it didn't seem creepy to me that he was interested in a 14 year old.


i find that very creepy. a 14 year old is in friggin middle school, barely past puberty (if they have hit puberty at all). ew.

[New Ager]

(Number Six)

They all say they've never done it before and that they weren't going to do anything and I feel bad the small percentage for which that is true but I suspect that most of them have every intention of doing something and many have probably done it before.

(New Ager)

It is immaterial if they weren't going to do anything. By saying sexually explicit things, sending pictures and arranging to meet, they have already broken the law.

They don't have to show up or doing anything and they will still be arrested.

[Dorian Gray]

In the first two shows, Perverted Justice didn't even involve law enforcement of any kind. Perverted Justice members get the perp's phone number, name, address and other data and then proceed to harass them mercilessly.

Later, when Perverted Justice started involving police, it was just to cold-call them like you would if you saw a crime in progress. The harassments still go on. And the final straw is that Dateline pays Perverted Justice $100k per show. They are far more than just reporters on this. And in one show, Perverted Justice members were temporarily deputized by the local police force, so not only were they fake cops, but they were cops being paid by Dateline.

The bustage is like this: over 1100 men caught; 42 convictions. Nice record, huh. It's because evidence is thrown out constantly because P-J doesn't conduct their operations with an eye to proper evidence collection.

[Solus]

I do like seeing those guys arrested though. No mercy should be given to men who plan to take advantage of a young immature teenager.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

i find that very creepy. a 14 year old is in friggin middle school, barely past puberty (if they have hit puberty at all). ew.

Well a 14 year old and an 18 year old isn't that big of a deal. It's true that 4 years is a fairly large difference as a teenager but it's not that extreme.

[Checkmite]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the Dateline shows. A lot of people talk about 'entrapment', but to my knowledge no actual court has ever dismissed a Dateline case on entrapment grounds.

[latent aaaack]

While nothing it's doing is illegal, if news outlets keep increasing the percentage of their output that is entertainment and not news then it should be made illegal. If Cheney commanded news outlets to have a certain high percentage of their news stories be entertainment and for their news coverage to be insufficiently informative (70% of people believing Saddam involved in 9/11) under threat of being forced to if they didn't comply, that would be a crime. News networks voluntarily doing that should, past a certain debatable point, be also made a crime. I certainly don't have a problem with depraved broadcasting but for it to be on at prime time on the third most watched news network is a different issue.

[skeptifem]

In the first two shows, Perverted Justice didn't even involve law enforcement of any kind. Perverted Justice members get the perp's phone number, name, address and other data and then proceed to harass them mercilessly.

Later, when Perverted Justice started involving police, it was just to cold-call them like you would if you saw a crime in progress. The harassments still go on. And the final straw is that Dateline pays Perverted Justice $100k per show. They are far more than just reporters on this. And in one show, Perverted Justice members were temporarily deputized by the local police force, so not only were they fake cops, but they were cops being paid by Dateline.

The bustage is like this: over 1100 men caught; 42 convictions. Nice record, huh. It's because evidence is thrown out constantly because P-J doesn't conduct their operations with an eye to proper evidence collection.

evidence?

[New Ager]

(Aaaack)

While nothing it's doing is illegal, if news outlets keep increasing the percentage of their output that is entertainment and not news then it should be made illegal.

(New Ager)

Are you nuts? Networks should be able to decide the percentage of news and entertainment they want.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

(Aaaack)

While nothing it's doing is illegal, if news outlets keep increasing the percentage of their output that is entertainment and not news then it should be made illegal.

(New Ager)

Are you nuts? Networks should be able to decide the percentage of news and entertainment they want.

You quote by hitting the "quote" button below the specific post of whomever you're choosing to quote. Then just type your message below the "[/quote]" placed right after their message.

[slingblade]

slingblade,

In the example I present, BOTH chatters are lying, and while both also know the othe ris lying, neither says anything in the chat about it, that's what makes the fantasy feel real. Everyone stays in character...

Upon arrival, the 21 yea old who was pretending to be 53, asks the decoy, "How old are you really?"

Out comes Chris Hansen, "Why don't you have a seat? Who are you hear to meet?" he begins.

"A 19 year old pretending to be a 13.", the preditor responds.

"Wait, a second, here in the chat logs, it shows you to believe she is 13?", Mr. Hansen retorts.

"It also show that I am 53, which I am not, also. I thought this was a fantas sex set-up, where everone pretends to be someone they aren't!? Am I wrong? Was that REALLY a 13f, I was talking to!?!?"

I'm no lawyer, but I'm betting that unless the chat logs show the two of you clearly established your actual ages (even if she lied about it) before engaging in your "fantasy," your reasoning wouldn't stand in court.

If the chat shows that she never once hinted, intimated, suggested, or said she was anything but a minor, you lose.

[Overman]

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0093773/6098_16_19.jpg

[Lisa Simpson]

In the first two shows, Perverted Justice didn't even involve law enforcement of any kind. Perverted Justice members get the perp's phone number, name, address and other data and then proceed to harass them mercilessly.

From Perverted Justice's website:

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Absolutely not. No. I cannot put into terms how much we DO NOT support violence against anyone we post here. We do not support vigilantism of that sort, we do not condone it, we condemn it. We are civilized individuals and you can do more with the power of scorn than you can of fists. We do not support any type of violence of any kind used against anyone we have posted here, nor do we support harassment of any kind. We never will, and anyone construing us to support violence would be a baldfaced liar who doesn't understand the point of this site.

We are proud of our record on this matter. In nearly three years, there has not been one reported act of violence against the people we post. The only documented legal record of note saw a Minnesota judge throw out the claim of Minnesotan Thomas Cison that site volunteers harassed him and his family. Our track record really illustrates how against violence we are, and how what we do isn't harassment. Claims to the contrary are groundless as our track record is pristine.

Later, when Perverted Justice started involving police, it was just to cold-call them like you would if you saw a crime in progress. The harassments still go on. And the final straw is that Dateline pays Perverted Justice $100k per show. They are far more than just reporters on this. And in one show, Perverted Justice members were temporarily deputized by the local police force, so not only were they fake cops, but they were cops being paid by Dateline.

Again, from their website:

Yep, we do. When you watch the "To Catch a Predator" stings, you're not watching to hear about us. We're not the focus of the story. We haven't been the focus of the story since the first episode of TCAP. The story on To Catch a Predator is... catching predators and who they are, not who we are. We did the first three TCAP's without a consulting fee. Then we realized a few things...

"Hey, we can't keep our site up and we're all barely scraping by month to month."
"Hey, we're not the story."
"Hey, every TCAP that airs, we get deluged with hits and we don't have the staff to grow."
"Hey, everyone else, from the police arresting the predators to the cameraman operating the surveillance to the security protecting Chris Hansen to Chris Hansen himself to the movers of all the gear to the producers on scene to the person who owns the house to... well, everyone except ourselves and the predators are being compensated for this massive amount of effort."

After we realized all these facts, we did what any sane people would, negotiated for a consulting fee. We're not the story and our work is world-class quality. That doesn't mean that all we do are stings with Dateline, we do just as many police stings WITHOUT Dateline that we do with them... and nobody gives us a dime in regards to those stings.

Still not convinced? Consider the fact that for the first three years of the website, we didn't take in a dime, not from media nor from donations.

The bustage is like this: over 1100 men caught; 42 convictions. Nice record, huh. It's because evidence is thrown out constantly because P-J doesn't conduct their operations with an eye to proper evidence collection.

According to their front page, they have 203 convictions. That's way more than 42.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There's also the added issue that at least one of the perps featured in the TCAP episodes claims he was wary of coming, but that the "minor" encouraged him to come meet her when he got cold feet, and even to engage in sexual discussions in the first place.

That really does start to seem like entrapment to me.

That's what judges and juries are for.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The bustage is like this: over 1100 men caught; 42 convictions. Nice record, huh. It's because evidence is thrown out constantly because P-J doesn't conduct their operations with an eye to proper evidence collection.

How many aquitals? Because I suspect a large number of those 1100 are still making their way through the courts.

[Dorian Gray]

From Perverted Justice's website:
Again, from their website:
According to their front page, they have 203 convictions. That's way more than 42.
Next on Lisa Simpson News - we ask criminals in prison if they are guilty, and later we ask OJ if he killed his wife.

Please.
Quote:
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Absolutely not. No. I cannot put into terms how much we DO NOT support violence against anyone we post here. We do not support vigilantism of that sort, we do not condone it, we condemn it. We are civilized individuals and you can do more with the power of scorn than you can of fists. We do not support any type of violence of any kind used against anyone we have posted here, nor do we support harassment of any kind. We never will, and anyone construing us to support violence would be a baldfaced liar who doesn't understand the point of this site.

We are proud of our record on this matter. In nearly three years, there has not been one reported act of violence against the people we post. The only documented legal record of note saw a Minnesota judge throw out the claim of Minnesotan Thomas Cison that site volunteers harassed him and his family. Our track record really illustrates how against violence we are, and how what we do isn't harassment. Claims to the contrary are groundless as our track record is pristine. Okay, let's see - pristine track record:
http://www.chatmag.com/news/060607-judgement-against-perverted-justice.html
New Mexico – In a decision issued on December 27, 2006 by the U.S. District Court for the district of New Mexico, a default judgment was awarded against Phillip John Eide a.k.a. Xavier Von Erck, and the vigilante group Perverted-Justice.com and 60 of its volunteers on behalf of Taylor Marcell, a resident of New Mexico.

The eight-count civil lawsuit against Eide was launched by Marcell after he was targeted in an harassment campaign by Perverted-Justice in February of 2004. The lawsuit (a number of the court documents may be viewed below) cites a number of complaints against perverted-justice, including infliction of emotional distress, defamation, interference with contractual relations, violation of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) act, and violation of the New Mexico fair practices act.

In the complaint, Marcell states that mass e-mails sent by Perverted-Justice staff and volunteers to his employer, Eastern New Mexico University in Portale accusing him of being a "wannabe pedophile" resulted in "considerable distress" and "ultimately lead to the non-renewal of his contract with E.N.M.U." I never said they were violent, and that's a strawman. They absolutely DO harass people. In fact, that's what they did for years before they ever involved the police - collect information on people and use it to harass them. They harassedthis guy (http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice7.html) and got him fired, even though a police officer said ""This is more of a lonely guy than anything else," says Detective James McLaughlin, a nationally known cybercrimes expert who agreed to look at Doe's chat transcript.

...

Of Doe's transcript, he says, "I wouldn't even issue a subpoena for subsequent information, let alone make an arrest. His statements don't have the specificity that I'd be comfortable with. And he even makes some references to not wanting to have sex. That's a death knell for an investigation.""

Perverted Justice mishandles evidence it collects, publicizing it and posting chat transcripts, etc. It also commits the very act it purports to be preventing (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/10382/detail/).
Information uncovered, and subsequently turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and to other law enforcement agencies by http://www.corrupted-justice.com (an civil rights/anti-vigilante website, who has been investigating perverted-justice.com for over a year), shows that the owner of perverted-justice.com (Xavier Von Erck) has not only corrupted the morals of several minors at his site, but that he has exploited at least one minor.

Satine, a "PeeJ" contributor, who uses the line "Mrs. Von Erck", was only 16 years old when Xavier and the (at that time) co-owner Frank Fencepost was having her have hardcore sexual chats with men in their 20's and 30's, and even possibly having her watch these men masturbate on webcam in order to post it on the front page of perverted-justice.com. She was a 16 year old child when she did her first "bust". The Federal satutes state that a person is a minor until the legal age of 18. Having Satine do that would, by Federal standards, be considered the exploitation of a minor, if I am interpreting the law correctly. Satine's birthdate is: July 16, 1985 and her first "bust" was on January 1, 2002 (it was saved as an HTML file and turned over to authorities).

Further, there is information collected from the perverted-justice.com forums which indicates there are many more minors (Erika, from Canada, was 15 when she became online friends with Xavier Von Erck (owner of perverted-justice.com) and 16 when she started to help out at PeeJ). Crowgirl09 is currently a 14 year old who contacts dangerous predators for perverted-justice and harasses them. Geris was 13 and involved in a "sex" thread on the PeeJ forums in which they were discussing the taste of semen. There are many more minors involved on the PeeJ forums.

It is believed that by having hardcore sex chats, and photos of the "busts" masturbating on webcam (which are also posted at perverted-justice, in some of the main chats) and knowing minors are there reading this, this could be legally considered corruption of the morals of minors.

Pedophiles and sexual predators are bad. Perverted Justice does not help in preventing it, and in fact, commits crimes itself while not reducing crime with its tactics.

[Dorian Gray]

How many aquitals? Because I suspect a large number of those 1100 are still making their way through the courts.The majority were never arrested, because Perverted Justice failed to involve law enforcement. In fact, the first two episodes of To Catch A Predator were done entirely without police involvement. After they humiliated the people on TV, they simply let them go.

If a group really wants to help catch sexual predators, they need to involve law enforcement every step of the way, from setup to proper training to evidence-gathering to procedure. Perverted Justice doesn't do this.

[EvilSmurf]

Next on Lisa Simpson News - we ask criminals in prison if they are guilty, and later we ask OJ if he killed his wife.

Please.
Okay, let's see - pristine track record:
http://www.chatmag.com/news/060607-judgement-against-perverted-justice.html
I never said they were violent, and that's a strawman. They absolutely DO harass people. In fact, that's what they did for years before they ever involved the police - collect information on people and use it to harass them. They harassedthis guy (http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice7.html) and got him fired, even though a police officer said ""This is more of a lonely guy than anything else," says Detective James McLaughlin, a nationally known cybercrimes expert who agreed to look at Doe's chat transcript.

...

Of Doe's transcript, he says, "I wouldn't even issue a subpoena for subsequent information, let alone make an arrest. His statements don't have the specificity that I'd be comfortable with. And he even makes some references to not wanting to have sex. That's a death knell for an investigation.""

Perverted Justice mishandles evidence it collects, publicizing it and posting chat transcripts, etc. It also commits the very act it purports to be preventing (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/10382/detail/).


Pedophiles and sexual predators are bad. Perverted Justice does not help in preventing it, and in fact, commits crimes itself while not reducing crime with its tactics.

If these allegations were true why would they have more than 200 convictions?

The majority were never arrested, because Perverted Justice failed to involve law enforcement. In fact, the first two episodes of To Catch A Predator were done entirely without police involvement. After they humiliated the people on TV, they simply let them go.

If a group really wants to help catch sexual predators, they need to involve law enforcement every step of the way, from setup to proper training to evidence-gathering to procedure. Perverted Justice doesn't do this.

Again, they DO involve law enforcement. 200+ convictions. Who are those cops standing outside dateline houses? Wouldn't they be Law Enforcement? And finally, w/r/t training PERVERTED JUSTICE TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT! check their main page (http://www.perverted-justice.com/) it's about the 3rd or 4th item down. Then check the snapshots on the bottom of the page. It looks like there's a lotta law enforcement there.

Read this (http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=35694) article from Law Enforcement Technology magazine while you're at it.

[Checkmite]

The majority were never arrested, because Perverted Justice failed to involve law enforcement. In fact, the first two episodes of To Catch A Predator were done entirely without police involvement. After they humiliated the people on TV, they simply let them go.

If a group really wants to help catch sexual predators, they need to involve law enforcement every step of the way, from setup to proper training to evidence-gathering to procedure. Perverted Justice doesn't do this.

The Perverted Justice stings ostensibly act as a deterrent. If a predator is made nervous that any given minor on the net might really be an adult or law enforcement officer who would bust them, they would be less likely to engage in grooming activity.

[Dorian Gray]

If these allegations were true why would they have more than 200 convictions? Hint: Your source for the claim that Perverted Justice has more than 200 convictions is.... Perverted Justice.

Next up on EvilSmurf Tonight: Bush says 'Mission Accomplished!'

Again, they DO involve law enforcement. 200+ convictions. Who are those cops standing outside dateline houses? Hint: TV shows can be edited. Perverted Justice up until they started getting paid by NBC (!) baited the predator, got confirmation that he was coming, and then called the cops! That's not what I mean by 'involve law enforcement.'

See, from the article you wanted me to read?
"Sometimes it was a fine line," Burns admits. "But they provided us with 140 people they were chatting with after 10 days, with possibilities of showing up for a meeting. There's no way a department five times our size could have done that." PJ does everything, then cold-calls the cops.

[ambrose]

There has to be some sort of legal issue involved if, say, a guy shows up, his case is either thrown out or he is acquitted, and then Dateline puts his image on the TV anyway, without consent. Or if Dateline shows footage of him prior to the trial without consent.

If it is with consent, than those guys are morons. Well, they're morons anyway (and despicable).

I also wonder how often in real life 14 year old girls actually agree to meet with 53 year olds. You know it happens, but I'd be a little surprised that it happens with much regularity. I'd like to see numbers on it, because, yes these are bad people but if they never would have committed a crime had this show not been on, that's something. Not that I have any sympathy for the perp, but I do feel sorry for that person's family if suddenly the breadwinner is carted off to jail for a crime he never would have had the opportunity to commit in real life.

That said, if 14 yr olds meet with 53 year olds frequently, then this show is doing a tremendous service for society.

EDIT: Meant to say "have all the people on the show been found guilty" in the topic.

[EvilSmurf]

EDIT: Meant to say "have all the people on the show been found guilty" in the topic.

As far as I know (and my knowledge is limited) there have been 0 acquittals of any of the men who have showed up to a house featured on To Catch A Predator. However, many of the cases even from the Riverside, California episode (which was more than a year ago) are still awaiting trial.

[slingblade]

There has to be some sort of legal issue involved if, say, a guy shows up, his case is either thrown out or he is acquitted, and then Dateline puts his image on the TV anyway, without consent. Or if Dateline shows footage of him prior to the trial without consent.

You'd think so--I'd think so. But Denver had a program in place in which they'd publish in the paper the names and photographs of (mostly) men who had been arrested for soliciting a prostitute.

No one had been convicted or found guilty of anything, yet. Just arrested. I've not figured out how that could possibly be legal.

[fishbait]

You'd think so--I'd think so. But Denver had a program in place in which they'd publish in the paper the names and photographs of (mostly) men who had been arrested for soliciting a prostitute.

No one had been convicted or found guilty of anything, yet. Just arrested. I've not figured out how that could possibly be legal.Be thankful that it is legal to publish arrest facts.

When someone is arrested, that fact becomes public information. Many newspapers have a "Police Blotter" type page where arrested people are identified. They are merely publishing a fact that is, under law, public information.

Governments that keep their arrests secret are the ones to fear.

[King of the Americas]

I really DON'T believe there are a lot of 12-16 year olds, out there on the net looking to have sex with a older men.

Moreover, I'd bet dollars to donuts that well over 70% of 18+ men who were solicited by a minor to "take their virginity", would leap at the opportunity, EVEN IF they thought it could mean jail time...

There are some crimes, that are worth the time, so it would seem.

[Number Six]

I really DON'T believe there are a lot of 12-16 year olds, out there on the net looking to have sex with a older men.

Moreover, I'd bet dollars to donuts that well over 70% of 18+ men who were solicited by a minor to "take their virginity", would leap at the opportunity, EVEN IF they thought it could mean jail time...

There are some crimes, that are worth the time, so it would seem.

Granted men are pigs sometimes, but I think the 70% number is way, way too high. I think that even if they knew with certainty they wouldn't get caught, not nearly 70% of men 18+ would do it. Maybe if you limited to 18-25 year old men and made the minor girl 15-17 years old, then perhaps you'd get up to 70% of the men saying yes.

Also, I'm not sure if you mean to imply that the minors were soliciting the old guys on Dateline, but just to be clear, they weren't.

Finally, while I think the guys on Dateline got their comeuppance, I am beginning to feel slightly bad for them that the shows they were on did just air a couple times on TV but rather many, many times. They're on MSNBC very often. Maybe nobody gets MSNBC so it doesn't matter. But anyway, I feel a bit bad that these guys are being shown on TV over and over and yet when I see it on MSNBC I usually stop and watch. It just fascinates me for some reason. It is so well planned by Dateline that it just amazes me.

[King of the Americas]

I don't know, man...

The guys who show up at the Dateline house are from every age group, race, religion, and job title.

When it comes to virgins, a LOT of men are apparently willing to risk life and limb for just the opportunity to see if the offer is for real or not.

I think there is some kind of survival of the species thing going on here.

When confronted with the opportunity to breed with a young willing & able female, men lose any sense of reason.

My neighborhood had a dog like that, this male dog would come by neighbor's house every time his bitch went into heat. He beat that dog everytime he found him in his yard. He even shot at him with a sling shot and rubber ball, that sent the dog home yelping. Guess who showed up when his dog went into heat again?

Yep, it was that same damn horny dog, willing to risk sincere pain, literally for a piece of tail.

I think the Mormons understand the nature of male sexuality, better than the rest of us. Within their order, sex with a young virgin is considered a status symbol.

[blndrhed]

I don't consider it "entrapment" as much as blatant exploitation and in bad taste.
It's a sign of the downward spiral of American Culture. A perfect example of "ambush journalism". These tactics need to be left to law enforcement, with plenty of oversight, because I think it's a dangerous territory as far as entrapment laws go. I don't watch the show because it tends to turn my stomach to watch this going on. The network should feel as bad as the twisted freaks they are exploiting.

[strathmeyer]

How come nobody has gotten a 15 year old to pretend to be a 40 year old and have some illicit chats with these people? I know I was savvy enough to have done this when I was 15. (Not to mention all the time I spent in chat rooms not being solicited.) Ahhh, I wasted my youth...

[volatile]

How come nobody has gotten a 15 year old to pretend to be a 40 year old and have some illicit chats with these people? I know I was savvy enough to have done this when I was 15. (Not to mention all the time I spent in chat rooms not being solicited.) Ahhh, I wasted my youth...

Because soliciting a minor for sex is illegal even if you're a minor yourself?

[money]

I think the Mormons understand the nature of male sexuality, better than the rest of us. Within their order, sex with a young virgin is considered a status symbol.

wtf are you talking about?

[billydkid]

Because soliciting a minor for sex is illegal even if you're a minor yourself?
You know what is interesting, I saw where a couple of minor kids were charged with the adult crime of posting lewd pictures of minors - themselves. Don't tell me that this stuff doesn't get confusing. While I would be the last person to defend these guys and I don't, I think there is an element of dishonesty involved in all of this in the sense that there is an obvious conflict involved between the laws of nature and the laws of man. There has always been a conflict between nature and civilization and I think that by ignoring this dissonance we are not doing ourselves any favors. No amount of pretending will change the fact that men, in general, are programmed to desire the youngest (sexually mature), fittest and most attractive possible mate - the one that has greatest potential to produce the most and the healthiest offspring. This is the biological imperative. Now, I am not saying this is how we should live or that we should go back to caveman days or mimic the many cultures in which nubile young women were the most highly sought prize - and it has been that way since the beginning. I am simply saying that it doesn't help us to ignor biology altogether anymore than it has helped the sexual neurosis of our society to adopt the distorted more's of the puritans. That being said - and I hope this is clear - I do not in any way endorse mature men lusting after or seeking the companionship of legally underage females.

[quixotecoyote]

How would you propose that we not ignore this biology?

[billydkid]

How would you propose that we not ignore this biology?I have no idea. The greatest minds who consider these kinds of issues also have very little idea. I do know this - denying something doesn't make it go away and repression tends to cause more extreme reaction and acting out of the kind of behavior we seek to control. If the truth matters, it matters in all things. I think the fact that this kind of behavior or inclination is far more common then we are wont to admit and cuts a wide swath across our culture indicate that mere proscription without honest discussion is not sufficient. I think it bears discussion, however offensive, this conflict between what could arguably be called "biologically normal" versus that which is culturally perverse.

I think anyone who is honest will admit that just not talking about it doesn't work. I don't know what does work, but what we are doing, apparently, does not. As long as culture is at odds with biology, biology will win - even if it does so in secret and behind closed doors. I believe this - nothing that is evil can live in the sunlight. I believe the more open we are about this the more the deviant and hidden aspects of it will be exposed leaving that which can be talked about and considered in an honest way. Most of us have a visceral reaction to discussions of this sort of thing and certainly that is understandable.

My feeling generally about all taboo things is sort of like this - embrace (so to speak) and accept the things you are most afraid of and they will tend to lose their power over you. I am all for society setting standards, even those that run contrary to our nature to the extend that it makes for a more humane society, but I think it is important to acknowledge the reality that some of these standards do, in fact, run contrary to our biology and that denying this contributes to more extreme acting out of behaviors which we generally agree are not good for society. I could very well be wrong about this. It may be that repression is the best approach, but I don't think anything in our cultural experience confirms this position.

There are probably many things I would like to do - say, get out of my car and smack the crap out of a driver who pulled in front of me and gave me the finger or swat my wife should I discover she had been having an affair - but I don't have any problem not doing them and not simply because they are against the law, but because I know it does not contribute to a more humane existence. Is is part of the pact most of us share with the society in which we live. I recognize these inclinations in myself, but choose not to act on them and it's not a hardship. I'm inclined to think that trying to pretend about these sorts of feelings and saying "it's all good" would be a recipe for these feelings to overwhelm me at some point in the future.

I don't know how analogous this above is, but I think the same sort of dynamic is applicable to society in general. What we repress will tend to find an outlet and in a more destructive way than if it were not repressed. I don't have a problem with repressing the behavior, but trying to repress the reality of the biology which underlies it is, I believe, a lost cause and leads to trouble. But, like I said, I could be wrong. It's a quaint saying, but I am inclined to believe it. The truth will set you free. And if the truth sets you free, denying the truth, well, I don't really know the consequences, but my feeling is you are worse off that way. And it is important to remember that just because something is hidden, it doesn't go away. To a large extent as a society we have been happy to pretend anything we don't like doesn't exist as long as we can't see it. I have always believed that the things that are most difficult to talk about are things that we most need to talk about.

I have to add that by acknowledging the more or less natural, biological aspects of these impulses we are not condoning or endorsing the behavior. The desire to murder your enemies has been around since day one and in many societies it has been a normal aspect of existence. In fact we do it and condone it even today under the guise of governmental authority. In our everyday lives we don't condone or allow this behavior, but it is madness to pretend that these impulses are not natural. No amount of cultural conditioning in the world can eliminate human nature, but we have chosen as a society to prohibit the acting out of many natural impulses. We don't, I don't think, pretend that those impulses don't exist, but we have mutual agreement, for the most part, not to kill each other in everyday life.

The honest truth is we are still, inside, those very same naked apes who scrawled pictures of bison and antelope on the walls of caves 20,000 years ago. We have chosen to live in a certain way which promotes civility and a more humane existence and not to engage in all the behaviors which are natural to us. I would argue that those behaviors, in the context of our society, are aberrant, but the impulses are part of what we are and it does us no good to pretend otherwise. Accepting this reality leads to an understanding which we can not have by merely pretending about it. In that understanding comes the recognition and appreciation of the significance of the choices we make about the way we live and behave. I'm guessing that the failure to absorb and internalize that recognition and significance is what leads many of these guys to act out on impulses which may, to some degree, be shared by many others who choose not to nurture and develop these same impulses.

[Pup]

I think the Mormons understand the nature of male sexuality, better than the rest of us. Within their order, sex with a young virgin is considered a status symbol.
wtf are you talking about?

It took me a minute to figure out what he or she meant, and then I realized it's true! It also applies to other religions that encourage chastity until marriage. It's considered a status symbol (or at least a Good Thing) for a young man to be having sex on his wedding night with a young female virgin, as opposed to an older divorced woman or a young woman who's slept around before marriage.

Literally true, but not too relevant to pedophilia or sexual predation.

[money]

It took me a minute to figure out what he or she meant, and then I realized it's true! It also applies to other religions that encourage chastity until marriage. It's considered a status symbol (or at least a Good Thing) for a young man to be having sex on his wedding night with a young female virgin, as opposed to an older divorced woman or a young woman who's slept around before marriage.

Literally true, but not too relevant to pedophilia or sexual predation.

Ok I can certainly see that argument. The way he phrased it though... its not as if the Mormons have a corner on this market.

[strathmeyer]

Because soliciting a minor for sex is illegal even if you're a minor yourself?

No, because "Perverted Justice" would be the ones committing a crime.

[volatile]

No, because "Perverted Justice" would be the ones committing a crime.

No? Did you mean "Yes"?

Otherwise I don't think I see what you mean...

[King of the Americas]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Mormon men, are 'given' young virgin wives, when they have established themselves in the community. Once your house is great, and you are a man of stature, you get to de-flower a 15-16 year old virgin, and take her as your wife.

I am cetainly not saying they have cornered the market on this behavior, but LOTS Mormons are presently pursuing this as SOP. While Dateline is helping to get 'predators' arrested.

One man's crime is another man's religion...

I would also like to echo billydkid's sentiments.

I seriously think there is something biological going on here. The ability to be engrained into a female's head forever, as her 'first' sexual encounter, possibly setting up a mating partner for life, is a draw that 'most men' just can't pass up.

I'd still bet dollars to donuts that if you were to take a totally confidential survey, you find that most men 'would' stick their hand in the cookie jar.

A bitch in heat, WILL draw the dogs, even if there was a flaming moot and armed guards to cross to get to her.

[quixotecoyote]

I'd take that bet. I'd say the absent the religious programming, men would rather have a woman that knows what she's doing.

[King of the Americas]

Wrong, I think they want 'both'...a 'woman' who knows what she is doing AND a young virgin they can teach to do the right stuff.

Survival of the species demands that a male, find and mate with multiple females, or at least that is what MY biological mechanisms keep telling me.

I literally have to wage a daily war NOT to think about and or look at other women and young ladies in this manner.

I'd like to think I'd have the inner strength to decline a 16 year old, Nichol Kidman look-alike's request for me to be her first, but I must admit I would 'hear' what that little red dude on my shoulder was saying.

I would only hope that the little white dude on my other shoulder remembered to bring his bullhorn that morning.

Hearing about the hometown friend I mentioned eariler fall to this temptation, disheartened me greatly. He would have easily been on my list of nobel men. If he fell, what snow ball's chance in hell do I have!?

[quixotecoyote]

Well I know that not too many 16 year old temptresses have been beating down MY door lately. If you're anything like me, you're probably safe.

[King of the Americas]

And I think someone made that point already, that there are probably VERY few young virgins looking for an old fart of a man to take them on their first sexcapade.

And yet it happens...

In recent years, even the females are getting in on this action, with your hot teachers having their way with young men. I recall one of them MARRIED the young man when she got out of prison.

I think Dateline sensationalizes this, and trys to make these guys look like monsters, when the truth is that a LOT of people, from EVERY walk of life have fallen to such temptations.

[Senex]

I'm not defending pedophiles but these shows are wrong. First, Dateline is out for ratings not for justice. Peoples futures are being manipulated through the desire for a TV show to get higher ratings. That's not how I want my justice system to work. Second, I suspect many of these guys have such poor social skills that having any female agree to meet them, even a young girl, is a pipe dream. They are indeed being entrapped because if it wasn't for an expert manipulating adult encouraging these inept jerks to get together instead of telling them to screw off like the inept men are used to hearing, they wouldn't have been in a position to commit a crime. They would just be fantasizing behind their keyboard and acting creepily but not illegally.

[Number Six]

Lots of the Dateline guys are married so for them at least it's not a case of being so socially inept that they can't get a woman for sex.

And Dateline shows only men but they say that's because men are the ones the come into the chat rooms. They have decoys posing as both boys and girls but men come after them in the chatroom but women don't.

Sure, Dateline is out for ratings, but that doesn't make what they do wrong. After reading the chat logs from some of these guys I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. Dirty chat logs with what you think are children is bad enough but then they leave their house to go and meet with them? They're crossing a line when they do that.

And as far as having sex with a 16 year old, if you're young and your hormones are overflowing then I can't speak to that since I'm past that stage, but if you're over, say, 30 and you think there's a chance you might actually do it then you really need to examine yourself. I mean, imagine a real, live 16 year old standing in front of you that you know will carry around this experience the rest of his or her life. It doesn't take much empathy to realize that it's a bad thing to do and if you'd do it anyway then you have issues of your own IMO.

[Overman]

http://briancurtin.com/pahc/chrishansencaughtyou.gif

Chris Hansen just caught you!

[Senex]

Sure, Dateline is out for ratings, but that doesn't make what they do wrong. After reading the chat logs from some of these guys I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

You use Butters as an avatar, but Butters is a much more sensitive soul than your soul seems to be.

Overman, your post is a hoot!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm not defending pedophiles but these shows are wrong. First, Dateline is out for ratings not for justice. Peoples futures are being manipulated through the desire for a TV show to get higher ratings. That's not how I want my justice system to work. Second, I suspect many of these guys have such poor social skills that having any female agree to meet them, even a young girl, is a pipe dream. They are indeed being entrapped because if it wasn't for an expert manipulating adult encouraging these inept jerks to get together instead of telling them to screw off like the inept men are used to hearing, they wouldn't have been in a position to commit a crime. They would just be fantasizing behind their keyboard and acting creepily but not illegally.

The fact that children are molested by strangers they met online isn't unknown. What if some 12 year old girl just happened to agree to meet one of these people from a chatroom? Isn't it better to catch them before that happens? Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that children aren't molested due to agreeing to meet strangers from chatrooms, which is false.

[Senex]

The fact that children are molested by strangers they met online isn't unknown. What if some 12 year old girl just happened to agree to meet one of these people from a chatroom? Isn't it better to catch them before that happens? Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that children aren't molested due to agreeing to meet strangers from chatrooms, which is false.

I'm just saying a ratings driven television show shouldn't run the sting operation that catches pedophiles. Justice isn't necessarily what TV producers are most interested in.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm just saying a ratings driven television show shouldn't run the sting operation that catches pedophiles. Justice isn't necessarily what TV producers are most interested in.

Who said they "run" the operation? The must follow all of the procedure as if it were a real string operation, otherwise the police wouldn't have a case. They must go through all of the precautions and I'm sure the local police departments are right there all along the way dictating what is or isn't allowed. This isn't really any different from the T.V. show "Cops".

[slingblade]

I'm just saying a ratings driven television show shouldn't run the sting operation that catches pedophiles. Justice isn't necessarily what TV producers are most interested in.

They don't "run it." PJ runs it. Dateline just.....watches.....omg.....:jaw-dropp

[Checkmite]

I might have a problem with this show's tactics, if it weren't for the fact that in order to be "featured", a person has to have had a lurid and graphic chat with someone claiming to be a kid.

[money]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Mormon men, are 'given' young virgin wives, when they have established themselves in the community. Once your house is great, and you are a man of stature, you get to de-flower a 15-16 year old virgin, and take her as your wife.

I am cetainly not saying they have cornered the market on this behavior, but LOTS Mormons are presently pursuing this as SOP. While Dateline is helping to get 'predators' arrested.

One man's crime is another man's religion...


Uhh, no. Maybe you are speaking of one of those small towns in New Mexico that branched off into their own kooky sect or Mormonism, but this does not occur as a practice of the mainstream LDS.

Until you show some serious evidence, I'll consider you to be talking out of your ass.

Most LDS men, in my experience, marry within two years of coming back from their mission, well before they have established themselves in the community in any finanical sense as they are still in college at this time. None of them get married to 15 or 16 year olds.

Where did you get this bizarre idea?

[Cleon]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Mormon men, are 'given' young virgin wives, when they have established themselves in the community. Once your house is great, and you are a man of stature, you get to de-flower a 15-16 year old virgin, and take her as your wife.

I am cetainly not saying they have cornered the market on this behavior, but LOTS Mormons are presently pursuing this as SOP. While Dateline is helping to get 'predators' arrested.

Um...Just for clarification, when you say "Mormons," are you referring to LDS or Community of Christ, or the smaller polygamous sects, like FLDS or AUB?


'Cause that sort of behavior is not in line with what I know about LDS.

[JJR]

http://briancurtin.com/pahc/chrishansencaughtyou.gif

Chris Hansen just caught you!

Lol. :rolleyes:

[Senex]

http://briancurtin.com/pahc/chrishansencaughtyou.gif

Chris Hansen just caught you!

I logged on the Internet today and had no intention of looking up any woman's skirt. Chris Hansen set me up! :rolleyes:

[Lisa Simpson]

And....someone's claiming entrapment.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/08/08/to-catch-a-predator-lights-camera-entrapment/

[Reclaimer]

You know, I've seen this show a couple of times and I salute them for their efforts to bag these perverts and what not, but I must say that this Chris Hansen fellow is going to get his butt kicked by the "invited guest" sooner or later.
It's just a matter of probability. They've been lucky so far that all the people they've caught have been weirdos and pretty submissive after the realize they got caught... However I just think that Chris Hansen comes out with such a cavalier attitude that it's just a matter of time before somebody just goes nuts.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see the guy get hurt but I think this show has gone way past educational value and has gone straight to borderline Jerry Springer entertainment. It's like he comes strolling out from the back room with a sarcastic comment and then he starts grilling the "subject."

It's just a matter of time, a roll of the dice. One day, the longer the show goes on, something bad is going to happen to Mr. Hansen before somebody can help him.
The close proximities, the fact that he gets right up to the subject, theres a recipe for a disaster in this show.

[slingblade]

Are you watching it closely enough?

Outside are any number of police.

Inside are several camera operators, sound engineers, lighting techs...Hansen isn't all alone, by any means. Someone might take a swing, might even get in one lucky punch. Were I Hansen, it wouldn't worry me too much.

[robinson]

I've seen the footage where security got involved. He always has security right there, ready to jump in. You just don't see them in most of the shots, but there is somebody who has his back at all times.

[Reclaimer]

Are you watching it closely enough?

Outside are any number of police.

Inside are several camera operators, sound engineers, lighting techs...Hansen isn't all alone, by any means. Someone might take a swing, might even get in one lucky punch. Were I Hansen, it wouldn't worry me too much.

Oh yeah, I know that there is a ton of police outside and a ton of crewman hiding inside. My thoughts are that when I had to go through edged weapons defense school, a person with a knife can kill you within a 20ft radius before you can really react, that is unless you're ready for it. Even then, it's pretty sketchy if you can defend yourself or stop the attacker.

I mean, I understand that they take precautions and Mr. Hansen is probably pretty safe, but man, strange things happen and Murphy's Law kicks in when you least expect it. All I can say is that its all just probability before something screwed up happens.

[Checkmite]

They're probably gambling on the fact that most pedophiles are total pushovers. Sure, some of them are into weird and sick things involving pain and weapons, but they pick children as their victims because they have little confidence around an adult, especially one that exudes confidence.

[Segnosaur]

They're probably gambling on the fact that most pedophiles are total pushovers. Sure, some of them are into weird and sick things involving pain and weapons, but they pick children as their victims because they have little confidence around an adult, especially one that exudes confidence.

Not sure if that's exactly correct. I've heard that many of the people who get caught actually have wives and families. Not exactly the image of the quiet loner who can't react with adults.

[robinson]

What about the cop from Georgia? When they pulled him over, not only was he armed, he had an arsenal in his car. Chris pointed out they were lucky he didn't stop, just drove by and cased the place. He could have been real trouble.

[Segnosaur]

The fact that children are molested by strangers they met online isn't unknown. What if some 12 year old girl just happened to agree to meet one of these people from a chatroom? Isn't it better to catch them before that happens? Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that children aren't molested due to agreeing to meet strangers from chatrooms, which is false.

For some people, its not a case of whether such cases (of real 12 year olds meeting adults) happen. The question is, do such cases happen often enough to make such sting operations useful.

Remember, police resources are limited. (Even if the TV show is doing a lot of organization, the cops do eventually want to be involved if actual charges are to be laid.) Time spent investigating, arresting and prosecuting one individual arrested on such a TV show means less time spent investigating other crimes (even ones involving children). If the vast majority of online 'girls' either have no intention of meeting, or aren't even girls at all, then the chance that the person caught in the sting never had a chance to meet anyone in the first place.

Its like setting up a round-the-clock stakeout to catch a shoplifter while ignoring the bank robbery down the street.

(And no, I'm not trying to say child molestation is morally equivalent to shoplifting; I'm only referring to the use of police resources.)

Then there is another problem...the concept of innocent until proven guilty. While I agree that the vast majority of people caught by the show are guilty, they do still deserve a fair trial. However, someone could (in theory) get caught by such a sting operation, be found not guilty (or even not even get charged) but still have their life ruined by association with that show.

[robinson]

Oh yeah. If you show up after knowing that it is supposed to be a 12 year old home alone, you are screwed. Even if you are just a poor, framed innocent, who would never do such a thing.

[Segnosaur]

Oh yeah. If you show up after knowing that it is supposed to be a 12 year old home alone, you are screwed. Even if you are just a poor, framed innocent, who would never do such a thing.

Can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not.

Are you suggesting that we should ignore the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in these cases? Perhaps we should throw these people in jail without trial, since obviously if they're caught by such a sting they are automatically guilt.

[robinson]

I think it is sort of the same thing as when you see a man beat a child so bad the child ends up in the Hospital. Even if he is innocent, and was framed, after you see him beat a child almost to death, you still sort of consider him guilty of something.

People are funny like that.

[robinson]

Now if the people running the sting are fraudulent, making up the chat logs, enticing men into committing an illegal act, that is completely different. They seem to make a point of showing over and over again, that the decoy states clearly, and without any deception, that they are underage.

No matter what else is said or done, if a creepy old perv shows up at a house where he believes an underage child is home alone, they are in deep doo doo with the public.















Probably going to get their ass kicked in prison as well.

[Checkmite]

Not sure if that's exactly correct. I've heard that many of the people who get caught actually have wives and families. Not exactly the image of the quiet loner who can't react with adults.

I believe the ones with wives and families have something to lose and are therefore the least likely to "attack" the crew.

[Checkmite]

I think it is sort of the same thing as when you see a man beat a child so bad the child ends up in the Hospital. Even if he is innocent, and was framed, after you see him beat a child almost to death, you still sort of consider him guilty of something.

People are funny like that.

Agreed. Since we actually see a videotape of the perpetrator showing up at the house, and we see the chat logs showing that he's been told there is a kid home alone in the house at that time, there's little room for reasonable doubt. Bearing in mind that 1) the jury is going to be shown the exact same things, and 2) the only difference between one of us and one of the jury is a piece of paper calling them one of the jury, it's kind of silly to castigate people for drawing conclusions based on the evidence we're shown.

I mean, I could see the argument if we were going on a one-paragraph newspaper article; but, dude - we've got video.

[robinson]

And the Internets!

[Segnosaur]

Not sure if that's exactly correct. I've heard that many of the people who get caught actually have wives and families. Not exactly the image of the quiet loner who can't react with adults.
I believe the ones with wives and families have something to lose and are therefore the least likely to "attack" the crew.

Well, my response was dirrected at the comment you made suggesting that people caught in these stings had trouble around adults, not about their propensity to violence.

[Segnosaur]

Agreed. Since we actually see a videotape of the perpetrator showing up at the house, and we see the chat logs showing that he's been told there is a kid home alone in the house at that time, there's little room for reasonable doubt. Bearing in mind that 1) the jury is going to be shown the exact same things, and 2) the only difference between one of us and one of the jury is a piece of paper calling them one of the jury, it's kind of silly to castigate people for drawing conclusions based on the evidence we're shown.


You're right... lets suspend all trials for people caught in such sting operations and just automatically throw them in jail.

[Checkmite]

Well, my response was dirrected at the comment you made suggesting that people caught in these stings had trouble around adults, not about their propensity to violence.

Yes, but the comment I made was itself a response to the question of particular perps' propensity to violence.

[Checkmite]

You're right... lets suspend all trials for people caught in such sting operations and just automatically throw them in jail.

::sneeze::

You must've mistaken me for someone who has the power to throw people in jail on a whim. I am not such a person. I can form an opinion of somebody's guilt or innocence if I want, based on whatever evidence I see; and it's just fine, precisely because my opinion has no bearing on whether the shmuck goes to jail.

I am somewhat confident the relevant jury will see things the way I see them, truth be told - although nobody can accurately predict the future.