User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Those "Dateline: To Catch a Predator" shows...


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Those "Dateline: To Catch a Predator" shows...
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-07, 19:44

What are your thoughts on them? Have you seen them before? I think they're on about 500 times a week now.

I was flipping around the channels last night and came across it. They had a sting operation set up in Daytona, Florida and were snagging guys left and right.

I couldn't imagine anything worse than being caught on TV trying to engage in what those guys are out for (meeting up with underage girls for sex). They don't blur the faces or anything, and they put their names, city of residence and occupations out there.



No, I don't feel bad for the perps...don't get me wrong.

But man, I was cringing!



The excuses and "explanations" these guys come up with once they're nailed...

Amazing.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2007-03-07, 19:55

Is there any kind of profile? I've always wondered about that.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-07, 20:00

I'm not sure. They work with some organization that pretends to be minors online. The guys seek them out and start up a chat (they're all logged/saved and quoted from, so that's embarrassing as hell).

It's just amazing the kinds of people caught.
  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2007-03-07, 20:18

It is irresponsible, to say the least.
  quote
NosferaDrew
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to NosferaDrew Send a message via AIM to NosferaDrew Send a message via Skype™ to NosferaDrew 
2007-03-07, 20:22

I used to cringe too, but like you said, it's on all the time now.

I like Dateline a lot and used to watch it whenever it's on, but once you see one "To Catch A Predator" show, they're all pretty much the same.

It's boring.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-07, 20:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobsky View Post
It is irresponsible, to say the least.
In what way? For the "victims" (they're fake) or the perps?

They're doing what they do. They go out of their way to chat - and then hook up - with what they believe are little girls.

It's sad that the wives, co-workers and children of these perps might be seeing this and having their world shattered. I'll give you that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NosferaDrew View Post
I used to cringe too, but like you said, it's on all the time now.

I like Dateline a lot and used to watch it whenever it's on, but once you see one "To Catch A Predator" show, they're all pretty much the same.

It's boring.
Yeah, I agree. Kinda creepy and sickening too, hearing what they say and write to these undercover decoys they think are 13-14 years old.
  quote
Majost
monkey with a tiny cymbal
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
 
2007-03-07, 20:31

Quote:
Originally Posted by NosferaDrew View Post
I used to cringe too, but like you said, it's on all the time now.

I like Dateline a lot and used to watch it whenever it's on, but once you see one "To Catch A Predator" show, they're all pretty much the same.

It's boring.
Bingo. They're disgusting, disturbing, and really not that interesting. I don't understand why they keep on airing them so much -- er, well, maybe I'd do better to say -- I don't understand how they attract large enough audiences to sustain so many airings.

I could barely make it through the first one I saw, when the idea was still novel.
  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2007-03-07, 20:34

Need I say more?

All it does is popularize the methods used by pseudo-law enforcement agencies to catch potential predators. They capture a few and make it harder to capture the next hundred.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-07, 20:36

Yeah, that was the long bridge between my first viewing and last night. But I see promos for them all the time. The operations could go on without being a TV show.

I've got no problem with pedophiles and the like getting busted, but it is quite formulaic and voyeuristic, watching the same thing.

That was one of the reasons I started this thread (and then forgot to bring it up in the opening post): it's on so much and is wearing out its presence. How could a show that is such a weird, creepy downer be on so, so much? I don't know the ratings on it.
  quote
Windswept
On Pacific time
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Moderator's Pub
 
2007-03-07, 20:49

I read an article once about FBI training wrt interacting online with such sexual predators.

The FBI actually brought in two 8th grade girls to speak to the FBI class about all the current internet jargon that teen girls might use in chats.

This article was from 4 or 5 years ago at least, back when I used to subscribe to Newsweek.

The FBI agents (male) were supposed to learn how to chat online as if they were 13-yr-old girls.

I agree with NosferaDrew. I've watched a few brief segments, and they're all pretty similar. I felt an odd disconnect as I watched. We see these guys getting nailed, and everything seems rather low key. But what's really happening is that their lives are being ruined forever in the most ghastly of ways. The way it comes across inside the house is not very dramatic.

What actually happens to these guys afterward, does anyone know? I mean, they're caught and arrested 'before' they actually commit the worst part of their crime. Just wondering.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-07, 20:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobsky View Post
Um, yeah...maybe.

Some guy - a prosecuter, no less - was diddling underage kids (or seeking to) and offed himself from the guilt/shame (and the prospect of getting nailed for it)?

Do I lose sleep tonight over this? I don't know...my gut says "no".

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobsky View Post
All it does is popularize the methods used by pseudo-law enforcement agencies to catch potential predators. They capture a few and make it harder to capture the next hundred.
The people last night were Flagler County sheriffs and police; struck me as legit outfits. They use that group who pose/monitor chats probably because most police and sheriff departments (especially small towns) probably don't have these kinds of units or manpower. I don't know police budgets though...maybe it's becoming more common in some places?

I would think, as much as this show is on, it would "make a dent". But these guys are still showing up in droves it appears.

What's your basis for your "they capture a few and make it harder..." comment? I'm not being antagonistic or argumentative...I'm genuinely curious. In what way does capturing people breaking the law make it harder to catch others? What are they supposed to do? What's an improved situation or better plan? Again, I ask out of genuine curiosity (and to anyone here).

Are there approved, sanctioned methods that should only be used? Or is it a pure law enforcement-only area?

No one seems "entrapped" here. The perps seem to zero in on the decoys, and many conversations took place, with the perp always instigating the sexual-oriented talk.

Would you have similar thoughts about things like neighborhood watches and so forth? Those aren't "real law enforcement", but if they observe criminal activity they contact the police or whoever.

Windswept, I'm not sure. I've only seen two of these. But one guy last night had a pre-teen daughter (which was weird), and another had small kids and another on the way.

I'm sure their lives get turned upside-down a good bit.

If you're a wife or girlfriend, would you want to know? Probably the worst way possible to find out, I realize. Ugh...no getting around that.

But I'd opt for knowing and being able to make a break, over blindly living with someone doing this on the side and never knowing.

It's all weird and unsavory. But what do you expect...the underlying issue/topic is too. Probably no way to put a good angle on this sort of thing.

  quote
billybobsky
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
 
2007-03-07, 21:20

paul,

the fact that before this show I suspect that most of us didn't think that they were putting up decoys in online chat rooms means that predators with half a brain can use this new information to change their coupling strategies.

I don't care for sexual predators, in fact I don't think they are curable, are the root cause of MOST criminal activity in the US among many other negative views of these individuals; but the prosecutor who killed himself did so when cameras were rolling outside of his house. If there hadn't been an NBC filming crew outside, do you think he would have killed himself? Even the possibility of this as part of his suicidal intentions means the show should stop. What's worse, evidently they showed the footage filmed outside his house when he did the deed.

NBC isn't making this show to be responsible. They are showing it for pure profit motives.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-07, 21:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobsky View Post
paul,

the fact that before this show I suspect that most of us didn't think that they were putting up decoys in online chat rooms means that predators with half a brain can use this new information to change their coupling strategies.
That's true. A lot will, I'm sure. But man...a lot of these guys seem so driven by it. A couple of them even reference the wrongness, and telling the decoy "delete this chat" or talking about how much trouble they could be in.

I wonder if it's so powerful and controlling. The "half a brain" comment probably touches on it: you'd have to be about 3/4 bonkers to be doing this stuff to begin with. And this show - and its techniques - are probably big talk in that particular community.

But honestly: I'm sure so many of these guys simply don't give a shit. They've sunk so low (and they know they're doing wrong). There's that threshold you cross...

I wonder how many of these guys say to themselves, while driving to their meeting, "what are the chances I'll get nailed by this show?". A distant worry to some, coming in second to their desire to get with a young girl.

Yikes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobsky View Post
I don't care for sexual predators, in fact I don't think they are curable, are the root cause of MOST criminal activity in the US among many other negative views of these individuals; but the prosecutor who killed himself did so when cameras were rolling outside of his house. If there hadn't been an NBC filming crew outside, do you think he would have killed himself? Even the possibility of this as part of his suicidal intentions means the show should stop. What's worse, evidently they showed the footage filmed outside his house when he did the deed.
It may have spurred him, sure enough. Although if he was in trouble, he was going to have to face the music sooner or later. He might've opted to shoot himself at another time. I don't know. All legit stuff to think about, sure enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobsky View Post
NBC isn't making this show to be responsible. They are showing it for pure profit motives.
I completely agree, and it's obvious on a lot of levels (the frequency, the hype/promotion NBC gives it, the adherence to "formula", the build-up and production values (so to speak) trying to give it a sheen of "do-goodery" (is that a word? )

It's no secret my feelings on news and the media in general, and how they all go about what they do.

It's weird to think a network having a chunk of their success anchored on such a show. You'd think so many things would enter into it all, from NBC, law enforcement and the perp's perspectives. But it's self-sustaining because there is probably no shortage of guys looking to do this. Some are, obviously, going to take that chance no matter what.

I think some, but certainly not all (not even close), would ever change their "meeting tactics". Simply too easy to go online and throw out a line. It's probably easy to tell yourself "this can't be a watchdog group...she sent me her picture!"

Some people are that stupid. Or desperate.

  quote
intlplby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-03-07, 22:32

i actually saw this show for the first time yesterday and i personally have a real problem with the tactics used.....

i don't think law enforcement should be creating fake "opportunities" to bait people regardless of the crime.

by creating easy opportunities of certain crimes you increase the chances of someone moving from just thinking about a crime to actually committing it.

take the following for example. the cops go to a large busy outdoor cafe, a plain clothes officer sits down for a coffee and puts his wallet on the table and walks away intentionally for a minute or two.... other officers are at another table far away stealthily monitoring the wallet on the table. the cops repeatly do this throughout the day hoping someone will come in an take the wallet then they arrest that person for theft....

yes, sometimes you will catch somebody who is an active theif on occasion, but most of the time the person to be caught is someone who gives into a crime of opportunity. on any given day in any other situation this person would not have done what they did, but the officers have created such a perfect opportunity that it is not easily resisted by most....

situations determine human behavior far more than personality does..... what the cops are doing is manipulating a situation that greatly increases the chance that someone will commit a crime that most likely they would never commit given naturally occuring situations

i find this creation of situations to catch criminals to be rather orwellian..... it's the closest you can get to arresting people for thought crimes without actually reading their minds... the cops are creating the crime scene and waiting for someone to play the part of the perpetrator

the other problem i have with the actual arresting of these people is that the perpetrators aren't actually talking to underage girls, they are talking to adult cops..... by arresting people for soliciting someone for sex who they THOUGHT was an underage girl is essentially arresting someone for thought crime.... since an person thought to be underage girl was NOT in real life an underage girl then no crime has been committed....
  quote
InactionMan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2007-03-07, 23:21

Are these shows broadcast after the person has been brought to trial and convicted? Or are they broadcast the second they get some juicy footage? They whole deal seems rather slapdash compared to the rather exhaustive investigations in the pedophiles that you hear about on the news.

This show also isn't catching the real pedophiles, the ones are kidnapping and torturing children and setting up websites. They're catching pervy dopes that haven't actually acted on anything and may never act. But the show is more than willing to destroy their lives. Pedophiles and sexual predators seem to inspire such rancour amongst law enforcement (and the general public) that police are willing to act in a slightly dubious manner.

This show reminds of the giant police bust a few years ago involving cops from the U.S. and Canada (and I think Britain) called Operation Snowball. It was supposed to be one of the biggest bust of a child porn ring in history and police were saying that it would lead to hundreds of arrests. In then end they ended up investigating and charging hundreds of innocent men. They were publicly humiliated in the same way this show does and in then end very few of them ever received an apology. A significant number of the men accused have since committed suicide because of the stigma attached to these kinds of accusations.

So, I guess the point of this long-ass post is that when you're investigating pedophiles you should be extra cautious because you don't want to falsely accuse someone of this kind of crime and equally important, you don't want shoddy police work leading to a pedophile being set free.

Last edited by InactionMan : 2007-03-07 at 23:58.
  quote
rasmits
rams it
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
 
2007-03-07, 23:56

I agree 100% InactionMan.

I also don't understand how they're even allowed to broadcast their names and faces without consent. The show COPS frequently blurs out the faces of people who refuse to sign the papers, and I doubt these people would consent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by intlplby
the other problem i have with the actual arresting of these people is that the perpetrators aren't actually talking to underage girls, they are talking to adult cops..... by arresting people for soliciting someone for sex who they THOUGHT was an underage girl is essentially arresting someone for thought crime.... since an person thought to be underage girl was NOT in real life an underage girl then no crime has been committed....
Another really good point.

You had me at asl
.......
  quote
intlplby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-03-08, 00:46

InactionMan raises some very good points i hadn~t thought of... these are life destroying accusations

there's also a huge distinction between someone being a pedophile and acting upon those urges..... just like there is a huge distinction between thinking about stealing a wallet and actually stealing a wallet....


i find it hard to believe that pedophilia actually being committed is such a rampant problem that those that actually want to act out their fantasies can even easily find a willing underage participant within reasonable proximity.... in addition where the hell are the parents of the kids in all this

if a kid who is not of driving age manages to arrange to rendezvous with a pedophile then i think the parents should also be liable criminally for neglect.

if we are a society that is so concerned about people targeting our kids why don't we go after those people who actually succeed in victimizing hundreds of kids everyday - the food industry.....how about going after the fast food industry? they target kids too.... kid targeted advertising and happy meals should be illegal

i personally think the executives of the fast food industry and really any industry targeting kids with unhealthy products is far more criminal than one lone pedophile
  quote
cosus
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: El Rio de Nuestra SeƱora la Reina de los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to cosus Send a message via AIM to cosus Send a message via MSN to cosus Send a message via Yahoo to cosus Send a message via Skype™ to cosus 
2007-03-08, 01:05

The show and tactics are utterly ridiculous. How could they even rationalize it isn't entrapment? But then again, we never hear about convictions. However I doubt this would have gone on so long if there weren't any convictions.

Retired 8 years ahead of schedule.
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2007-03-08, 10:22

About entrapment angle....

I'm not totally convinced. The problem with pedophilia is that there is no, for a lack of better description, redeeming value out of it. By redeeming value, I mean that a crime could be commited out of necessity.

For example, we are more likely to look favorably upon a guy who stole bread from grocery store for his straving family. What he did was wrong, but he didn't do it out of malice or desire to injure others and it was done to preserve his family's survival. Can you honestly say the same about pedophilia?

The wallet on table example used to illustrate opportunity crime is indeed an entrapment because stealing money may be motivated by some necessities; and this hold true even if it was a crack addict because there is the potential that the crack addict will need to buy a burger to stay alive and sustain his habit.

With pedophilia, there is nothing 'eseential' about it. People can survive and continue to function without engaging in any sexual activity, and there is nothing to obligate anyone to engage in a specific activity beyond one's own decisions. Because that element is absent, I see nothing entrapping about fooling men into hooking up with underage girls.

And I am not convinced that entrapment 'punishes' thoughtcrime because you can still think about it, and even hold a philosophical discussion of whether you can commit it and whys, ins and outs of it. I simply see nothing opportunistic about deciding to hooking up wih underage girls. The only gain is the perp himself, and there is no way that perp's life (and even the reptuation, health and all other aspects of perp's personhood) would depend on engaging in such activity (outside of under the duress, but that's quite unusual).

Therefore, I don't feel at all sorry that they wrecked their lives. They made the choices. They'll have to live with the consequences even if it was only because they were "curious". Court don't let you off the hook for murdering people "just to see what it's like." Why let those "curious" men off the hook?

Edit: One more thing about entrapment; it's a defense, so it can be invoked for a variety of crimes. When it is considered in the court, the question is "Would the defendent have committed the crime absent the activities by police?" and to answer that question, the prosecutor should be able to demonstrate that:
  • 1. Police did nothing to encourage, instigate, suggest or otherwise provide an easier opportunity from the start to the end.
  • 2. At every crucial step from the initial contact to the moment after the crime was completed or about to be committed, the defendent made the decision to move ahead clearly and repeatedly.
  • 3. The defendent was warned in various forms that this was illegal, bad, wrong or something to the effect and was afforded the opportunity to back out, which would have not been prosecuted.

Probably more to it, but that's the gist. So whether it's stealing bread or hooking up with underages, answering affirmative to each point removes the entrapment defense and leaves the defendant totaly exposed to the ful consquence of the crime commited.

I don't know whether this show does follow the general idea, but I hope so, since they're filming the actual police units?

Last edited by Banana : 2007-03-08 at 10:54.
  quote
kretara
Cynical Old Bastard
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Hot, Hazey, Humid South
Send a message via AIM to kretara Send a message via Yahoo to kretara  
2007-03-08, 10:25

I really hate shows like this. Really smells rotten to me.
Also makes me wonder how many of the 'criminals' are really actors who are being used for dramatic effect and to boost ratings.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-08, 10:59

I tend to agree with Banana. These guys didn't seem "entrapped" to me. In all the situations, they approached the person online (after seeing their gender/age). They initiated any and all sex talk (questions, statements, teases, boasts, requests, etc.). For crying out loud, right off the bat, why would some married 40-year-old guy want to talk to some bubbleheaded 13-year-old online, period? Honestly, now. And then to go down that particular avenue ("So, have you ever done it doggystyle?" and the like). Who does that? A few people, for fairly specific reasons! There's a name for it, you know.



But they dig their own holes, and only push on: it's when they agree to meet the person they truly think is a little girl for sex (there's no room for doubt on this...they're talking about positions, condoms, not telling anyone, etc.).

No one is getting their homes busted into, at least on what I saw. No one is prosecuted for "thinking". These guys make their own trouble by deciding to pursue it, and showing up to get with the girls. There are laws broken (you can't e-mail JPEGs of your rod to some 14-year-old and think that's somehow okay...that's what a lot of these guys were doing).

When busted, they suddenly went from horndog perv to "uh, I'm just here to hang out, and, you know, talk and stuff..." (yes...with six condoms and anal lube in their jacket pocket, and a 12-pack of beer in their hand).



I don't feel bad for them. They would've gone through with it (and, by their own actions and words, they knew they were engaging in bad, wrong stuff).

I don't buy the notion that all these guys are suddenly going to "wise up" and stop doing what they do.

And the "wallet left on a table" and this sort of crime analogy, as Banana points out, doesn't really work, IMO. Some make it sound like people have no choice in taking the wallet..."it was there!". I wouldn't take it. Most wouldn't, I'm betting. The ones that do, they made a choice. They might get in trouble.

I can't have any sympathy, understanding or "wiggle room" for guys out there doing this. The show is pumped-up cheese and borderline sleaze (and a little too proud of itself), I agree. But these perps...they make anywhere from 3-5 bad, lousy decisions and wind up, on their own, following through.

I'm sorry...the "thought police" hasn't broken down anyone's door that I'm aware of on this. No one is shown getting busted for online chatting and so forth.

But you choose to drive a few hundred miles, show up to a house, condoms and who-knows-what-else at the ready, rubbing your joint and thinking you get the "honor" of deflowering some 13-year-old girl...screw you. You get what you deserve.
  quote
InactionMan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2007-03-08, 11:02

Banana, this show isn't targeting only sexual predators. They aren't busting global child porn rings. They aren't rescuing any children that have been sold into prostitution. They're targeting sad middle-aged, middle-American losers that have bought too much into western cultures collective Lolita complex. These guys don't wake up in the morning and decide to go roger a toddler, they're just your average American perv.

Is this show tempting them with six year old boys or pre-pubescent girls or are they tapping into the buxom, over-sexed teen harlot stereotype? I'm guessing the ratings wouldn't be quite as strong if they were arresting old fat guys in faded blue trackpants that was looking to buy a few hours with a five year old girl.

This show is dangerous, dishonest and does absolutely nothing to prevent real victims from being harmed. It's a tacky, sexualized version of Candid Camera for 21st Century America.

Last edited by InactionMan : 2007-03-08 at 11:47. Reason: typo! thanks intlplby.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-08, 11:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by InactionMan View Post
Banana, this show isn't targeting sexual predators. ... They're targeting sad middle-aged, middle-American losers that have bought too much into western cultures collective Lolita complex. These guys don't wake up in the morning and decide to go roger a toddler, they're just your average American perv.
But just how, exactly, do you know this?

There were quite a range of guys on the shows I saw: young, old, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, quiet and reserved, loud and boisterous and full of themselves, professionals, students, borderline "old men", yuppie types, scuzzy low-rent guys, a rabbi(!), law enforcement (yikes), a teacher at a junior college, a seminary student, blue collar types with mullets, suit and tie guys, married guys, single young guys, etc.

I didn't detect a set pattern or background, or a set, common set of traits.

A lot of these guys, come to find out, had some prior brushes with the law in this particular area as well.

And how in the world would you know what they wake up deciding to do, or not do? There's no telling what some of them might wake up thinking about. Maybe some "easy" underage sex strikes their mood at the moment? Maybe they've done it before? Maybe they get a taste of it and decide it's all they want?

  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2007-03-08, 11:09

Well, if they didn't wake up one morning and decide to roger a toddler, they wouldn't have done it at all. Why want to buy a fews hours with five year old girl in first place?
  quote
intlplby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-03-08, 11:22

Once again I agree with InactionMan...

The other thing is that they haven't done anything illegal because a REAL underage girl was not involved - a cop was....

they haven't sent pictures of them nude to some underage girl... they've done it to someone they thought were underage... now I'm not saying it's not morally apprenhensible but if no minor was exposed to images of the man nude then no crime was committed.... now if the police used a real minor for the act and they got exposed to images then the police are equally responsible.

they are not committing crimes, they think they are committing crimes, but technically not.

the other flip side is that the internet allows total anonymity... so what about the guy who is conversing with a real minor who presents themselves as an adult and they send nude pictures to that minor..... in this case a crime has been committed, but it was unintentional.

there is a lot of grey area, but i'm a firm believer that a pre-requisite for convicting someone for a crime is that that crime must ACTUALLY occur. an adult officer posing as a kid is NOT a kid

in addition convicted or not, these people should be allowed to sue Dateline in my opinion...... just because they are doing something illegal does not mean that Dateline should go out profiting off it at the expense of the person.

i don't care what crime somebody has committed but it is the responsibility of the COURTS to determine guilt and mete out any punishment..... in this situation the TV NETWORKS are meting out punishment with or without conviction in the form of humiliation and exposure on national tv. That is psychologically damaging to an individual.....

if you don't have consideration for the individual committing the crime at the very least you should consider the damage done to the family of the victim. try to imagine if that was your brother or father or spouse on that show. now imagine that everyone knew that...

i think what he meant was

Quote:
Banana, this show isn't targeting only sexual predators
yes some, maybe most are sexual predators, but some are going to fit the profile of the
Quote:
sad middle-aged, middle-American losers that have bought too much into western cultures collective Lolita complex.

since people can pretend to be whoever they want on the internet, i personally think that the internet should be a place where you should be allowed to talk to anyone about anything and that there is no crime until it enters real life situations.... it is the responsibility of the parent to monitor their kids' activities online...... ....

i would love to see a counter to this show where someone pretends to be the predator and catch this show trying to catch people...... i.e. since it is known that there are people pretending to be young girls, someone should start a show where they pretend to be pedophiles and then plan on encountering the "alleged minor" with a film crew

Last edited by intlplby : 2007-03-08 at 11:30. Reason: Posts merged
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2007-03-08, 11:30

Interestingly enough, the article doesn't really make a big issue of entrapment but rather the due process (e.g. Miranda rights, unbiased jury, etc.) which are far more reasonable arguments.

intlplby- I'm sorry but insisting on litmus test of whether actual crime is commited by and against an actual victim doesn't really hold up. Narcs regularly pose as drug dealer or junkies in which they offer the opportunity to apprehend actual pushers or junkies for engaging in illict drugs even though the narcs has not actually taken any illict drugs. Furthermore, do not forget that it is crime to *attempt* murder or burglarly, just as much as actually murdering or stealing. Even if it was shown that the murder was attempted under the duress, it does not always let the murderer or the burglar off the hook. Why let perverts off the hook for basically doing same thing?

Furthermore, a police officer substituting for a minor is really all irrevelent if the defendant approached them, asked questions about sexual activities, and made arrangement to hook up. As I explained before, when it's the perp's actions and decisions has made it clear that he'd have commited the crime with an actual girl, the question of whether there was a victim is moot. Asking minor to engage in sexual activity is illegal, and that's what they're getting.

For public embarrassment, that has merits, but very little. Again, if they made the decision to drive long distance, prepared to have sex with minor, they already have sastisfied the guilty intent requirement. They had the opportunity to back out, but failed to take that. So do I really feel sorry for them? Not particularly.

According to Pscates, there were relationships that lasted for quite a while, turned to dirty talk, and was warned that it'd be wrong, but they ultimately made the move to hook up. Busted on the camera? Tough noogies.
  quote
intlplby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-03-08, 11:37

Quote:
Asking minor to engage in sexual activity is illegal, and that's what they're getting.
but there was no minor

Quote:
Narcs regularly pose as drug dealer or junkies in which they offer the opportunity to apprehend actual pushers or junkies for engaging in illict drugs even though the narcs has not actually taken any illict drugs.
i was under the impression that an actual exchange has to take place... that's how someone i knew from highschool was busted.

it's one thing for a narc to buy the drugs from someone who is selling them, it's entirely another for the narc to offer drugs and hope someone will try and buy them... i think the latter is entrapment, isn't it?

Quote:
For public embarrassment, that has merits, but very little. Again, if they made the decision to drive long distance, prepared to have sex with minor, they already have sastisfied the guilty intent requirement. They had the opportunity to back out, but failed to take that. So do I really feel sorry for them? Not particularly.
merits, or not, it is not the TV Networks reponsibility to do so... if they choose to do so then they should be 100% liable in a civil court should the perp/victim choose to sue
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2007-03-08, 11:41

I got the impression from the show the other night (can't remember from the first one I saw a year or so ago), that there would be some ongoing, multiple chats in some of the cases. But the unifying factor was that the perp always would steer it to sex, and quite graphically at times.

So they're kinda cultivating this "relationship", it almost sounds like. They're jibber-jabbering with what they think is a precocious, curious little girl (clear on the other side of the state in some cases), but they're doing all the instigating and sex talk any chance they get. In what I saw, none of the decoys went "fishing"...it was the other way around (I assume the perp would see "F/13" somewhere in a profile?).

I don't know...I'm not online chatting with teens and torquing my tater over it.



Also, it's sad to see these 30- and 40-something asshats trying to talk down on the girl's level...lots of "R U horny?", "L8R" and excessive LOL, OMG, etc. usage. Text messaging shorthand and so forth. And lots of slang or jargon from pop culture, hip-hop, MTV, etc. Just mangling it and coming across like such a pathetic, "ooh, I'm gonna get me some because I know how to talk hip to the kids!" douche.



Hell, that's almost worse than the other stuff! There should be some sort of felony charge for that, IMO. Abuse of the language, embarrassing your gender, referencing Nelly or Fergie, etc. Something!

  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2007-03-08, 11:42

And nobody died in an attempted murder or was stolen in an attempted burglary but that doesn't make it any less of a crime.

If my understanding of entrapment is correct, it really doesn't matter whether narc bought or sold the drugs. What matter is whether the junkie would have taken up on the opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have done so. It's easier to say junkie was entrapped if narc offered to sell the drugs, but it wouldn't be entrapment if junkie had approached the narc and persisted for a hit from a "reluctant" narc.

See my post about how entrapment is proved in the court.

And some more reference:

Wiki
Law.com Dictionary
  quote
InactionMan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2007-03-08, 12:03

Banana, that law article has some troubling stats. It says the courts have gotten 20 convictions or pleas out of 183 cases. I'd be interesting to know what the final charges were in those 20 cases and how many of the cases were thrown out. I'd have a lot less trouble with a show like this if they only broadcast stings that resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. But I guess NBC wouldn't have much of a show if they had to keep showing guys that ended up being charged with lewd and lascivious behaviour or soliciting a minor.

Based on the Wiki article Canada and the U.S. have different definitions of entrapment. It's likely that a lot of this wouldn't fly in Canadian courts. I know that Toronto's sex crime unit only allows their most senior detectives to take part in online stings and they'll usually be in contact for months before any action is even considered. It's also generally a lot harder to get a conviction to stick for this type of crime in Canada given that our age of consent is so low.

I just wish NBC would have a higher standard for what gets broadcast. If they wait for a conviction or a plea before they air it then there's really no problem. But if 90% of the cases aren't resulting in a conviction than I really hope NBC and the police forces get their assess sued off.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quality Kids Shows ast3r3x AppleOutsider 85 2008-07-07 10:54
Interesting solution to space issues for TV Shows on an iPod nato64 General Discussion 2 2006-10-18 09:13
Lack of TV shows in UK via iTunes steve77uk General Discussion 7 2006-04-20 16:16
Disney/ABC to offer shows online for free Bill M General Discussion 9 2006-04-10 18:34
TONS of TV Shows now on iTunes!!! nato64 Apple Products 75 2005-12-09 16:09


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2022, AppleNova