Should Dateline be allowed to continue 'catch a predator'?

[dtugg]

Right, I agree that it's entrapment and kind of a b.s. way to catch predators, but I'll still watch it honestly just as entertainment. I think its a pretty funny show.

Did it get taken off the air? I haven't seen it on in awhile.

It's defintely not entrapment according to existing laws. For it to have any chance of it being entrapment, they would have to go into chat rooms or whatver and convince these people to have sex with undarege kids. From what I gather, this is not the case; these sickos always contact the underage girls first and are almost always the first ones to bring up sex.

 

[psyly]

If the press is acting as the press, I don't think they should be interfered with on most things. To Catch a Predator seems like the press is acting as law enforcement. Its an unacceptable contamination in my opinion. The law enforcement involved starts to have concerns about ratings and how a scene plays. Is the the To Catch a Predator staff keeping records in such a way that the defense can make discovery motions? Are all of their staff available to the court as law enforcement would be?

I would hope that press and law enforcement would both find the compromises involved unacceptable. I was very glad years ago when the Supreme Court of California said that the camera men of the show Cops could no longer enter a private citizen's home without the explicit permission of the home owner. Law enforcement exigent circumstances do not extend to the press. I am generally in favor of some type of shield law for press on protecting sources but not at all if they are going to be acting as law enforcement.

 

[euphoria]

oh i was under the impression that the dateline people that were pretending to be little girls actually flirted with the old men and tried to bring it on. i'm sure it bypasses any sort of entrapment laws, as its on tv, but still in my opinion i think it's a totally bullshit way to catch pedofiles.

 

[sunshinefix]

I think it's really stupid and I personally am not entertained or feel informed because of it. I think they could be focusing on more important issues. Not every person labeled a sexual predator is a pedophile. It's pretty sad that crap even passes for news, or most of the crap that passes for news in this country. News is supposed to be unbiased and show both sides of a situation or argument.

As far as I can tell, it's not entrapment unless they convince the person into committing a crime and then arresting them. I think that you have to be law enforcement or acting as law enforcement to do that, which they may be doing. It also is not defamation because they are not saying anything that isn't true. If they were saying something about one of the people or implying something that wasn't true it would be in the best interest that person to sue the crap out of dateline for slander.

 

[spaceyourbass]

I think it's really stupid and I personally am not entertained or feel informed because of it. I think they could be focusing on more important issues. Not every person labeled a sexual predator is a pedophile. It's pretty sad that crap even passes for news, or most of the crap that passes for news in this country. News is supposed to be unbiased and show both sides of a situation or argument.
.

More important issues? Do you support child molestation? Not every sexual predator is a pedophile, but everyone they catch on the show is a pedofile.

How I understand it, the Dateline people do all of the work, do not entrap the men, and record the online chats as evidence. The guy shows up, and all the cops have to do is put him in handcuffs when he leaves the house. This makes the police's job so much easier.

I don't understand how someone could be against this show. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. You have to understand though, that the show is keeping innocent children from being molested. Who the hell would be against that?

The problem with pedophile sex is that the kids never want to 'tell on' the molesters. They don't want everyone to know what's been happening to them. Often, the molesters threaten them not to tell. The show takes proactive action against pedophilia. This makes it easier for the police and the victims.

If the show has kept one child from being screwed up for the rest of his or her life, then its a success. I'd bet that it has helped a lot more than one child.

Pedophiles belong at home, jacking off to child beauty queen shows, NOT looking for peoples' kids on the internet. Case closed.

 

[alasdairm]

And the fact that this show exists probably reduces the number of sickos that will use the internet to try to have sex with 13 year old girls.

probably? can you back this up with anything at all or is it just your opinion?

alasdair

 

[Mehm]

I'm with spaceyourbass. How can you be against something that keeps kids from being molested? Also, I think these guys (would be molesters) are plain sick and were probably molested themselves. Abuse tends to be a cycle. Raising public awareness is a key step in ending this cycle. Sure it embarrasses someone, but maybe it also drives them to seek help. It seems like a lot of people are taking a reactionary stance against media and not considering what the effect of the show on someones life may be.

 

[Fausty]

I'm with spaceyourbass. How can you be against something that keeps kids from being molested? Also, I think these guys (would be molesters) are plain sick and were probably molested themselves. Abuse tends to be a cycle. Raising public awareness is a key step in ending this cycle. Sure it embarrasses someone, but maybe it also drives them to seek help. It seems like a lot of people are taking a reactionary stance against media and not considering what the effect of the show on someones life may be.

No, we're pointing out the risks associated with cheerleading the press when they start taking on the role of law enforcement. In a country based on laws, having private citizens acting as vigilantes opens all sorts of doors that are best left closed.

Yes, we all agree that sexual abuse of children is a Bad Thing. Nobody's arguing that point, here. Saving a child is a great thing, kind of like motherhood and apple pie. Empty platitudes aside, I'm much more interested, myself, in systemic approaches to accomplishing societal goals than I am in some TeeVee entertainment enterprise that might, as an entirely secondary side-effect, potentially prevent a child from being abused.

Further, who here is going to be quite so keen on the press as vigilantes when it's drug crimes - and not child abuse - that's the target of the TeeVee moralists? We might all think that drug crimes don't count as "real" crimes and feel safe that no TeeVee reporter would target some guy selling pounds of weed. I suggest making this assumption is purely fantasy. Fox News would love to deputize itself and start busting dealers who are "destroying the children with their deadly drugs," etc. It's all about Protecting The Children!

Mob rule is great when you're part of the mob and the "bad guys" are the target. It's not so much fun when the mob slips the leash and goes on a rampage - targeting whoever comes in handy. That's why we have laws, and government, and constitutions, and courts, and rules of evidence, and stuff. . . you know, "law enforcement." They enforce laws. TeeVee makes TeeVee shows so people can sit and be entertained without thinking. These are two rather different tasks, it seems to me. 8)

If this whole topic didn't echo so many of the implicit warnings of Natural Born Killers so perfectly, it would be worth pointing them out. But I'm assuming everyone can make that leap all by themselves.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[dtugg]

probably? can you back this up with anything at all or is it just your opinion?

alasdair

I don't really have anything solid to back it up. But if I was a child predator, I would think twice about using the internet to solicate my victims because of the show. To Catch a Predator isn't the only of these sorts of stings, but it's definitely the most widely known about. Who wants to end up being interviewed by Chris Hansen when he thought he was going to get some hot 13 year old ass, and then get arrested immediately afterwards?

 

[Pander Bear]

It seems like a lot of people are taking a reactionary stance against media and not considering what the effect of the show on someones life may be.

You mean like the guy who put a gun in his mouth because he was so ashamed? I think you are the one who isn't considering what effect this show is having on people's lives.

NBC isn't performing a public service. It's entrapping people who might not otherwise act on their impulses, defaming them, and offering people a sick, voyeuristic opportunity to play along at home. "Raising awareness" is just a side effect. This is just more lowest-common-denominator programming from network television that is struggling to retain viewers.

 

[DarthMom]

are you serious? it's your kid, not your buddy..

i was being slightly facetious.

of course i wouldn't high 5 him. but i wouldn't worry about the effect it would have on his future self worth. boys are different than gals. don't mean to undermine 30 years of bra burning, but it isn't the same.

 

[Mehm]

You mean like the guy who put a gun in his mouth because he was so ashamed? I think you are the one who isn't considering what effect this show is having on people's lives.

NBC isn't performing a public service. It's entrapping people who might not otherwise act on their impulses, defaming them, and offering people a sick, voyeuristic opportunity to play along at home. "Raising awareness" is just a side effect. This is just more lowest-common-denominator programming from network television that is struggling to retain viewers.

He was caught trying to have sex with a very young woman. Better he blows his brains out than ruins countless other lives. I'm sure this wasn't the first time and only the tip of the ice burg.

And why the assumption that these people wouldn't have acted on their impulses if it weren't for NBC? They WERE acting on their impulses and got caught. The only difference being, THIS TIME a camera crew was waiting for them instead of an innocent child.

Fausty: I do see your point that laws are for law enforcement, not television executives. I just don't agree with you. Maybe it's because of the area I come from (Utah, historically independent and wanting to deal with issues internally), but I don't have a problem with vigilante justice as long as I agree with what's going on. Say someone rapes my sister and their isn't a lot of solid evidence for whatever reason. I'm going to kill that guy and I have no problem or qualms about not involving the authorities..who I don't really trust anyways. Black and white the issue isn't.

 

[Xorkoth]

So far the only good argument against the show that I have seen here is that the money spent producing the show could be better spent on purely catching predators, rather than paying a whole bunch of people a lot of money to produce a flashy show.

But on the other hand, I think it's pretty silly to think that having a show like that would not deter at least some predators from actually following through with their impulses.

I just have a hard time believing that anyone is saying the show is a negative thing overall. Does it matter whether a child predator is caught on television for other people to see, versus just by the police? And it IS the police arresting these people. CNN is just coming along. Let me ask you, would it be wrong for the police (rather than CNN) to act as a child online to catch a sexual predator? I don't see why.

I also think it's pretty silly to think that the only reason these predators actually follow their impulses is because someone lured them into it. Child predation is sick... if a child suggests to you to have sex with them, you should be put away if you accept, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's actually a child or if it's just someone pretending to be; if you do it thinking it's a child, that's fucked up and inexcusable. In my mind it's one of the few things that's black and white, the same as murder and rape (except even worse than adulot rape). You just can't do it. If a person is sick enough to do that even though they know how wrong it is, then how could you say they would have never acted on their impulses had someone not entrapped them? I mean, in what way are these people found? I somehow doubt that they go around contacting every person they can think of pretending to be a child looking for sex, until they find someone. It seems more likely that they portray themselves as a child looking for sex in a place where people can find that, and then when someone responds, they go get them. Please correct me if I'm wrong and you do actually know the method by which they find these child predators, but if it's something like what I described, I fail to see how that is even entrapment. It's not like they called up the person and begged and begged. The person still sought out a child for sex.

That last part was a bit of speculation, but it seems to me there's a lot of speculation going on here.

Ultimately, I just don't understand how someone could consider anything that brings child predators to justice to be a bad thing. Child sexual abuse is one of the worst things you could do to a person and if the show has saved even a single child by deterring someone or raising awareness to parents, then it's been a good thing, in my mind.

And finally, as for the argument "what's next, catching drug users?" Well, I would think it was wrong if they started doing that. But this is an entirely different sort of crime. Drug use is a victimless crime. Child abuse is about as far from a victimless crime as you can get. They're just completely different. To me that argument is like saying "we need to prevent the police from getting the ability to listen in on phone conversations of suspects in a murder case, or terrorism, or something else that threatens lives, because next they might do it for drug users."

 

[alasdairm]

But on the other hand, I think it's pretty silly to think that having a show like that would not deter at least some predators from actually following through with their impulses.

i think you have to do better than that. one can just counter this with "it's pretty silly to think <the counterpoint>" and where does that get us?

I just have a hard time believing that anyone is saying the show is a negative thing overall.

you can't believe that different people might just possibly have a difference of opinion on a subject? i have a hard time understanding why anybody would have trouble with such a simple idea

but seriously, your statement is a lot more about the "I just have a hard time believing" bit than the issue at hand.

Does it matter whether a child predator is caught on television for other people to see, versus just by the police? And it IS the police arresting these people. CNN is just coming along.

that is really pretty naive. the police didn't set this thing up then invite cnn along to film it.

Let me ask you, would it be wrong for the police (rather than CNN) to act as a child online to catch a sexual predator? I don't see why.

no because the police wouldn't be spending millions on turning the issue into a glossy tv show designed to drive ratings.

pander bear put it well, i'll just quote him here: "It's entrapping people who might not otherwise act on their impulses, defaming them, and offering people a sick, voyeuristic opportunity to play along at home."

Ultimately, I just don't understand how someone could consider anything that brings child predators to justice to be a bad thing.

again, the important bit here is "I just don't understand..."

i'm not saying you're necessarily doing it but others in the thread certainly have - or have heavily implied it. polarising a debate like this into statements like "how can anybody be against catching child molesters" which inevitably becomes "if you disagree with me, you're for children being molested" do nothing but destroy useful discussion...

regards

alasdair

 

[Pander Bear]

Let me ask you, would it be wrong for the police (rather than CNN) to act as a child online to catch a sexual predator? I don't see why.

Its called entrapment, and Its illegal (provided the officer is the one who brings up the sex). Its wrong because you encourage someone to break the law, just to catch them. Entrapment inherently involves profiling, and being dishonest to people who have not yet done anything wrong. If you don't see anything wrong with it, then you should either take an ethics class on it, or apply the same philosophy to drug law enforcement, speeding tickets, or something else that effects you to the point where you're willing to look beyond your simple malice.


Would you be in favor of police paying 17 year olds to infiltrate college parties to entrap college students? Give them 10 years? Put their names on a registry? If its Right for NBC, it should be right for this situation too.

 

[Xorkoth]

Like I said, child predation is a different issue than drugs and partying. You can't just say that all types of crime can be handled the same way. I would be against the situation you described, but not the situation this thread is about. It doesn't have to be black and white. Call me closed-minded or something, but I just think that if someone is going to go through with meeting a child for sex, whether they approached the child or the child approached them or someone pretending to be a child approached them, they deserve to be put away.

And alasdair, just because I said I can't believe or understand an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean you can disregard the other things I said. Likewise, just because I said I have a hard time believing the opposing viewpoint foes not mean I disregarded everything that was said... it just means I have a hard time believing something. I did not in fact ignore the opposing arguments. I just didn't find them convincing to me. And don't forget that the first thing I said in my post was that the only point I agree with was the one you made about how the money would be better spent simply catching the criminals rather than turning it into a show. On the other hand you can call me naive, but I think the intention of the show was to raise awareness of what's going on... it wasn't some sinister plot to create a voyeuristic filthy show for some sick sense of entertainment. From my perspective a serious increase in awareness of the problem was desperately needed. As time goes on, more and more people have become aware of the fact that they need to be monitoring their children online. A lot of people used to not even consider that their child could have someone preying on them online. Now I think mostly everyone knows that it's a possibility. Maybe it wasn't entirely the show, but I'm sure it helped. Sadly, many Americans at least won't spend time learning about things unless it's shown to them on television.

Let me ask again, does anyone know the manner in which these people are "lured"? I don't think they single out a certain person and solicit them pretending to be a child. If they do, then I would feel a bit differently about it. But my understanding of it is that they pretended to be children in such a way as to perhaps tempt a predator, and when someone showed interest, then they pursued them. If this is not the case, then tell me. If it is, then I don't really consider that entrapment at all, as the person still sought out and found a child. The way I see it if the case I described is true, that person was seeking a child anyway and happened to find one that wasn't really a child after all. If that is indeed the case, the fact that someone was pretending to be a child actually saved a real child from being preyed upon.

And I will say it yet again, I'd love for someone to let me know that my perception of how the alleged entrapment works is wrong. Because if it is, I may feel a bit differently. But if I'm right, then I stand by my points.

And look, I'm NOT trying to polarize this debate. It's just that I feel pretty strongly about the issue and I'm struggling to understand how people can be arguing the other way.

EDIT: NOT added... pretty significant typo.

 

[Pander Bear]

Let me ask again, does anyone know the manner in which these people are "lured"? I don't think they single out a certain person and solicit them pretending to be a child. If they do, then I would feel a bit differently about it. But my understanding of it is that they pretended to be children in such a way as to perhaps tempt a predator, and when someone showed interest, then they pursued them. If this is not the case, then tell me. If it is, then I don't really consider that entrapment at all, as the person still sought out and found a child. The way I see it if the case I described is true, that person was seeking a child anyway and happened to find one that wasn't really a child after all. If that is indeed the case, the fact that someone was pretending to be a child actually saved a real child from being preyed upon.

They misrepresent themselves as children over the internet. They say they don't solicit sex from them. Former employees say that they do. The former isn't against the law, the latter is. Cases have been dismissed because its been shown that they have been entrapping people.

And look, I'm trying to polarize this debate.

That doesn't benefit anybody.

You can't just say that all types of crime can be handled the same way.

I'm not talking about crime. I'm talking about law. And there's a word for when you apply the law one way for one person, and a different way for another. They call it unjust.

act that someone was pretending to be a child actually saved a real child from being preyed upon.

Honestly, I don't think there are that many flesh-and-blood 13 year-olds cruising chatrooms, looking to pick up 30 year-olds. I really doubt NBC is saving children. They (or, really, perverted justice) found a new phenomenon created by the internet. People take for granted that they're anonymous on the internet, and on occasion, it enables them to make a decision that they normally wouldn't make. I have a feeling that most of the people on TCAP are people who wouldn't solicit sex from a minor while they were walking down the street in the suburb they lived in.

I'm struggling to understand how people can be arguing the other way.

Because the ends don't justify the means. Same reason I oppose the death penalty.

Sadly, many Americans at least won't spend time learning about things unless it's shown to them on television.

Watching fear factor isn't learning about eating maggots. This is entertainment. Its considerably more reprehensible to show this, or COPS (to me) than anything else on TV. If people learn anything from TCAP, its that child predators look like your neighbor, can strike at any time, and use those darned social networking sites your grand-kids love so much. Its no more educational than photos of dismembered bodies and genital warts.

Oh right, and its for profit.

 

[Kul69]

Personally I think the US is overly concerned with "child predators."

They use 13/14/15 year old "girls" regularly as the bait but most girls have reached puberty by this age and if they're online asking old men to come over and fuck them then they probably want to do it and are old enough to make that decision.

Nature has an "age of consent" and it's called puberty.

Nature also has a way of "giving consent" and it's called being online talking to guys about all the sexual things they're going to do to you and inviting them over to your house to do them.

That's why I hate this show.

If they were using 10 year old "girls" or going after guys who are stalking girls who tell them to fuck off or something.. Sure, sounds like a great night of entertainment...

However, busting 20 something year old guys for attempting to score with a 14 year old girl who invited them over.. not so respectable. Sure, it's kind of weird/immoral for various reasons but not enough so to ruin someone's entire life by putting them on TV as a child predator.

That's another thing. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Being on TV in this situation is one of the worst punishments you could recieve so why are these people being punished before they've even gone to court?

It's allowing a third party independent organization to setup people for the police to bust and then another third party media organization to punish them and make money off of the entire thing.


Also, one very important part of the entire thing is that you never see the entire chat log or where the chat took place or anything. How do we know these "innocent 14 year olds" aren't hanging out on StileProject's forums posting threads about how they love older men and shit?

That is something no innocent 14 year old would EVER FUCKING DO and I really believe most of the guys they "catch" are just fucking desperate and in some kind of general sex chat forum/room and there is this girl who will actually talk to them and let them talk about sex or whatever, get my point? Not protecting anyone or showing how it happens or ANYTHING. They go about it in an entirely unrealistic way.

Most child abuse/underage sex stuff is done by someone who already knows the child. Family or a friend or boss or teacher, whatever. Obviously some stuff does happen online but it doesn't happen at ALL like they show on this retarded show.

It's all profit motivated on ALL sides, the media, the "predator organization", and the police.

 

[Mehm]

^^hey kul, this isn't 1583 where people lived until age 30. A 13 year old is a young, innocent, child. Sure they can turn your head walking down the street, but it doesn't make them anything close to a consenting adult (imo). Also, 10 year olds are going through puberty now.

i'm not saying you're necessarily doing it but others in the thread certainly have - or have heavily implied it. polarising a debate like this into statements like "how can anybody be against catching child molesters" which inevitably becomes "if you disagree with me, you're for children being molested" do nothing but destroy useful discussion...

Its because its a valid argument. So I'll ask you, "how can anyone be against catching child molesters?" The answer seems to be, "because the tactics employed are wrong." Which brings us to the core of our debate: do the ends justify the means? Some people say yes, some people say no, and some people say that the "ends" are bullshit in this case.

 

[psyly]

One more thing about this issue is that IMO, we need to be particularly conscientious about due process and fairness when it comes to people who are despised and vilified. Today it is pedophiles and terrorists. In the past it has been communists , witches , and heretics. I'm not condoning pedophilia. I'm saying that these moral panics have never been conducive to justice. It is very likely that people are being falsely accused. There are political points to be made by police chiefs and prosecutors in nabbing pedophiles. When there is a public hysteria the public interest is seldom served by fanning the flames, but the media and others do it anyway.