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

[Pander Bear]

Its because its a valid argument. So I'll ask you, "how can anyone be against catching child molesters?"

You have no problem with encouraging people to molest children so you can arrest them. Should we employ the same tactics for people who beat their spouses?

 

[Belisarius]

RE Junctionalfunkie:
Ditto--I can't watch it, but I think it's good work.

 

[Mariposa]

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.

I truly cannot believe what I have just read from you, DM. Not all feminists burn their bra (hell, I need mine, and I'm not as well endowed as many women) as a political statement. I don't know of any of my contemporaries who has burned a bra. But you were born in the 70s, IIRC... things may have been different then.

I would be extremely worried if I found out that any minor child or teen of mine of either sex or any gender was corresponding with someone much older in a sexual manner. The potential for exploitation is just too great.

As for TCAP: it's plain old vigilante justice, and while I'm as much in favor of people that fuck kids getting locked up and the key thrown away as any reasonable person should be, I have not been able to form a decent opinion on whether or not this constitutes entrapment -- by most legal definitions, it does not, but it's a matter of letter v. spirit of the law.

As Kul69 and PB, among others, have stated: it's a for-profit venture, and although police may or may not have the necessary funding, training, or education to deal with pedophiles appropriately... Perverted Justice is intended as entertainment and shock value. What kind of money are these people receiving from NBC? Sounds like a bunch of people with computers and too much time on their hands.

FWIW, I'm glad we didn't get the Internet in my house till I was 16, and it never occurred to me to meet people there until I was well above the age of majority. I was creeped out on a few occasions by guys who messaged me liking the photo in my profile, or whatever, but I never responded... having a good internal "creep-o-meter" is one of the most valuable skills a parent can teach an adolescent. That isn't to say I didn't do my fair share of stupid things when I was a teen, but they never involved the police or grown men.

I'd like to think that if I have children that I will be able to teach them that it isn't OK for people to try to exploit them, and that they should use their best judgment as they grow into their bodies and minds -- self-respect goes a long way with everything.

 

[Xorkoth]

And look, I'm trying to polarize the debate

That doesn't benefit anybody.

Ah! I meant I'm NOT trying to polarize the debate. Pesky leaving out of words... 8(

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.

Well, that was my point actually. Sure, parents should be aware of everything their child is doing and monitor their activities. But sadly many don't, and at the time this show came out it was especially a problem that many parents were not monitoring their children. I do feel like some people were made more aware because of the show... mainly because a number of my parents' yuppie friends never realized there were child predators on the Internet before they saw the show.

Anyway, I see some of the points of the other side. If the show is really going into chat rooms and initiating discussion of sex unprompted and pretending to be a child, then that's not cool. And the whole time I agreed that turning it into a show was pretty reprehensible, although I can see a few good things that may have come from it.

The bottom line is I never really thought about this show much until this thread... I only saw a few minutes of it once (although I have been in discussions about it where others were more into it). So I was probably being a little reactionary. That, and I was thinking out loud (in typing?) since I hadn't really thought about this much before.

 

[doesntmatter]

so NBC is in the wrong for turning other peoples misfortunes into profit, perverted justice is in the wrong for taking the law into their own hands, and the people who often times drive hours away from home and bring liquor and condoms to a 13 yr olds house are in the wrong for attempting to commit child molestation....

 

[Mariposa]

so NBC is in the wrong for turning other peoples misfortunes into profit, perverted justice is in the wrong for taking the law into their own hands, and the people who often times drive hours away from home and bring liquor and condoms to a 13 yr olds house are in the wrong for attempting to commit child molestation....

Yes. The entire thing is wrong, and turns everyone involved into potential criminals. The pedos are just the easiest to plea bargain with.

 

[Pander Bear]

^^

last two posts here really cut through all the BS and vitriol. :D

 

[Fausty]

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.

I have a surefire, 100%, absolutely guaranteed way to bring every male child predator to justice in America:

- kill every adult male human being in the country -

Bingo. Perfectly effective. We'll get every one of those child-raping fucks. Think how GOOD it will feel to kill them, knowing they will NEVER hurt another child again.

Anyone who is against this solution is clearly in favor of child abuse. After all, I have just offered a guaranteed way to bring to justice every man in America who has ever abused a child. Think of the beauty of such a solution!

Oh, wait. . . there's collateral damage? Well, if we can protect just one child from abuse, it's worth the cost! Right? I mean, you said that. Whatever the cost, we must protect the children.

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."

First, we do prevent police from listening in on phone conversations with the bad guys you cite (well, we used to before Bush/Ashcroft started ignoring laws in this country) - police need a court order before they can engage in such surveillance. We require that because the Founders of our country had these hang-ups about things like civil liberties, the protection of individual rights, and the abuse of state power. The Founders knew that if we allowed the king (err, President) to ignore the law when it was really, really important, we'd soon have the law ignored more and more often. They'd seen it happen, themselves, and they wanted to create a country where such things were not allowed.

They were right, and the rest of the civilized world has since then adopted their model. We have laws, they apply to everyone. Laws aren't for use only when convenient, or only when the targets are unpopular. Heck, we even have an "equal protection" clause in our Constitution.

Second, I hope you can see how utterly laughable your "victimless crime" statement is with regards to drug laws in the eyes of a huge percentage of American voters. While I agree with you, I also know that the mob won't be satisfied with just catching genuinely bad folks via reality TeeVee docudrama stings - sooner or later, they'll want to catch all the subversives and radicals and dissidents and ne'er-do-wells. It's happened before, and it's why we have the rule of law rather than the mob.

You think you can let the mob off the leash to catch one group of people, and then calmly expect the mob to stand down when they pick their next targets. And the next. And the next. . .

The witchunts in Salem were very popular. The lynchings in the South of black men accused of "raping" white women were hugely popular with the vast majority of citizens - those evil black men were out to get the delicate, virginal white women - fortunately the vigilantes were there to stop that perversion of nature! Geez, odd how similar that rhetoric sounds to what we're reading in this thread.

Jesus, don't any of you who are so eager to hop on the vigilante bandwagon have any idea of the historical record on what happens when the mob is allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner? It isn't like there's any debate about the downsides of vigilante "justice." It looks great in Clint Eastwood movies, but in reality it's a bad way to run a society.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Mehm]

You have no problem with encouraging people to molest children so you can arrest them. Should we employ the same tactics for people who beat their spouses?

Were they encouraging people to molest? I don't know.

Why are these guys in the same place as provocative 13 year olds to begin with? If a little girl started saying stuff to me, I'd tell her I'm sorry for everything that's happened to her and to get therapy.

How exactly would a domestic abuse sting run? Cops knock on the door, tell the guy to let loose, then slap on the cuffs? I don't think it would sell.

I have a surefire, 100%, absolutely guaranteed way to bring every male child predator to justice in America:

- kill every adult male human being in the country -

It's called a straw man because it's easy to knock down, and I don't think the slope is as slippery as you make it out to be

The simple fact of the matter is this. Men, who for whatever reason, agree to have sex with a very young woman/girl. These men are exposed to themselves and their communities. This raises awareness and makes the people who live around the guy aware of his tendencies..maybe it will even make him realize his sickness and get help.

Yeah, I think its disgusting that a group of people produce TCAP for pure profit. In this case (and it is case by case imo) however, the ends do justify the means. Only mentally sick people can be talked into having sex with a little girl or boy.

On the entrapment issue, I don't think we really know. Not sure if it would change my opinion on the matter much though.

namaste

 

[Pander Bear]

if you don't have a problem with theoretical entrapment, and you don't have a problem with ends justifying means, then you're not an ethical person.

Fausty's "strawman" isnt a strawman. Its an application of your principles in an extreme manner. As is my domestic abuse show (which would go like this)

Wife calls a tip line and arranges a camera crew. She antagonizes her husband until he hits her, the TV crew then burst out of hiding, shame him for ad revenue, and then hand him over to the authorities.

If you aren't willing to approve of that premise, it just means that you don't empathize with the plight of battered women the way you do with molested children. If your response to that is "well, its different because one is worse", then you just selectively punishing people based on how much each class of crime disgusts you-- hardly a defensible position... and exactly why we still have drug prohibition, laws punishing prostitution, and until 30 years ago, laws barring interracial marriage in some states.

You can't destroy someones life over a thought crime. These people kill themselves, or at the very least, have their lives absolutely ruined for a guilty pleasure television show, for a crime that hadn't even committed. It would be like giving someone a lethal injection because he raised a gun, took the safety off, and thought better of shooting another man in the back of the head.

 

[Mariposa]

What PB said. Mehm, I see your points as well. I don't think Fausty was constructing a straw man; I believe he was being sarcastic. He can confirm or deny that if he chooses.

When I first found out about www.perverted-justice.com (the website the show is based on -- probably NSFW for content) I thought they truly believed they were getting sick people off the streets. Imagine my shock when I turned on the TV one day and saw that the entire thing has turned into an overblown, TV-funded vigilante sting operation. I note that they have just started an "academy" for LEO which they can "take classes from the comfort of their desks" -- see here.

What are these people's credentials other than being Internet vigilantes with too much time on their hands who happen to dislike perverts? Everyone dislikes pedophiles; I imagine pedophiles usually dislike themselves. Most people want to protect children from harm.

I hope that the operation is based in altruism, and I have no factual basis to believe that it is not, but even without commenting at all on the "entrapment" aspect of the operation, I believe it is a giant conflict of interest at the very minimum, and while I want pedophiles off the streets as much as any reasonable person... these plea bargains and televised scare tactics don't sit well with me.

The PJ people say they are "nonprofit" and "volunteers" but they are now formally organized and asking for donations, which no doubt they will get now that they are a corporation. Do realize that there are many nonprofits that PAY THEIR PEOPLE BIG BUCKS... I don't know whether PJ is one of them, and don't have the time or energy to find out.

Without resorting to words like "thoughtcrime" or "intent" -- what these guys are saying to the decoys is extremely creepy. But the decoys aren't getting at the pedophiles who (a) don't have Internet access; and/or (b) aren't trolling the interweb for their targets, because they're busy fucking around with their child/niece/nephew/little cousin/boy or girl next door IRL.

 

[Kul69]

^^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.

My point is that a "young, innocent, child" isn't going to be on "find a fuck buddy tonight" looking for 40 year old men to invite over to fuck them in the ass. However, that is the image the show presents. A "young, innocent, child" is going to be prayed on by their coach or parents. They're going to meet another "young, innocent, child" online who they think is cute and go meet them and get kidnapped by someone.

Puberty occurs at different ages for everyone and there are a ton of factors that play into the timing. Some 18 year olds haven't even completed puberty whereas some 13 year olds have matured and are looking to have sex because they WANT IT.

Now, what I said before was that posing as a 14 year old girl and talking to people about how nice it would be if they fucked your ass and then inviting them over to your house to do it is a totally different thing than someone molesting a child because they hold authority over them as a teacher or whatever.

Again.. we don't know how they lure these people or where they find them or anything. They could be saying stuff in hardcore sex chat rooms like "hot girl here looking for a man to please me." Then the person messages her and chats for a bit then it comes out she's only 14 but apparently is totally wanting to have sex with the person.

This is why it's fucked up in my opinion. Some 14 year olds actually do want to have sex and are complete sluts. I was but I'm a guy so it doesn't matter. I knew girls who had a fuckload of sex at that age too. Yes, it was mostly with guys their age but what if she wanted to have sex with a 25 year old instead?

Oh and while I'm on the subject of it not mattering I was a slut cause I'm a guy. Why do these shows never use "young boys" as bait? It's because no one would care! Seeing a 14 year old guy being solicited by some 30 year old who wants to give him a blow job isn't sensational enough.

It only works when the young helpless girl is prayed on by the old weird perverts. Then it subconsciously arouses a lot of people and is this entirely weird fucking thing that at times is just hilarious to me.

Uhh.. Yeah, and just for the record I don't like any girls under the age of 16/17 cause they just look so "undeveloped" or whatever. Young boys though........... Well, let's just say you'll never see me on To Catch a Predator until they run their "Gay Special."

 

[Fausty]

What PB said. Mehm, I see your points as well. I don't think Fausty was constructing a straw man; I believe he was being sarcastic. He can confirm or deny that if he chooses.

Not really sarcastic, so much as applying the principal in an extreme but congruent example. Principle being: "any price is worth paying if it saves just one child." Clearly, that's an asinine statement to make. Some prices are too high, even to protect one child - pretending otherwise is just mindlessly simple rhetorical hype. There's a balance here, and making the right balance isn't easy or simple.

I don't think the potential (and it's entirely potential - not like these guys are swooping in and rescuing a real child just before he or she is raped) to perhaps protect a child from abuse justifies the wholesale perversion of our accepted standards of law enforcement, criminal justice, and equal protection. Kids are great, child abuse is bad - I also think a functional government and a healthy society is somewhat important. Call me old-fashioned.

Perhaps I'm a bit more jaundiced about these "citizen justice" shenanigans as I've been personally targeted by wannabe-vigilantes myself, in my own life, for nonexistent crimes. Once the door is opened to chasing after real, genuinely bad people it's just so laughably clear that the door will open wider and wider, until the targeting is all but subjective. Everyone agrees child molesters are bad people - but when there's no more space for another TeeVee show chasing them, what's the next target population going to be?

Honestly, if I were a producer and had no qualms about morality, I'd probably do a "sting" show where I had people pose as 15 year old kids trying to score an 8-ball of meth. Set up a buy, do the sting, arrest the dealer. It'd get huge ratings, everyone hates drug dealers. What's the difference between that and this whatever-it's-called show?

Probably the creepiest thing about this whole thing, to me, is this: who are the pathetic people who actually like watching garbage like that? I mean, what in heaven's name is wrong with them, that doing so seems like "fun?" It's absolutely frightening to me, on so many levels.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Pander Bear]

its on late for insomniac housewives. The entire television schedule at that time of night is all about grotesque true-crime dramatizations, jewelry for sale, and aluminum and vinyl ab-blasters.

 

[Mariposa]

I don't think the potential (and it's entirely potential - not like these guys are swooping in and rescuing a real child just before he or she is raped) to perhaps protect a child from abuse justifies the wholesale perversion of our accepted standards of law enforcement, criminal justice, and equal protection. Kids are great, child abuse is bad - I also think a functional government and a healthy society is somewhat important. Call me old-fashioned.

Concurred, in full -- resources of LEO which taxpayers fund should not be going to wannabe Internet bounty hunters; they should be going to actually getting the bad guys/women/etc. off the streets and making families aware that the abuse they see on the television is more likely to occur in their own backyard by people who are not so public as to get caught, than in television viewers' imaginations.

That's why it's important to remove the false pretense of "thoughtcrime" - there's plenty of people that actually ARE pedophiles and DO harm minors out there to catch. And the worst abuses -- well, the FCC would never let those be shown.

 

[Mehm]

Thanks for enlightening us on the "real" definition of ethical

Fausty's kill em all is a straw man because i don't support murder so would obviously find the idea reprehensible and illogical.

If some rich assholes want to corrupt their souls by only making the domestic abuse show for profit, so be it...I think the cops should bust out before he hits her. However, if she were the one to first get abusive, then you would double charge them.

I want to stop domestic abuse and think this is an effective method. Who would put themselves in that situation to begin with? People that need help.

I'm not talking about laws I see as old and corrupt such as enslaving another human, I'm talking about domestic and child abuse. Actually, its interesting, I support bans on slavery by any means necessary, including war, and I support ending domestic and child abuse through quasi entrapment. Busting people selling weed is bullshit though. Its a medicinal plant with varied psychoactive effects that people chose to put in their body. This isn't a slippery slope, it is logic.

And getting a little girl drunk and penetrating her isn't a thought crime ffs

 

[Fausty]

Busting people selling weed is bullshit though. Its a medicinal plant with varied psychoactive effects that people chose to put in their body. This isn't a slippery slope, it is logic.

Ok good - you need to get in touch with the tens of thousands of people in the USA alone who are doing prison time, right now, because they got busted selling and/or possessing weed (more than a few are doing life without parole for this crime, just to be clear). After all, "logic" says it's not a crime so they'll be glad to hear they are free to leave prison and go back to their lives. Thank heavens you cleared that up!

Wait, that's not how it works. 8)

What, to you, might be an "obvious" distinction between busting people for real crimes with real victims, and harassing people for stupid crimes, might not be so obvious to the rest of society. After all, RICO laws were enacted to go after major organized crime syndicates that were doing some pretty scary stuff. Nowadays they're used mostly to bust small-time narcotics traffickers. This is what we call "the slippery slope" - out here, in the messy world of reality, it's not uncommon to find.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Pander Bear]

And getting a little girl drunk and penetrating her isn't a thought crime ffs

Oh, did that ever happen on this show you don't seem to watch?

no, because there was no girl, and there was no crime.

 

[DarthMom]

I truly cannot believe what I have just read from you, DM. Not all feminists burn their bra (hell, I need mine, and I'm not as well endowed as many women) as a political statement.

no shit, sweetums. i know many of you need your bra. it wasn't to be taken literally. sorry i didn't forewarn you of that. mine are D's if anyone knows about your plights in life, it is me.

I don't know of any of my contemporaries who has burned a bra. But you were born in the 70s, IIRC... things may have been different then.

why are you spending so much typing on and on about a facetious comment, it wasn't meant to be responed to. i didn't think you literally burned your bra, and i certainly hope you and those of ours nowadays don't really. that would be silly

I would be extremely worried if I found out that any minor child or teen of mine of either sex or any gender was corresponding with someone much older in a sexual manner. The potential for exploitation is just too great.

i totally agree, and i would be on my son's ass about ANY relationship he was involved in if it seemed to be dangerous in any way. and if i found out that my 17 yr old son was having sex with an older woman, there would be many questions, but what it boils down to, is that i would worry much less about my older adolescent son having sex with an older woman than the opposite happening. judge me all you want wtih regards to this statement, but i am still right. so it won't matter.

it is fucked up the way this world attacks females and their sexuality in so many ways that we can still do the proverbial high five to a young guy who bangs an older lady, yet do the opposite for a young gal. but your opinion, and mine isn't what matters. all that matters is that child and their future happiness and mental stability.

 

[Mehm]

Kul - I agree that women go through a maturing process at different ages. This process is however mostly physical and it takes their brain a while to catch up. And the whole thing is completely cultural to begin with. So I do see your points.

What I'm saying is a lot of young, promiscuous girls have already been abused, as have their future abusers. The super fine 15-18 year olds that I meet in passing (I'm 25) usually seem immature, from chaotic lives, but maybe ready to be with someone quite a bit older. 13 year olds..forget it. They may have lumps on their chest but you are seriously fucking with their head if you get with them sexually. My whole family are psychologists and I have the luck of this sort of topic being table talk.