• LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

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

article: Predator Panic: Reality Check on Sex Offenders

Predator Panic: Reality Check on Sex Offenders
By Benjamin Radford
posted: 16 May 2006 08:55 am ET


If you believe the near-daily news stories, sexual predators lurk everywhere: in parks, at schools, in the malls—even in teens' computers. A few rare (but high-profile) incidents have spawned an unprecedented slate of new laws enacted in response to the public's fear.

Every state has notification laws to alert communities about released sex offenders. Many states have banned sex offenders from living in certain areas, and are tracking them using satellite technology. Officials in Florida and Texas plan to bar convicted sex offenders from public shelters during hurricanes.

Most people believe that sex offenders pose a serious and growing threat. According to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, "the danger to teens is high." On the April 18, 2005, "CBS Evening News" broadcast, correspondent Jim Acosta reported that "when a child is missing, chance are good it was a convicted sex offender." (Acosta is incorrect: If a child goes missing, a convicted sex offender is actually among the least likely explanations, far behind runaways, family abductions, and the child being lost or injured.)

On his "To Catch a Predator" series on "Dateline NBC," reporter Chris Hansen claims that "the scope of the problem is immense" and "seems to be getting worse." In fact, Hansen stated, Web predators are "a national epidemic."

The news media emphasizes the dangers of Internet predators, convicted sex offenders, pedophiles, and child abductions. Despite relatively few instances of child predation and little hard data on topics such as Internet predators, journalists invariably suggest that the problem is extensive, and fail to put their stories in context. The "Today Show," for example, ran a series of misleading and poorly designed hidden camera "tests" to see if strangers would help a child being abducted (see "Stranger Danger: ‘Shocking' TV Test Flawed").

New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald wrote a front-page article about Justin Berry, a California teen who earned money as an underage Webcam model, seduced by an online audience who paid to watch him undress. Berry's story made national news, and he appeared on Oprah and in front of a Senate committee. Berry's experience, while alarming, is essentially an anecdote. Is Berry's case unique, or does it represent just the tip of the sexual predation iceberg? Eichenwald is vague about how many other teen porn purveyors like Berry he found during his six-month investigation. Three or four? Dozens? Hundreds or thousands? Eichenwald's article states merely that "the scale of Webcam pornography is unknown," while suggesting that Berry's experience was only one of many. (Acosta, Hansen, and Eichenwald did not respond to repeated requests for clarification of their reporting.)

Sex offenders are clearly a threat and commit horrific crimes, but how great is the danger? After all, there are many dangers in the world—from lightning to Mad Cow Disease to school shootings—that are real but very rare. Are they as common—and as likely to attack the innocent—as most people believe? A close look at two widely-repeated claims about the threat posed by sex offenders reveals some surprising truths.

One in five?

According to a May 3, 2006, "ABC News" report, "One in five children is now approached by online predators."

This alarming statistic is commonly cited in news stories about prevalence of Internet predators. The claim can be traced back to a 2001 Department of Justice study issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ("The Youth Internet Safety Survey") that asked 1,501 American teens between 10 and 17 about their online experiences. Among the study's conclusions: "Almost one in five (19 percent)...received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year." (A "sexual solicitation" is defined as a "request to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult." Using this definition, one teen asking another teen if her or she is a virgin—or got lucky with a recent date—could be considered "sexual solicitation.")

Not a single one of the reported solicitations led to any actual sexual contact or assault. Furthermore, almost half of the "sexual solicitations" came not from "predators" or adults but from other teens. When the study examined the type of Internet "solicitation" parents are most concerned about (e.g., someone who asked to meet the teen somewhere, called the teen on the telephone, or sent gifts), the number drops from "one in five" to 3 percent.

This is a far cry from a "national epidemic" of children being "approached by online predators." As the study noted, "The problem highlighted in this survey is not just adult males trolling for sex. Much of the offending behavior comes from other youth [and] from females." Furthermore, most kids just ignored (and were not upset by) the solicitation: "Most youth are not bothered much by what they encounter on the Internet...Most young people seem to know what to do to deflect these sexual ‘come ons.'" The reality is far less grave than the ubiquitous "one in five" statistic suggests.


Recidivism revisited

Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from prison.

The high recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender rate.

In the largest and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are unlikely to re-offend.

If sex offenders are no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers, there seems little justification for the public's fear, or for the monitoring laws tracking them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those living elsewhere.)

Putting the threat in perspective

The issue is not whether children need to be protected; of course they do. The issues are whether the danger to them is great, and whether the measures proposed will ensure their safety. While some efforts—such as longer sentences for repeat offenders—are well-reasoned and likely to be effective, those focused on separating sex offenders from the public are of little value because they are based on a faulty premise. Simply knowing where a released sex offender lives—or is at any given moment—does not ensure that he or she won't be near potential victims.

While the abduction, rape, and killing of children by strangers is very, very rare, such incidents receive a lot of media coverage, leading the public to overestimate how common these cases are. Most sexually abused children are not victims of convicted sex offenders nor Internet pornographers, and most sex offenders do not re-offend once released. This information is rarely mentioned by journalists more interested in sounding alarms than objective analysis.

One tragic result of these myths is that the panic over sex offenders distracts the public from a far greater threat to children: parental abuse and neglect.

The vast majority of crimes against children are committed not by released sex offenders, but instead by the victim's own family, church clergy, and family friends. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, "based on what we know about those who harm children, the danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a stranger." If lawmakers and the public are serious about wanting to protect children, they should not be misled by "stranger danger" myths and instead focus on the much larger threat inside the home.

Benjamin Radford wrote about Megan's Laws and lawmaking in response to moral panics in his book "Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us." He is the managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
 
Last edited:
While I don't watch the show because its not interesting to me in the least, I am glad the show is on air. I see nothing wrong with it. So what if its entrapment? What these are wanting to do and would be doing, is awful. If its not a "pretend" under age girl - it'd be a real underage girl.

At the very least, it outs them to everyone that watches the show. So say, your local piano teacher... that you leave your 13 year old daughter with for 2 hours every week to learn how to play the piano........ is suddenly on your TV being "trapped/etc" by To catch a predator? And IMO - basically thats what the show does. It outs people who want to have sex with children. Everyone that knows them - will know and no children will be left alone around them, putting them in a position to be molested.

I don't care what reason they play the show. I thank it. (not that I watch it, but than I'm a stay at home mom, always with my daughter)

Ask yourself this question. If you had a daughter (or son), would you leave her alone with any of the men "caught" on that show?

If your answer is No - than you should be thanking the show for showing you who not to trust.
 
Last edited:
Fausty said:
It seems to me that your true calling is missionary work - it certainly isn't cogent conversation.

I believe. . . I believe. . . I BELIEVE!!

8)

Personally, I prefer the "reality-based world," where my beliefs matter less than objective fact. This thread does, admittedly, serve as an effective testament to the uselessness of attempting to discuss something with someone who will confidently fall back on "belief" as the basic building block of reality.

SYB, while I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place on this one - nobody wants to see children sexually abused, particularly folks like me who were ourselves abused sexually as children - you spend more time defending your overblown "beliefs" than would be required to simply do a bit of research and sharpen your understanding and perspective. Note that I'm not suggesting that research would change your basic standpoint; rather, a bit more digging could well provide additional tools and information to more effectively present, explore, solidify, and extend that standpoint.

However, the wild, swinging, blind roundhouse punches of tenuous logic you throw, in these threads, obviate the potential for any genuine learning. And isn't part of what we do, when we discuss things with others, is seek to learn?

Peace,

Fausty


Give me a fucking break. You act like I'm forcing everything down your throat. I'm just arguing a point just like anyone else. Your panties are in a bunch beause I said "I believe." Who gives a fuck. Maybe I was in an "I believe" kind of mood. I believe I was in an I believe kind of mood. I spend too much time defending my beliefs, Fausty? Really? LOL

I thought we were having a good discussion until you went on that rant.

I see someone say "there's no proof that the show reduces molestation."
I say, "there's no proof that it doesn't reduce molestation."
But when I said that, someone has a problem with it? Perhaps I was pointing out a flaw in the first statement.

Still no one has told me why this is wrong - the show puts child molesters in jail. In jail, they can't molest children. The show reduces the amount of child molesters, at least while the ones caught are in jail.

Myths cover up further tragedies in episodes of child molestation
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/03/INGN4C224F1.DTL

A child molester has deeply rooted psychological problems. Most cases are not between strangers, like two that might meet online. Most child molesters would probably look online as a last resort because of the high risk. I'm not going to go so far as to say "I believe." God forbid I use any language to suggest that I know every little thing I say is not a proven fact. God forbid that I actually make a post that allows people to argue about facts and issues instead of diction.

The Mind of a Child Molester
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030624-000005.html


My point is that the people the show catches cannot fuck or fuck up kids in the head while in jail. I conclude that the people that are caught not only look for kids online, but touch kids they know as well.

I've pretty much come to that conclusion and it seems logical enough to me. Feel free to challenge my conclusion. If you would like, pretend that it was flawlessly written by some, er, professional writer. If you'd rather argue another point, a reason that the show is wrong, that outweighs my point, go for it (obviously)
 
Last edited:
The show to catch a predator was a wake-up call for me. I had no idea that there are so many sick bastards out there trying to have sex with 13-year-old girls and boys. And the one time I watch the show one of those sick freaks brought his kid alone. I think the show is great. If it does nothing else it scares people on the Internet, because now you will never know if the house you go to is going to have cameras in it’s with police outside waiting to bust you.
 
spaceyourbass said:
Still no one has told me why this is wrong - the show puts child molesters in jail. In jail, they can't molest children. The show reduces the amount of child molesters, at least while the ones caught are in jail.
maybe the show titillates some men so much that they consider molestation and actually try it when they otherwise would not have? maybe, for every potential molester the show jails, it creates 5 more guys who molest children.

unless you can prove otherwise, in fact, let's say that's what actually happens. by supporting 'to catch a predator' you are actually supporting and encouraging the molestation of children. you're not putting the children first!

before you jump, i stand by my first paragraph - i don't know whether it's true but i believe it's possible. i have logically proved its possibility if you like :)

my second paragraph, however, is tongue in cheek and is design to show how ludicrous this "let's assume something is true until you prove otherwise" argument is.

alasdair
 
spaceyourbass said:
God forbid I use any language to suggest that I know every little thing I say is not a proven fact. God forbid that I actually make a post that allows people to argue about facts and issues instead of diction.

There are things called facts - they have been demonstrated to be "true," and they aren't really subject to argumentation in and of themselves (unless someone contests a specific fact as not a fact, which requires evidence and so forth).

We're not arguing about facts, in this thread; we're arguing about lack of facts. You've repeated over and over what you "believe" about this show and its effect on the world (i.e. "protecting children"). You have provided zero factual support to suggest that these beliefs of yours are anything other than idiosyncratic, personal assumptions or dreams or fantasies. They may be facts - or they may be entirely counterfactual. We don't know; you don't bother to seek any sort of supporting evidence for them.

In short, you are presenting your beliefs.

Nothing wrong with beliefs. I believe all sorts of things - but I distinguish my personal beliefs (such as believing that good intentions bring good results, in general) from independently-verified facts (such as the existence of something called "the sun" which is very hot and so forth).

I, personally, am far from convinced that this show has any legitimately positive impact on the rates of child molestation in this country. In the absence of any independently verifiable facts otherwise, I conclude it is merely gutter "entertainment" designed solely to titillate through schadenfreude and to generate self-perpetuating panics about low-threat "dangers" rather than face genuine dangers to children in our society.

I also conclude that this show makes a mockery of some of the most deeply cherished foundations of our nation's approach to justice and security: due process, equal protection, and so forth. As such, I have no doubt that it contributes to the ongoing erosion of the very constitutional principals that (used to) make America a bastion of liberty and integrity worldwide.

Whether you "believe" any of this, or not, is frankly not any concern of mine. You may choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that clouds are made of cotton candy; it is utterly pointless to argue with someone's beliefs, as by definition they are based on faith and not subject to evidentiary challenge.

Peace,

Fausty
 
i think it would work better as a major motion picture or broadway musical.
 
The more I read into this, the more bothered I am with the fact that the "Perverted Justice Academy" seems to be run by Internet vigilantes rather than people who are actually formally trained in criminology, psychology, and related fields.

It, put simply, probably won't catch very many actual bad people, all entrapment issues aside. A determined predator would be in your backyard with your child already; they wouldn't necessarily be in Yahoo chat looking up children's profiles.

Tear yourself away from the idiot box and parent.
 
Mariposa said:
Tear yourself away from the idiot box and parent.

No! Clearly the best way to go about things is to harangue the rest of the world into conforming to one's own values. 8(
 
Fausty said:
There are things called facts - they have been demonstrated to be "true," and they aren't really subject to argumentation in and of themselves (unless someone contests a specific fact as not a fact, which requires evidence and so forth).

We're not arguing about facts, in this thread; we're arguing about lack of facts. You've repeated over and over what you "believe" about this show and its effect on the world (i.e. "protecting children"). You have provided zero factual support to suggest that these beliefs of yours are anything other than idiosyncratic, personal assumptions or dreams or fantasies. They may be facts - or they may be entirely counterfactual. We don't know; you don't bother to seek any sort of supporting evidence for them.

In short, you are presenting your beliefs.

Nothing wrong with beliefs. I believe all sorts of things - but I distinguish my personal beliefs (such as believing that good intentions bring good results, in general) from independently-verified facts (such as the existence of something called "the sun" which is very hot and so forth).

I, personally, am far from convinced that this show has any legitimately positive impact on the rates of child molestation in this country. In the absence of any independently verifiable facts otherwise, I conclude it is merely gutter "entertainment" designed solely to titillate through schadenfreude and to generate self-perpetuating panics about low-threat "dangers" rather than face genuine dangers to children in our society.

I also conclude that this show makes a mockery of some of the most deeply cherished foundations of our nation's approach to justice and security: due process, equal protection, and so forth. As such, I have no doubt that it contributes to the ongoing erosion of the very constitutional principals that (used to) make America a bastion of liberty and integrity worldwide.

Whether you "believe" any of this, or not, is frankly not any concern of mine. You may choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that clouds are made of cotton candy; it is utterly pointless to argue with someone's beliefs, as by definition they are based on faith and not subject to evidentiary challenge.

Peace,

Fausty


There's no evidence to be found either way, dips

Hence my wording

The very title of this thread challenges someone to give an opinion. I'm presenting my beliefs? No shit! So are you. You have no proof that the show damages society or that, if someone didn't particularly enjoy the show, they do not have the choice to not watch it. Wierdos looking for child sex are getting busted by internet vigilante wierdos. Cry me a fucking river. At least police can spend time arresting those guys and not...pot smokers or animal sexers.
 
Last edited:
Mariposa said:
It, put simply, probably won't catch very many actual bad people, all entrapment issues aside. A determined predator would be in your backyard with your child already; they wouldn't necessarily be in Yahoo chat looking up children's profiles.

Another person might say, how desperate does a person have to be to look for sex on the internet in the first place? Knowing the risks involved, the ones looking online (for kids) are probably very determined.
 
i can't believe people are angered over this show, more so than being angered at the men on it.

that is worrisome. the men clearly believe they are going after young girls. it isn't like entrapment into prostitution, which is a victimless crime, or drug sales. it is after sex with children

yeah, not going to be ashamed that i find no issues with it.
 
Last edited:
DarthMom said:
i can't believe people are angered over this show, more so than being angered at the men on it.
you don't know that's true.

clearly some of us have a different opinion about the true purpose of the show and the validity of some of the claims here with respect to decreasing crime.

however, none of that is mutually exclusive with disgust or disdain for the types of men the show spotlights.

alasdair
 
spaceyourbass said:
At least police can spend time arresting those guys and not...pot smokers or animal sexers.

Nice try, but I'm unlikely to be arrested for smoking herb, and although I'm not an "animal sexer" I don't think it's illegal where I live. Having sex with children is.

Seriously. TCAP is nothing more than television shock value, and I don't want my tax dollars anywhere near it.

NBC even has blood on their hands for a suicide, and they probably had to pay bigtime in this settlement.

But I would expect you to have sympathy for trolls. :|
 
Wow that's a low blow, Mariposa. Sympathy for trolls? What? More like sympathy for children. No sympathy for people who try to hurt children.

You think your tax dollars are going to TCAP? Your tax dollars go to the police. The show helps the police and saves them time and money. The evidence is all there. It is not entrapment since the guys always initiate sex. The fake girls even act scared or unsure, from what I've seen on the show. All the police have to do is review the chats for evidence, and wait outside the house.

What would be on instead of TCAP? Some news program? Some crappy reality TV show? This show actually puts child molesters in jail. In jail, they cannot molest any children, on the internet or not. They cannot cause lifelong psychological damage to poor kids.

Thank you, Darthmom :)

I just can't understand how someone could be so against this show. How does it affect the viewers? The people who watch it were more than likely against child molestation from the start. They just have a show to watch now so they feel like justice is served. How does the show affect people who don't watch it? Not at all. How does the show affect child molesters? It puts them far far away form any children and hopefully teaches them a lesson. How does the show afftect kids at risk of being molested? It helps them from being molested.

So really, in my opinion, if you are against the show, the only people you are sticking up for are the guys who try to have sex with children. I am not singling anyone out, but this is what I believe. And if you feel that the show is an abomination, that is what you believe, simply put.

No one is yet to challenge my thesis that the guys looking for sex on the internet are probably the most desperate. If they are willing to take that risk, they are probably willing to touch their own children or the kids at camp, on the sports team, or what have you. With kids they know well, they can manipulate them into keeping a secret.
 
spaceyourbass said:
I just can't understand how someone could be so against this show...
right. the important 4 words here are "I just can't understand". a few of us, myself included, have tried to explain why we feel the show is problematic. i can see how you might disagree with our opinion - that's demonstrably true but i am surprised that you can't understand that different people might simply have a different opinion than you. that seems like a really straightforward idea.
spaceyourbass said:
So really, in my opinion, if you are against the show, the only people you are sticking up for are the guys who try to have sex with children.
sigh. if we disagree with you we're supporting child molesters? you really haven't read the thread in that case. you're displaying some very limited thinking here.

it's entirely possible to condemn the abuse of children and at the same time have a problem with the 'tcap' show. it doesn't require doublethink. it simply requires a willingness to look at the show in a broader context - the 'bigger picture' if you will.

you've been around bl a little while. do i strike you as at least a somewhat intelligent guy? do you honestly think that i support child molesters simply for the sake of it? is it possible - just possible - that there might be more to this that you are willing, or able to see?

or is your opinion of this show the only possible view?

alasdair
 
Mariposa said:
Nice try, but I'm unlikely to be arrested for smoking herb, and although I'm not an "animal sexer" I don't think it's illegal where I live. Having sex with children is.|

I'm still rolling that phrase, "animal sexer," around in my mind. Is that someone that helps animals appear sexier, i.e. a make-over and sultry comportment lessons? Or is it someone who arranges situations in which animals are likely to have sex, just for the sheer "animals-having-sex-is-cool-ness" of it? Kind of like a dating consultant, but for our frisky, furry friends! Mrrrrr.

I am absolutely certain that there's no law against "animal sexers" anywhere in the world. I do think, however, that it might make a great name for a band - or for an aftershave? Alas, animalsexer.com is taken (by someone posting in this thread. . . hmm?) but animalsex.net is up for grabs. I see a terrific branding opportunity just waiting to be exploited. . .

Whatever it is, it sounds like fun. ;)

Peace,

Fausty
 
Top