Everyone hates pedophiles, so they make a useful canary,(in our civil rights coal-mine). Hardly anyone questions continued (unending) surveillance and in some cases incarceration for convicted pedophiles, even after they have "done their time" and theoretically, at least, paid their debt to society.
Since they are now clearly incorrigibles, the NBC series that sets up stings online to induce pedophiles to houses (where they expect to meet up with kids to abuse, only to meet with the local constabulary), seems to be doing a simple, unexceptionable, public service.
When liberals, progressives, anti-war protesters and similar "subversives" have been similarly outlawed and vilified (a development that is demonstrably already underway), the same techniques would easily translate to lure the unsuspecting out of cyberspace in into detention.
(Just because it's shiny, doesn't mean it doesn't fit :tinfoilhat: )
The one show I saw, the men came in and were questioned and some talked, but others just left. Some were nabbed twice. Never were they arrested that I saw. Was this a newer one?
Anyway, people sometimes ask what it would take for you to leave the country. That would be a good example. If they had a television 'news' show that had a thing where they 'snagged' people for their political views, brought them into a house, questioned them, then turned them over to the authorities, simply for their political views: all for a primetime television series...
On the second of the "sting" programs, the local police department was waiting for them outside as they left. The ads for this new one indicated that this will be repeated, with a bigger number of "marks".
What are the police going to be charging these people with?
Obviously these aren't nice people, but don't they actually have to commit a crime? All they're guilty of is talking online and then going to a house they were invited to. Where's the crime? Is it some sort of law against 'intent'? Like 'intent to commit..' type thing? How on earth can they prove that?
I just don't get it.
By the way. Do you know whether any of these repeat pedophile offenders are forced to have ongoing psychiatric counseling?
and went there with the intent to molest them. Again, to what extent do we need to go before we charge these people? Do we need to catch them in the act? Does there need to be ejaculation? Seriously. They get an IM that says "I'm 13, come fuck me up the ass" and they show up. What do you think they wanted to do? You don't have a problem with that?
You can not arrange to have sex with a minor. That is a crime. Just because the person turned out to not actually be a child (through the magic of the internets) doesn't change anything. The sick bastard thought he was going to get a piece of middle school ass. That's all that counts.
the odds are good that some are on probation, forbidden from contact with minors. The thing is, the people snagged by these 'stings' aren't really pedophiles, they are usually after teenagers, not pre-teens (yes, there is a difference) and mostly they are pathetic men with nothing to lose who let their pathetic (and sick, if fairly normal) urges get away from themselves. Not to say I feel sorry for them, (trying to sleep with a 13 year old is beyond the pale in our society) but it's really pathetic, don't you think? I wager none of these guys would have ever acted on their fantasies (and teenage fantasies are fairly common, I get more spam for teenage porn than viagra it seems) except for being presented with the opportunity by a savvy and clever imposter. And even worse, an imposter after better ratings.
It is entrapment, not legally, but ethically and morally, no question.
Not sure what NBC's methodology is, I will admit, but from what I understand about true stings of the sort, the police impostor makes up a fake name and age, signs on and says "hi," and waits for responses. I expect they are well trained to avoid any language that may be remotely construed as a come-on until the bait is well on the hook already.
260. well, it's different when the Cops do it, right?
as opposed to a corporation? And what if the imposter is the one who continually guides the conversation towards the sexual? what if they are the ones who say " I want to meet you, come over" or some such? who can tell? the whole thing makes me a little uncomfortable, that's all, real predators, the dangerous ones, won't get caught by stuff this bad, so who are we snagging?
285. I watched number 3 of the stings tonight. During 3 nights
in Riverside county, Ca, 51 were arrested. Many of them were registered sex offenders. They are totally repugnant. IMO, they should all be locked away for the rest of their lives , or put down like the POS's they are. As one who was a victim at a very young age, I have not one bit of compassion for these beasts. I know many women who were sexually molested as young children. Our lives are changed forever by these beasts. Why should they deserve space on this earth? Give me one good reason.One cannot even classify them as animals as it would demean animals.I do not believe that a predator will ever be redeemed and will never believe that it is even possible.They do not deserve to have the gift of life. These scum now operate through the internet. They tap into sites that kids use.
It's obviously a ratings grabber for Dateline. And it is interesting voyeuristic television. Although, I'm assuming that it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Repeat offenders, revolving door suspects...it's disgusting, but a part of our world.
In my opinion, they should ease up many of the criminal drug offenses that put people in jail to make room for these dregs of society.
I wouldn't worry about any of these types of shows interrogating and hauling off people because of their liberal viewpoints. Ain't gonna happen.
They're doing it for ratings, as it's sweeps. Society should ease up on drug offenders, as marijuana possesion can get you a longer jail time than molesting a child: which just doesn't make sense. Doing the same thing to liberals will never happen in this country.
It does seem interesting that for these crimes you can never pay your debt, you will always be imprisoned by zoning, by requirements to report, by restrictions on employement, by having your domicile posted on websites, by having your presence announced to neighbors. This just seems odd.
it will be used to shut down "radicals" no doubt about it
you can label anyone a sex offender based on someone suddenly talking trash and then arranging a meet-up, as far as i'm concerned, it's shite
if we start as a movement to have even a little bit of effectiveness we'll be colored as sexual predators, it already happened w. ritter in the run up to war on iraq
talking on the internet, in fantasy, w. someone pretending to be a teen when you know damn well they are just another middle-aged wanker sharing a fantasy...it shouldn't really be a crime to have a fantasy
if real kids are involved, i'll be the first to throw away the key
but this is nonsense and takes advantage of a dynamic of the internet, everyone KNOWS that you're pretending, and that's fantasy talk, and you don't really expect to meet who you chatted with, but somehow the federal gov't pretends they don't know it's a pretense -- even w. they're taking advantage of the pretense and doing the pretending
290. They may be doing it for ratings, but it is serving a purpose
at the same time. If it wakes a few people up , good for them. I cannot believe the "boyfriens" who are allowed to molest the womans chiledren. These women need to wake up. Many "boyfriends" are looking for women with kids.
and anything is possible. But I think sting operations on liberal thought veers down the road of conspiracy theory or "worst case scenario" thinking.
I wouldn't see any basis for it in the law. Now, granted, there are a lot of things happening that we don't see any basis for (i.e. eminent domain for commerical use), but I guess I still have some faith in the system.
I would never think, even in our shit-hole culture right now, that pedophiles will be on the same level as liberals in regard to the law. I have no problem with ferreting these assholes out of cyberspace. I have no problem locking them up for the rest of their lives. I think you only get one chance to break that part of the social contract. Sexually abuse a child and you don't get a second chance, period.
160. That would really, really suck for some guys who
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 12:39 PM by kgfnally
have an angry stepkid, for example, or an angry, vindictive wife.
Yes, there are people who have been sentenced for these crimes who were simply and truly innocent.
Please note, I'm not defending child molesters here, I'm defending those innocent victims of your zero-tolerance mentality- those victims being the adults falsely fingered for a crime so horrible it merits no attempt at rehabilitation, and no possibility of innocence once accused. Teachers have lost their jobs over this; people have lost everything they own in a "resulting" divorce after their "conviction" of their "crime", and even those simply accused with no actual legal action, if it happens in any sort of a public way, are publicly and openly vilified because it's acceptable "to everyone" that there's automatically no hope for them, that society is inherently in dangered by their very presence, and that they're not worthy even of hauling trash as a job.
We need to find a way to keep actually innocent people from being dragged down into that whole social morass. It's somewhat shameful that that mentality even exists at all- what if, because of this, someone in our government decides that it's not drugs per se that is the problem, but our allowance in society of allowing "addictive mentalities" to go about their business without being monitored?
Replace "drugs" with "terrorism" and "addictive" with "dissident". How does it look now?
My point is, if we allow one class of criminal to never truly complete their sentence- if we allow ourselves to add punishment after punishment even following service of the jail term- what is to stop those in power from putting into place similar restrictions with other types of crime.
Next it will be- say- people convicted of manslaughter, and we'll all wisely nod and mmm-hmm and go with it, because these people once killed someone and that's something you can't ever take back or make up for. We'll accept tat these people be braceleted or registered or otherwise tracked; we'll ask them to go door to door and knock and tell people "Hi, I'm new to the neighborhood and I'm required by law to inform you I was once convicted of manslaughter. My address is _____. Thanks, and have a nice day." We'll feign surprise and ignorance when these people can't find housing or jobs or both; we'll ignore that we wrote those things into the law as violations of the law, and we'll simply tighten the restrictions even further (because obviously the current ones don't work well enough) and send them back to jail for every little thing.
What's after that? Who knows? But I guarantee you the tracking of those who have "served their time" and the keeping of lists of names and addresses (all made available to the public, by the way, even after the sentence is "served") will not end with sex offenders. It is only a matter of time before we begin to do this for other crimes; taken to its logical end, everyone who ever commits any crime will one day be tracked if we don't end this practice now, or at least scale it back far enough that people actually do get another chance once they have served their time.
Otherwise, we'll have to live with knowing that actually innocent peoples' lives are being completely destroyed in the name of the "public good" and the "safety of the children". I, for one, just can't live with that.
"successful" counseling requires one admit they did wrong to others and to themselves, and the counselor determines whether or not that has happened. For the actually innocent, they could have to end up convincing themselves that they did what they didn't do ("I see four lights"), and doing that would make them something they already aren't.
I'd rather not even consider the possibility unless the counselor is able to come back and say, "I am able to state, as a professional opinion, that this man did not commit the crime for which he was remanded to my care." Lacking that or something like it, well... I have misgivings.
is a problem with the system regardless. You are advocating what, exactly, for a pedophile? No punishment the first conviction? Couple weeks? I mean, sure, innocent people do get convicted. Of everything, not just molesting kids. But we have to trust the system at some point when we are discussing the punishments for crimes.
278. In much the same way as "you can't support legalizing pot...
without defending drug abusers."
People love to jump from point A to point F or G with nothing in between on these issues. And yes, the hysteria is definitely what I'm pointing toward.
A good friend of mine just got unceremoniously booted from his (senile) grandfather's home, after taking care of the man for yearS, because his cousin, who has a son, just moved in and the cousin is afraid Jay (not his real name) will harm the son because Jay is gay.
Same type of hysteria, different target. It's all the same.
What I've noticed is, on a great many issues, people are all too willing to prejudge. We're supposed to assume innocence, as jurors at least, but I honestly can't say I'd take very many people on this board as jurors in any trial of mine. Right here, on this very thread, we've seen prejudgement after prejudgement, when even if such may be partially justified,still proves many here cannot fairly serve upon a "jury of peers" regarding this issue.
The saddest part is that we still the the system works the way we think it should. With these sorts of guilty-until-proven-innocent mentalities floating around, we cannot call our justice system truly just.
Gays DO NOT, by definition, fuck little boys. Pedophiles DO, by definition, fuck little kids.
Fearing a gay person because you think they will "corrupt" a young boy is ignorance. Fearing a pedophile because you think they will fuck a little kid is pretty damn smart.
Why is it wrong to "lure" pedophiles over the internet? I still have not had a real answer. I am pissed because people are making this huge leap from catching pedophiles on the internet to jailing those that protest the president. One doesn't not cause the other. That is a HUGE leap and even flaunts the concept of a slippery slope.
I in no way think someone is guilty until proven innocent. But that guy that showed up at the house, thinking there was a 13 year old boy and had a pocket full of viagra and some liquor. He wasn't there to play D&D. After the police arrest him, he should be afforded all aspects of due process that our system allows. But it is not entrapment to lure him there. It is not a violation of due process.
Thank you for this very well-reasoned, thoughtful post. I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I have one case where the state is trying to keep a convicted rapist in prison past his term. They're allowed to do that, under this "quasi-civil" proceeding which is complete and utter bullshit. All they have to do is allege that someone is a "Sexually Violent Predator," (meaning they have two prior offenses and two state-funded doctors agree that he's a danger to society, even though they've never met or interviewed him and are relying on his original crimes and not much more), and then twelve jurors have to find him INNOCENT. Isn't that nice? The state doesn't have to prove that he's a sexually violent predator. WE have to prove to twelve jurors that he's NOT.
The public hysteria over sex crimes (not just those involving children) is really something to behold. You're absolutely right that this is one class of crime where everyone's perfectly okay with these offenders' sentences NEVER being over, and the offenders NEVER having a chance to rehabilitate or reintegrate into society. Because "everyone knows" that these people simply CANNOT be CURED and are always and everywhere a danger to everyone. It's sickening to me, this attitude, and doubly sickening to see it on DU.
293. I do not believe that child molestors can be "cured".
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 05:58 AM by anitar1
The grown man who molested me and many others, after serving a short sentence, went on to molest many, many others. IMO, he should have been put down or locked down forever.I have NO compassion for these so-called people.
Entrapment means that you get someone to do something they would normally not do. Like, "hey, mister, come over her and try some weed and I'll give you $10,000." That is entrapment. These pricks are LOOKING for another kid to abuse. This time it just happens to be the police.
these men get on the internet and search for children for sex. They do that of their own volition. NBC is not taking out ads in the NY Times - "Attention all pedophiles: Kids for your pleasure." They are setting up a web site and sitting back and waiting for someone to come looking. The pedophile is initiating the interaction with the intent of committing a crime.
i had a lawyer friend who worked on a high profile entrapment case many years ago. It involved the US Post office placing phony ads for videos titled "hot teen sex" etc. This WAS entrapment. Turns out that the US Post office (at least at the time) was the only government agency that could legally entrap people.
187. I've seen the show - they don't set up a website.
They go into established chat rooms, like AOL, and start chatting as a child about non-sexual issues. These guys lurk in those chat rooms and initate contact and the sexual aspects of the conversation.
199. Oh, awareness would be the #1 answer in my book.
But people don't seem to want to do that these days - I don't get it. Awareness would solve or help with a lot of issues - child molestors, child abuse, abortion, drug addiction, AIDS, etc - but we don't seem to want to talk about those things yet. I think we eventually will realize that ignoring it doesn't make it go away, but who knows how long that will take or how many people could have been helped or saved in the meantime!
I'm not sure about AOL - I think chat rooms are for the most part unmonitored on all sites. I do know that Yahoo closed chat rooms for children because of this exact problem - too many predators were going into them, so they decided not to give them that opportunity.
Parents are aware and monitor internet activity to the extent they can. Bottom line, kids often know more than parents about how to circumvent parental control programs, particularly teens. Some are so knowledgeable, they are able to go to great lengths to disguise their online chat ativities. The only other option parents have is to not allow kids to use the computer at all.
These kinds of perverts are pervasive on the internet and the focus is and should be on catching them.
What about gay men hooking up with gay teens. Before you freak out, understand that this is the norm within the gay experience. It's not like being heterosexual where your whole high school is full of potential dates. Gay men and young gay men have always had to date older when they're young.
My older brother is gay and is dating a gay who is a registered sex offender. His boyfriend was in his early twenties and having an affair with a 15 year old when he was charged. The fifteen year old had already been dating "men", and frequented gay bars. I used to think there were no grey areas in terms of pederasty...but many states have ill-defined what a child is. Come on...if a 15 year old can be charged as an adult for a crime...then how is this different? I am in no way advocating this, just pointing out that social experiences and norms can be very different.
Pretty simple. I think it is wrong for someone in their early twenties to be having sex with someone who is 15. Gay, straight, otherwise. They are still kids. They can't sign contracts for a reason, why should adults be able to have sex with them.
100. think about how many students in any given school are gay
and amongst that very small population...what are the chances that you will be attracted to anyone? The other issue, is gay students ( and this may well be changing) often don't come out to anyone. They may have questions, which cannot answered by their immediate peer group. Their peer group thus becomes larger, and encompasses a greater age range than for the average straight teen. So a fifteen year old could very easily be looking to a 24 year old for advice, friendship and more.
This is a double standard. Any adult seeking to have sex with a child under the age of consent should be held to the same standard. Your argument has failed to sway me. There are all kinds of vulnerable kids looking for "advice, friendship" that doesn't mean adults should take advantage of the situation. If I were such an adult, I would ADVISE children to seek out others their age, online if need be. I'd assist them in THAT regard. But, I would not suggest that I should mentor them sexually.
122. Then you're essentially negating the gay experience
this is apparently very typical...again...if a kid of 15 can be charged as an adult in a crime. What's the difference? You're assuming all kids are of the same maturity. I certainly wouldn't want my sons or daughters to engage in this behavior, but I wouldn't assume they've been duped by an older person either. I know from my brother that this is typical, and I'm not ready to judge their behavior.
BTW, I don't agree with charging 15 year olds as adults either, but I don't get to make that decision. That is a distraction from THIS discussion.
It is typical for many priests to claim they were "mentoring" young boys after they were caught molesting them. I would ask YOU where do YOU draw the line age wise? I personally draw the line at the age of consent in a given state, in many states the age is 16. I don't believe in a double standard for the so called "gay experience."
My niece is gay, she is 15 - I encourage her to seek out other girls her age for companionship, or wait a year till she's 16. She doesn't feel 'negated.' To suggest that a gay child is some how READY for a sexual experience with an older man/woman simply because they are gay, yet a hetero child is not ready for such an experience is absurd. Also, to imply that all gays are interested in sex with children is bigoted, and plays right into the RW mindset.
I do know many gay men. This is their story. Does it really offend you less to hear about an 18 year old and a 50 year old man?
I never implied all gay men are interested in having sex with kids..I don't consider a teen a kid. I'm saying gay (male)teens have a history of relationships with older men. I'm stating the teens are seeking these relationships out.
283. That's not what I'm saying at all- people are missing the point:
Some gay youths, not exposed to any sort of a "gay community", lacking support from peers or parents, will very likely consider, as I did, extending the set of partners they see as eligible to include people over the age of eighteen.
Now, ask yourself: why might someone feel that way? Here's a hint: it has nothing at all to do with what type of person is, or what age a person is, in such a situation, but rather, the availability of a willing partner.
Sorry to put it in such cold and clinical terms, but I feel I need to be very specific at this point.
There was one other gay student I was even remotely attracted to in high school, and after one night with him I knew I wasn't all that attracted to him in the first place. I really did have to broaden my set of potential dates if I ever wanted to date at all. Since I had very, very little exposure to even the existence of other gay people until I was eighteen, guess what happened?
I didn't date in high school. Period.
I can thank homophobes for that one; however, even if society were perfect and gay kids were unharassed to the point they could be open about it in school and at home, there still wouldn't be enough potential dates around for most of them to even date each other. Where can they go to "hook up"? Hmm, gay bars- and most of the people there will be a lot older than them if they even get in the door.
Even proclaiming that a classroom is safe for gay students is met with shouts of protests from the religious teachers. No, not the students, the teachers. You know the case of which I speak. This only drives gay students deeper into the closet, even more repressed, outwardly vilified and inwardly envious and hating themselves. I should know; I've been there, for these exact reasons.
Did you like dating, when you were in high school? Did you talk about your latest boyfriend with your friends? Ever walk down the hallway holding hands with that one special guy? I bet you told someone once you had a crush on somebody else. It's nice you have those memories, or ones like them. I hope you cherish them. Helped to make you a normal, well-adjusted adult, didn't they?
My first "relationship"- boyfriend, I guess you would say- was (I think) 28; I was 19. I didn't even have sex until I was 17; that was the one I mentioned above. It was over a year before I had sex again- and it's not that I'm unattractive, it was simply for lack of opportunity! I finally decided the "age gap" wasn't as important as experiencing life in some pale shadow of the way that everyone else around me was free to engage in at any time.
The only reason I didn't have sex when I started to want to was that I felt it was illegal for me or anyone else to do so before I was 18. I obeyed the law (or what I thought was the law) and suffered a lot for it- and missed out on even more. Moreover, I didn't particularly want to ask my parents for advice on this, knowing how they felt about homosexuals (all this happening to me prior to my mom finding out about me and booting me out literally into the rain when I was 19). Asking friends was even further from my mind, and would have been pointless besides, and I had no idea there even were resources for gay youths available. It just wasn't mentioned- period.
Mzmolly, I told you all that because it is different for gay people, and yet (unsurprisingly) we'll be left unconsidered by the laws we pass regarding sexual activity. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone use "punishing gays" as a side benefit to "protecting children from pedophiles" to get a law passed in certain areas of the country. I'll thank you to not tie us into this controversy, in any way at all; you're only perpetuating the idea that being gay has a connection of some sort to being a pedophile. It doesn't; nonetheless, in many places, we have to look elsewhere, among an older set of society, because we are, simply put, very much alone- far moreso than heterosexuals ever are.
I don't mean to paint this as a do-or-don't scenario; it doesn't have to be. Yes, there are gay/straight "clubs" appearing in high schools today; there is a good del more awareness. Unfortunately, it is just as true that some school boards are banning all clubs to "stop the homosexual agenda", and that there are still places where gay students just don't mention it, and repress themselves as I did until they can get out.
I did what you're obliquely asking for- I waited until I was 'legal', and I suffered for it. I could have been sexually active when everyone else was, except it was 'wrong' to have 'such an age gap'. I ended up hating myself and bitterly envying everyone I saw dating or heard bragging about getting laid. In the end, I was singled out by that fact and that fact alone- until well after I graduated high school, not only did I not have any "experience" even with dating but I didn't even know what a lot of what the people I called my friends meant in the things they said. That's about what was available to me, or nothing. I chose the latter, to satisfy the law, or what I thought was the law. Do I get a cookie or something for that? Or do I only have your satisfaction for all that lost time?
275. I remain unconvinced that 'gays' should have an exception to what society
deems acceptable? I fully support equal rights for gays, but I don't support SPECIAL rights.
Your post is surprising to me. There are so many assumptions about the hetero lifestyle I don't know where to begin. Also, I don't think waiting to have sex is akin to great suffrage? I had loads of girl friends who had sex at 12, and plenty of it. In fact I had a friend who was 12 who dated a 52 year old man. I too felt pressure to have sex at a young age, but am GLAD I waited. And I'm glad it was with a guy a year older than I, who was also a "kid."
I refuse to support the "it's ok for gays because they don't have the pickinz" mentality. There are PLENTY of straight teens who don't have "dates" and I don't feel I should hook them up with adult men/woman who want to mentor them sexually.
Additionally, I think it is harmful to gays to perpetuate the idea that it's part of the "lifestyle" to date minors. I am not promoting that assertion YOU are, so please don't suggest that *I* am the one who is lumping gays in with pedophiles! You and others here are suggesting there should be DIFFERENT rules for gay people - I find that ABSURD!
Regarding your situation, YOU were 17 - which in most states is beyond the age of consent. I moved out of the house at 17 and supported myself from then on, I haven't an issue with your having sex with an older man/woman at that age, however I refuse to coddle the belief that people who fight for equality should have a different system of rules.
I support equal rights for gays, fully but I refuse to grant you something that the rest of society is not privy to.
280. Nothing I had to say in that post should come as any surprise
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 02:24 AM by kgfnally
to anyone at all.
"There are so many assumptions about the hetero lifestyle I don't know where to begin."
Of course there are. I'm not heterosexual, and never have been. However, everyone I knew was, and I'm drawing those so-called "assumptions" based upon what I saw my peers doing with each other and what they talked about doing with each other. It does not follow from my self-admitted repression that I am also blind and deaf to the world around me.
"I had a friend who was 12 who dated a 52 year old man."
That isn't at all the sort of age range I'm referring to, and I think if you reread my post you'll see what I mean. I can't think of any 15-year-old gay guy who would want to have sex with a 54-year-old man, but suppose that kid is so lonely and desperate he'll get it any way he can? I didn't do that, but another person might. Is the older party a sexual predator, if the kid is determined to have sex for the first time, somehow, some way? Yes, the parents should be involved, and should have been involved for some time, but suppose that or going to friends just isn't possible, as it often is for gay youths?
"I refuse to support the "it's ok for gays because they don't have the pickinz" mentality. There are PLENTY of straight teens who don't have "dates" and I don't feel I should hook them up with adult men/woman who want to mentor them sexually."
They have the accepted ability to seek those dates, and that is a very very huge difference. Some gay kids could get ripped out of their schools, away from their friends, and sent off to a place like that "Love in Action" joint that got shut down last year. Straight teens do not have that danger unless their parents are to the point of emotional abuse regarding dating, which I'm afraid isn't most of them.
"Additionally, I think it is harmful to gays to perpetuate the idea that it's part of the "lifestyle" to date minors."
If to mean to address the gay=pedophile mentality, that's simply not what I'm implying here. What I'm getting at, and have been trying to all this time, is that social abuses force us into looking in places others just don't have to look- such as internet chat rooms. I don't think it would be "part of the lifestyle"- as you put it- if we could date each other openly, without fear of losing our friends, our safety, our homes, our jobs (if we're old enough to work), maybe our lives... yeah. Dealing with those issues starts for us that early, sometimes long before we ever have sex in the first place.
"You and others here are suggesting there should be DIFFERENT rules for gay people - I find that ABSURD!"
Oh, but there already are different rules for gay people. One young guy in the Midwest- I forget his name or state at the moment- is in prison (or was, I don't know if he's been released)- was in his 20's and was having a relationship with someone who lacked consent age by a couple months when they were caught... and got several years. Had they been heterosexual, the offense would have been a few months at the most. It's a fairly well-known case here; I've seen it discussed a couple times in the past couple months. Known enough that others here will know which case I'm talking about.
There are other punitive laws which treat homosexuals differently, and never ever in our favor.
We number no more than one in ten or twelve. Our chances of being sexually active are even lower when we're teens than the geekiest, nerdiest heterosexual in our school, because of that fact and that fact alone. Maybe, if we felt safe enough in our surroundings that we didn't feel like we have to seek people out in ways our straight peers don't even have to consider, there wouldn't be a "tie"- as tenuous as it may be- between pedophilia and homosexuality.
"Regarding your situation, YOU were 17 - which in most states is beyond the age of consent."
I think I said I only thought it was illegal. I was, to the best of my knowledge, obeying the law. I wasn't about to ask anyone, because then they would want to know why, and I'd have to lie about myself... again. Have you any idea how insanely destructive it is for a child to have to live a lie, day after day?
"I refuse to coddle the belief that people who fight for equality should have a different system of rules. I support equal rights for gays, fully but I refuse to grant you something that the rest of society is not privy to."
The set of rules already in place already treats people like me differently day after day after day, under the law, in all the worst possible ways. Society will not grant me anything beyond what it takes for itself; society will, however, deprive me of that which it itself has.
Consider the Romeo-and-Juliet laws that only apply to heterosexuals, like the one I mentioned earlier. Now who "has more justice" than whom? Could it be, that was left out, because some people see gay=pedophile?
306. Don't insinuate that *I* consider gays pedophiles.
Were I the one saying "gosh it's ok for an adult to date a kid so long as they are gay" that would be a "fair" insinuation on your part, but as I am arguing against such a notion, your underhanded comment is backward.
As I've said in this thread, my 16 year old niece just came out into a very supportive family.
And, I've said all along that gays should have EQUALITY - period. You speak about many injustices and the world is full of injustice. As a person who believes in equality, I never like to hear about injustice, but again, many of the issues you raised are not related to the original post I was referring to.
As for the Romeo/Juliette law (it was a Kansas law) and THANKFULLY has since been rectified.
The Kansas Supreme Court Rights a Wrong, Ruling that the State Cannot Penalize a Teenager for Being Gay
302. Should we light a candle for every horny high school kid who can't get a
date? Sorry, but this is not part of the GAY experience, it's part of LIFE, and I personally think "waiting" is a good thing.
We have a handful of notable teachers facing prison time for having sex with kids, they were WRONG - period. But, from what I'm hearing/understanding from some of the comments made here, it would have been ok if the kids couldn't get dates? Or if it were a gay adult and a gay teen? MALARKEY!
Do yourself a favor and stop perpetuating these two myths:
1. Dating minors is part of the gay lifestyle 2. It's an unusual form of torture to wait to have sex
I was damn afraid of coming out (and, as it turns out, for very very very good reason). I did not know anyone who was gay who was also my age, and did not know of any... and believe me, in my town, in my school... I would have heard about it, at the least.
For me, it was find someone a little older and- here's a thought- available, or simply go without.
People who live in different areas experience different things regarding gay issues. My experience was really repressive; others' experiences are different. I don't know how old you are, or where you're from, so I can't really say with any degree of certainty that our experiences would even have been remotely similar.
What I understand (when I was one, mind you) is that gay youths, in towns like the one I grew up in, are/were often pretty alone in their lives from a sexual standpoint. Perhaps my own experience was just uniquely bad, or something.
Or maybe some people here don't quite know how it feels to be that alone, that you would consider endangering someone else, legally, because you simply can't get it any other way.
I have no problem with you finding someone "a little older" and I hope you found all you could stand. What I was objecting to was someone my age (46) hitting on high school kids because "the kids can't find anyone there own age." I've seen this happen and I do not approve. Colorado state law says from age of consent till 18 the older person cannot be more than 10 years older. That's sounds about right to me.
They're not old enough to make those kinds of choices and decisions about their sex life and are easily manipulated. That's why pervs like to target them. It's no different than allowing underage girls to hang out in bars and have sex with adult men - not legal and not acceptable.
I'm not bashing the gay lifestyle, but anyone who seeks sex with a minor is a pervert, regardless of their gender preferences.
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
Explain please, how this in entrapment. These guys are looking for kids to fuck.
"Hey you a cop? Cause if so you gotta tell me. Otherwise it's entrapment."
That doesn't work. They don't have to tell you they are cops. An undercover cop can go up to you and say "Hey man want to buy some pot? I ain't no cop, it's cool." and when you give him the money he gives you the pot, then 3 other undercover cops turn around and arrest you for possesion and more...It's not entrapment, and neither is this.
49. yeah.. but that's not what this thread is about..
If the new Patriot Act, with it's "disruptor" clauses goes through, doesn't that criminalize meaningful protest? If an online organizer is enlisting fellow citizens to protest "outside of officially sanctioned protest zones". . and people show up.. Can they be arrested?
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.
Good luck showing me that internet "luring" is entrapment.
Here's an experiment anyone can do. Get an AOL, Yahoo, or any other account that features free chat rooms. Create a fake profile, setting yourself up as a 12-16 yr old boy or girl. If you have a fake photo to go along with your profile, even better.
Then go into a chat room (Yahoo has eliminated their user-created chat rooms, but they still exist on AOL). You don't even have to do anything. You don't have to seek out older men. You don't have to initiate conversation with them. You don't have to do ANYTHING to encourage them whatsoever. Simply sit there. They'll come to you. In droves.
Now if THEY are the ones seeking you out, how in the hell is that entrapment?
You can visit www.pervertedjustice.com to see how this system really works. That is the group that partnered with Dateline. On their website, they post some of the conversations they have with pedophiles. They pose as a child, with an age clearly stated on their profile, and they state the age in the conversation. When a man approaches, they act confused, lonely and in need of affection. Many pedophiles are extremely manipulative and take the bait. The person posing as a child is never the first to bring up sexual topics.
Perverted Justice clearly states that they are not opposed to homosexuality, only sex with 12 and 13 year olds by straight or gay people.
Dateline did a great service by these specials by: 1) scaring prospective pedophiles to not act upon their fantansies, 2) getting some repeat offenders off the street, and 3) warning parents to be more careful about what their kids are doing.
When you create a "class" of people that is deemed so terrible that the rule of law and fair treatment does not apply, you create a very dangerous system. Once such a system is in place, you may not always have reasonable people deciding who is worthy of this "special" treatment. It is really not a stretch for people to advocate the same treatment for any class of people deemed to be undesirable. Once way say "anything goes" against accused pedophiles, someone else might say anything goes against drug dealers or war protesters or Jews or you name it. It is not a matter of protecting pedophiles, but it is still a dangerous idea to strip the protections in place in our system, regardless of the justification.
that the rule of law should be violated. I did not say that they shouldn't be afforded their civil liberties. I did ask for someone to tell me how the "luring" of these people is entrapment or a violation of civil rights. So far, no takers--including you.
104. you can't figure out how 'luring' these people is entrapment?
how placing phony ads or posts on the internet with the intent of luring someone to a place to video tape and arrest them is entrapment? it's the very definition of entrapment. you need someone to explain this to you or it's not true?
120. Stop talking about what you obviously don't know
here is the definition of entrapment from Wikipedia
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.
Explain how the luring is entrapment.
They want to fuck a kid. They are looking for a kid to fuck. They think they find one and go to do it. Not entrapment. Stop calling it that.
152. Look, do you understand the point I was trying to make?
All anyone has to do to end debate - whether it be civil liberties, right to privacy, or the tastefulness of reality tv - is to bring up 'protecting children'. All rational discussion goes out the window.
Secondly, I have no idea how this show is set up. It very well may be getting into what I consider a grey area (morally - not legally) with how they are 'luring' these guys. The very idea that there might be a moral grey area in this topic is enough to start a flame-war here, however.
And by the way, your spouse could be a brain surgeon, that doesn't qualify you to advise on medicine.
1. how is this "ending the debate" 2. still haven't shown me the civil rights being violated, even though you claim it MANY times. 3. protecting children from crazy bastards that want to molest them is bad? 4. I have never defended the show--I am responding to the argument being made that this "luring" is entrapment, violates civil rights, and will lead to liberals being dragged out of their house. 5. I never claimed it made me an expert on the law. My arguments stand for themself. I gave you the definition of entrapment. This "luring" is not included. You can a) show how the definition does show it is entrapment b) find a better definition and present it c) absent a & b you can stop making claims that are unsubstantiated.
99. no, i think people have a knee jerk reaction to anything involving kids
and that can be used to pry away at various freedoms without any discussion. people are willing to let little bits of their freedom go 'to save the children'.
i saw the ad for this show on the web, and it turns my stomach. who would watch such tripe? I think it appeals to people's prurient interests as much or more than it 'catches' pedophiles. And entrapment is against the law, btw.
And here is my personal view on pedophiles. There is a world of difference between some monster raping an 8 year old and an gay adolescent boy seeking sex with an older man. Nearly every gay man I know did that when they were teens. Who is this show entrapping?
...are always handy targets to use when selling an encroachment of liberties, since nobody will stand up for their rights. I recall many of the censorship/surveillance initiatives during Clinton's terms (such as the Clipper Chip, the Communications Decency Act, Omnibus Crime Bill, etc...) were sold as targeting those three groups.
When somebody is trying to pass a policy and states that the main targets are "Drug Dealers, Pedophiles and Terrorists" -- beware. It won't stop there -- it never does.
but why are you ignoring the particulars of this crime. This crime, in my opinion, is the worst we can have in a society. These people prey on little kids in order to have sex with them. How are they possibly still protected by the social contract? How do their natural rights possibly take precedence over those of innocent kids?
I'm not saying these people shouldn't all be in jail, or in heavy counseling or a psychiactric hospital...but what crime are they commiting by participating in an online chat and going to a house they were invited to.
I mean, their intention may have been to commit a crime, but is that enough?
I'm obviously not supporting pedophila, and neither are people on this board. I'm just asking what the crime is that they'll be charging them with. Is enticement a crime? I don't know. That's why i'm asking.
If someone on an IM invites the guy over to their house to have sex, and he knows(or thinks) they are underage and goes there...what's the crime?
It's like, if someone on IM says they have pot to sell, and to come over and buy the pot. When the guy goes to the house, can the police arrest him for 'intent to purchase'? I always thought they actually had to do the deal, get the money, give them the pot, then arrest. I'm not saying they should entrap these guys by letting them have sex with kids. i'm just asking how can they prove there was a crime? What if the guy says he was coming over to make sure the kid was ok, and that he wasn't the actual guy on the chat, but his brother, etc?
but I just wanted you to know that, even in the midst of it all, I did appreciate the humor of "Relax Francis." That comment alone lets me know that dispite the dispute on here, you and I could :toast:
Likely it's some sort of corrupting a minor charge. The thing is once they use child molesters to kick the door open, next thing you know, they will do it to anyone. These people don't consent to having their images shown on television.
I don't like it. It seems like a voyeuristic trap by which some mentally ill jerk gives us the means to pat ourselves on the back for condemning them. I can't watch it...it's just sad.
I'm with Trotsky's wording. You don't think you can draw a line here? And nobody is kicking open the molester's door. They are saying "I'm a middle school girl and I want you to fuck me. Meet me at the Motel 6." That is hardly kicking down a door.
I wouldn't trust the media to get the milk out of the fridge for me so I can pour it on my cereal. But this thread was based on the premise that such actions are entrapment and thus violate civil rights. Not true.
It's premise is NOT that "such actions are entrapment and thus violate civil rights" as you say. That was discussed and speculated on down thread.
What the OP is saying is that this sort of tv programming sets a dangerous precedent. And to condemn people publicly, without a trial, also sets a dangerous precedent. All a person has to do to ruin a public figures's reputation is SUGGEST they are a pedophile. People have such a knee-jerk reaction to the topic that their rational faculties shut down.
From the original post:
'When liberals, progressives, anti-war protesters and similar "subversives" have been similarly outlawed and vilified (a development that is demonstrably already underway), the same techniques would easily translate to lure the unsuspecting out of cyberspace in into detention.'
I have been talking about how this is not the same as going after liberals. This is not entrapment. This is not overreaching by the government. There is a clear line to be drawn between fucking kids and legally protesting.
I hate NBC. I hardly watch any program they put out. I have not seen the 20/20 being discussed. I am talking about the reaction to the method of "luring" pedophiles being a bad thing.
That's like saying "They're arresting murders - next it will be liberals!!" How are you jumping from A to Z like that? This isn't entrapment & is really no different from the drug stings that police do all the time. They are commiting a definite crime: solicitation of a minor. So these people aren't being "trapped" or arrested w/o any charges. The difference is that it's televised - like a Cops show. But the law is the same, and the crime they're charged with is the same. How is this changing what people can be arrested for? What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?
My main concern with it is the media broadcast aspect of it. And you are right about COPS, which I don't watch either, and think is pretty morally questionable. After all, people are being convicted in the court of public opinion before there is any due process.
Another poster connected this w/arresting "disruptors" under the Patriot Act. I agree that it's morally a little questionable to broadcast this. But legally it's not questionable at all - these people are committing a crime. Your point seemed to be that this could lead to publically persecuting people who are doing things of "questionable legality," and I just don't see that. There's a big difference between a sex offense and a protest. "Next thing you know" they'll broadcast the arrest of seniors buying prescription drugs? I don't quite see that. It's that kind of leap that seems unwarranted, IMO. But it is true that shows like this & Cops publically humiliate people w/o conviction (even if they deserve it), and that does seem ethically questionable. But people are publically arrested all the time, and the arrest is public information. The news often reports arrests way before the actual trial. All of this does convict people in the court of public opinion - but that's why the law sets a high standard for arresting someone. I'd have a bigger problem w/this show if they weren't arresting them at the end.
156. Its a thought crime, intent with no act, and it is wrong.
Entrapment is arguably a problem, but it really depends very much on the facts of the case. But traditionally, there has always been a defense of impossibility to a charge of attempt. Its impossible to have sex with a 13 year old when you have arranged to meet a 40 year-old cop. There has to be a 13 year old for a person to attempt to have sex with a 13 year old.
147. This particular aside, the show COPS has been doing this for years
regardless of the ACTUAL detais...which, btw we don't know, we're basically seeing people tried and convicted in the court of public opinion while being humiliated in public.
Does recognition of that mean I support them committing any crime? No, that is absurd.
It does mean I can respect the basic and founding concept that we are innocent till PROVEN guilty...and that proof has to be determined by a jury, not by a television audience.
I don't think we have the right...nor do I believe it is wise, for infotainment shills like Geraldo to be able to engineer public stings where they 1) engage in what is essentially law enforcement behavior. 2) Speak as if they were the judge and jury when no criminal procedings have occurred yet. 3) Have production and editorial control over the parts WE see, effectively allowing them to potray the situation in any edited version THEY wish.
That means I think the police should do the police work. I think journalists (if there are any left) can report on it as it's being done. If we had real investigative journalists I believe we are best served by having them watch the watchmen. But when we step over some lines for SOME people we often create a precedent that has implications for the larger public. We often end up innoculating our emotions about the subtle errosion of our liberties because we accept the extreme examples as "obvious".
What should be obvious is that up till now we valued our system of justice over the Napoleonic code. But that's being reversed by Television.
Of COURSE I'm for pedophiles going to jail (and my id would lead me to advocate for worse) but that's not the actual issue being raised here...the issue is where do we really think our system should start redefining itself...and begin creating exceptions and holes for "justice" and "due process" especially when those exceptions are being generated by televsion ratings or profits.
I believe the views of Dateline are genuinely morally outraged. But I don't believe Dateline is providing us with this "material" because it's the right thing to do. I believe they do it because it's profitable...and that they will continue to do it despite any unforeseen consequences as long as it is profitable.
Motive matters. So does process. The end does not justify any means. These are basic beliefs I have. Most of the time they are not in conflict.
295. Of course NBC is looking for ratings, but I hope they continue.
Parents need to know what danger their kids are dabbling in on the internet. Face it, kids are basically naive and stupid when it comes to judgement. They would buy a bridge from anyone and think they got a good deal.If some parents are so dumb, and sit in front of the TV most of the time, maybe they will learn something from this show.
63. I agree with you. The rights of pedophiles do not override the rights
of innocent children and I find it absurd for anyone to argue that point. I'll get flamed for that and I don't give a damn. Children who are the victims of sexual abuse suffer for the rest of their lives. I have no sympathy for pedophiles whatsoever.
I haven't seen the Dateline episodes about this so I don't know if the people showing up have been arrested. Have they? At the very least they should be placed on some sort of watch list because they certainly have indicated a very strong likelihood that they will sexually abuse a child, if they haven't done so already.
Its strikes me as being similar to cases where people were caught on tape attempting to arrange a murder for hire. Do the rights of the potential perpetrator override the those of the potential victim?
191. I'll reserve my sympathy for their innocent victims, thank you.
So, in answer to your question, yes, my ability to apply black and white standards of who deserves my sympathy regarding the sexual abuse of children makes my life much simpler.
As for the punishment for pedophiles, since they don't often respond well to rehabilitation and the recidivism rate is high for this particular group of criminals, I am in favor of longer prison terms for a first offense, treatment while incarcerated and continuing treatment upon release, and strict community control programs to closely monitor them upon release from prison. Second offense gets them life.
277. You need to get YOUR facts straight. More like a 50+% recidivism rate....
From the Association of the Treatment for Sexual Abusers:
Sexual offending, like many mental and medical conditions, can not be cured. Contemporary cognitive behavioral treatment, however, helps offenders learn to control their behavior. ... Studies that have tracked sex offenders over longer follow-up periods have found that pedophiles who molest boys, and rapists of adult women, were the types of offenders most likely to recidivate at rates of 52% and 39% respectively. ... Sex offenders who target strangers are more dangerous than those with victims inside their own family. ... It is also important to recognize that official recidivism statistics are always lower than actual reoffense rates, because some sex offenders commit many sex crimes that go unreported and undetected. It is estimated that less than 10% of all sex crimes result in a criminal conviction. ... Predatory pedophiles, especially those who molest boys, are the sex offenders who have the highest recidivism rates. Over long follow-up periods, more than half of convicted pedophiles are rearrested for a new offense. http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html
The statistics you cite in your link include all manner of sexual offenders, not just pedophiles or predators which is what we are discussing in this thread. However, they did make this important point about sexual offender reoffense rates:
One word of caution is in order. Reoffense rates tend to increase over the years and, around the ten year mark, reoffense rates among treated offenders is nearly the same as among untreated offenders. This finding indicates the need for sex offenders to be in booster sessions and maintenance groups for many years. Additional research is needed to produce statistically rigorous and consistent measures of the long-term effects of treatment.
You seem to have very little empathy for the victims of pedophilia and in all this talk of "rights" you have yet to mention the inherent the rights of the victims. Children who are victims of this abuse suffer for a lifetime because of it and they did absolutely nothing to deserve it. So, again, I choose to reserve my sympathies for the innocent victims and not the pedophile who commits a hideous crime against the most vulnerable members of society.
All these people are doing is saying "hey, i'm a little kid" even if they said "wanna fuck me" it still wouldn't be entrapment. These assholes are looking for a victim. The police/media are not working too hard to get them there.
Some guy has done time for child molestation. He's out, and he knows it's fucked up, but he seriously wants to come clean. He's not looking for trouble.
There's this opportunity on the web that seems too good to be true. Just once, no one will know.
Suddenly the guy is being paraded before network cameras, and the whole world is watching the NBC Freak Show do its civic duty and put the guy back in jail, while generously patronizing NBC sponsors for providing the entertainment.
I think there's a finer line here than you care to admit.
89. It is unlikely to be entrapment since convicted offenders were targeted.
It's entrapment when police induce someone to commit illegal acts that they wouldn't do otherwise. If the police are instead merely providing the opportunity to commit illegal acts to a person who is willing and eager to do so, that's not entrapment.
I am a lawyer. The legal definition of entrapment is very narrow. For "entrapment," the defendant must prove more than that police invited or instigated defendant into criminal conduct; he must also show that he would not have committed the offense but for their misrepresentation.
So, to prove entrapment, Defendants have to show that they were somehow pressured or threatened by the police into commiting a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. If they would've done the crime anyway, of their own accord, there's no defense. It isn't entrapment if the police simply offer the defendant the opportunity to commit a crime. For example, police can set up a sting to pretend to sell drugs. If someone walks up & offers to buy drugs, they can be arrested. The only way it would be entrapment is if a person actually decided not to buy drugs, but then was pressured or persuaded by the police officer into commiting the crime. It's a very narrow defense, and hardly ever really works.
34. They haven't been tried or even indicted yet...
...do you not see a problem with that?
While it seems fairly clear-cut in this case, though it sounds like there were few or no indictments, can you grasp the concept of a fair trial through our legal system, or would you prefer that anyone suspected of being a pedophile simply be lynched on the spot?
You're jumping from post to post in this thread, throwing sideways accusations at anyone who might hesitate to assume guilt in all cases and proceed right to the gallows. Do you not see the danger in this attitude, no matter what the suspected offense?
the police should jump out when they get to the motel and put a stake through their heart. No. Put them on trial. Investigate their computer and see who else they abused. But why compare someone who comes to a hotel or somewhere thinking his is going to get a piece of middle school ass and compare that to coming and getting liberals who post on DU?
I'm jumping around because I find it unbelievable that people would say this is not a valid way to catch pedophiles. I just don't get it.
62. Did I say this wasn't necessarily a valid way to catch pedophiles?
What I said (or meant) was that it's in the most offensive of crimes that we need to be the most careful about preserving the legal process. Because when the process starts taking liberty-encroaching shortcuts in those cases, everyone will accept it, and then it will only be a matter of time before those same standards are used in all cases.
Look at what's happened with those suspected of connection to 'terrorism'. Nowdays, they can be swept off the street with no indictment, no trial, and thrown into a clandestine gulag. I'm sure there are many who would be just fine with anyone suspected of being a pedophile (or of dealing methamphetamines) receiving the same Judge Dredd treatment.
Highly offensive crimes are used over and over as rationalizations for more and more draconian laws. I don't see anyone here excusing pedophiles (or terrorists or meth dealers, for that matter). I just see some urging caution in cases like this, to prevent public outrage and disgust from overriding the protections of the legal system (which are designed to ensure that only the guilty are punished, right?). Your reaction to this seems to be to ask 'Why do you like pedophiles?' That's hardly different from Bill O'Reilly asking 'Why do you like terrorists' when these same concerns are raised in a different context.
It is a lack of outrage that allowed catholic priests to continue to molest little kids. If we aren't outraged at this crime, what should we be outraged at?
I am not saying, at all, that we should not afford every possible protection to the rights of criminals, including pedophiles. But people in this thread seem to think that catching pedophiles in this manner is wrong. No concept of why their rights are being violated, just that "they are." No argument as to how this (specifically luring pedophiles, not the fact that Bush is a fascist prick) will lead to the NSA coming into my house because I have an anti-bush bumper sticker other than some really weak slippery slope.
I don't want my reaction to come across as "Why do you like pedophiles?" but I do wonder why we need to bend ourselves into pretzels in order to protect pedophiles when there is NO INDICATION of why their rights are even being violated.
I have no idea what constitutional rights are supposedly violated here. You could make the argument that they shouldn't have broadcasted their identities w/o permission, but that happens all the time anyway when the media reports an arrest, and I believe the show needs a release to show their faces. It's sort of exploitative, IMO, but the show does make a valid point about the dangers families face today.
The Constitution says you can't be deprived of liberty (imprisonment) w/o due process. This means the government needs to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be convicted of a crime, and also must provide basic protections to assure a fair trial. It has nothing to do w/whether or not a program can broadcast an arrest being made. Plus, due process only governs what the goverment can do - Dateline isn't the government.
So you got absolutely nowhere with your discussion of entrapment, and you think you will get further by pulling out some other hot-button word you clearly know nothing about out of your ass. I'm not doing the research for you on this one.
Tell me specifically what due process rights are being violated by luring pedophiles through the internet.
On edit: WITH sources, cited, and not Wikipedia, since that clearly isn't enough for people on here.
294. Well, Obviously they see nothing wrong with molesting little kids.
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 06:13 AM by anitar1
Such is our world. They feel that children are dispensible from what I read. Kids are the real victims in our world. I am an advocate of zero population. I salute people who choose not to bring more children into this world.
I don't believe for a moment that you don't believe there are other ways to catch child molesters than luring them into committing the crime.
Re: entrapment--I have a lot of basis for it, since you are saying it hinges on the idea that it's something the suspect would be 'ready and willing' to do anyway. You don't know that, and you can't prove that.
I don't watch TV though. I guess if I was a regular viewer of the NBC Freak Show I would be more frightened.
138. The keys here are the phrases "ready and willing" and "predisposed"
I don't believe (and again, I'm not an attorney, and I don't know case law on this) but it certainly seems that those are vague concepts which would be easy to interpret to the benefit of fine family entertainment.
I'm not saying it is entrapment. If it isn't, it's very, very close.
24. the first program they did on this got huge ratings and that is the
bottom line. It isn't about getting pedophiles as it is getting high ratings becuz viewers love to see these guys reactions when they are caught (some with their pants down). I think it's disgusting television--the men are disgusting and NBC is disgusting for making it their new adult Candid Camera.
NBC isn't a law enforcement agency, and they shouldn't be acting like one. How many, and whose rights are they trampling all over with this one? And that they're doing all for the purpose of boosting ratings is utterly obscene.
NBC needs to leave the law enforcement to the people trained to do it, and get back to their job, reporting the news.
I used to work in media, and in the days of a truly independent minded press (as opposed to a corporate-minded ratings-grabbing press), the media would NEVER play alongside or otherwise cooperate with police operations, stings, etc...Once you start playing along, then the LEO (and the public) just see you as another arm of the law....Not only is it dangerous, it corrupts the true meaning of the 4th estate....
33. The worst thing about it is the Exploitation and perversion of jouirnalism
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 10:49 AM by Armstead
Such a sting might be a legitimate form of journalism.
But this is just a particularlt heinous form of tabloid "Reality Show." Info-tainment and titilation disguised as news. NBC is hyping it as if it were just anotehr episode of Fear Factor or The Apprentice or even Candid Camera.
The network is also reprehensible in violating the privacy of these guys. Obviously, the pedophiles are scum. But putting nthem on national TV just to goose the ratings is exploitatioin by NBC that is just as bad.
If NBC had any sense of journalistic responsibility, they would have done the story without the "Gotcha" crap.
I've never seen the show, I don't watch TV shows(unless I buy them on DVD). Are you saying that what NBC is doing in not a sting but rather entrapment or are you saying that stings are not a valid form of finding criminals ?
If what they are doing is entrapment, that is very wrong and I would think (hope) that the video evidence would get them cleared.
If what they are doing is a legitimate sting operation, I don't think I have an issue with it.
I'm not a lawyer either but I suspect that he network had their lawyers go over it carefully and that it is indeed a legitimate sting operation. Here in Ohio there have been several stories in the papers of the police pretending to be children in chat rooms and when approached by adults that try to meet up with them, they set up a meeting and arrest them. I've had no issue with this process and in fact am glad they do it.
I find this type of programming disgusting and it is this trend in television that has caused me to get rid of cable and... I suspect the networks sole reason to do it is because of the ratings (bottom line, money) but... I'm perfectly fine with the end result being another pedophile off the streets.
I really fail to see the appeal of programming like this. It's popularity is a little window into the ever stranger condition of the collective American psyche: No one is ever safe. Anytime. Anywhere. Fear. Fear. Fear. --- Oh look, the Corporation working with the Authorities will take care of us and make this bad stuff go away. Don't you feel better now?
I'm a mom to three living children - 14, almost 6 and almost 4 (girl, girl, boy) - and I can tell you without reservation that if anyone was to sexual abuse them or molest them, that person better pray they are caught by the police before they are caught by me.
On the flip side, I don't view all of this ruckus about sexual offenders to be in my family's best interest. It matters not that sex offenders aren't allowed to live within 500 feet of a school or 1,000 feet of a library. It doesn't matter if my local city council makes a rule that no sex offenders are allowed to live in our community. It doesn't matter because every community has public spaces -- parks, trails, libraries, grocery stores, etc. -- where there could very well be sex offenders.
As a mom, it is my job to *watch* my children. (What a radical concept!) They are not allowed to go to the park by themselves. They are required to listen to my 'be safe' lectures and training sessions from time to time. Even my almost 4-year-old son understands that NO ADULT EVER NEEDS HIS HELP WITH ANYTHING! He knows to turn, run and scream his head off if anyone he doesn't know approaches him. All of my children know what good and bad touches are. They know they can always come to me or their father if anyone ever touches them in an inappropriate way.
In short, these laws do nothing to protect my children and I worry that such laws will make other parents less vigilant in watching over their own children. How many times have you went to public library and watched as a mom allowed her son or daughter to head over to the children's section without supervision? How many times has a parent allowed a son or daughter to browse the magazines at the grocery store? How many times have parents allowed their children to head off alone in an amusement park or a zoo or a playground?
The laws are stupid and ineffective. There is only one line of defense against sexual offenders: Parents -- aware and watching.
And I agree that the best protection is a responsible parent. The laws make people "feel better" and so there is little discussion about what those laws really represent. As "exceptions" are carved out as to who have the protections accorded to individuals in our Society.. we have to pay attention as to WHO DECIDES "Who are the exceptions?.. Who doesn't have the rights of citizens?"
What legal protections are being violated? You admit that you are not a lawyer, but yet you sure toss around a lot that this is basically entrapment and that civil rights have been violated. Stop hiding behind the "I don't know, I'm not a lawyer" and tell me specifically what rights are being violated. If you can't, stop making the claim.
And, yes, I agree that I need to protect my children. But until we can convince/train/help/whatever every parent in this country to do the same, your attidue is "fuck it, let those inadequate parent's kids get fucked by molesters"? That is seriously what it sounds like you are saying.
228. We've come a long way from "It Takes a Village".
Also, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is a movement afoot to gain acceptance for adult-child sex (currently defined as pedophilia). It's gathering steam in academic circles and in Hollywood. Google it.
I assume that most of the posters that concern you on this thread have just become a bit jumpy about civil liberties generally (and yes, their arguments are misinformed--I'm an attorney). Or perhaps this is just part of the overall shift from the "nanny-state" to libertarianism. But this is not nearly the worst thread I've seen on the subject here at DU.
Someone upthread said "protect the children is the crowbar of fascism" (or some-such). I believe the truth is closer to "pedophilia is the fascists playground". George HW Bush/pedophilia is also worth a google.
79. Here's the irony -- over 80% of molestations take place by someone known
I believe the statistic is 87%. These are individuals that the parent knows and allowed in the home, allowed access to their children.
The laws being placed on the books all across our nation are useless. They only pacify parents and provide them further justification for NOT watching their own children, for not paying attention to the people they allow to access their children.
Case in point: Jetseta Gage, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Jetseta was recently raped and murdered by a man. The man convicted of the crime was the brother to another man who had molested Jetseta. The Department of Human Services knew about the brother's actions, as did the mother. Still, the mother allowed this other man (a brother to the man who molested Jetseta) access to her daughter. Only after Jetseta's death did DHS step in to remove the remaining children from that home.
The laws preventing this man (or his brother for that matter) from living in certain proximity to schools or libraries or parks didn't make a damn bit of difference... and they don't for almost 90% of all such cases.
An old boss of mine and her family lived in a nice neighborhood. There was a family next two with two kids about 7 or 8 years old, pool in the back yard. Something was strange about the house. The curtains were always drawn. The kids were rarely seen. Turns out the PARENTS were starring their own kids in kiddy porn movies and inviting "guests" in to partake of their own children and be co-stars in the films. One day the cops showed up and raided the place and took them all away.
Yes parents should watch their kids, but some parents - well, they should be hung by their toes until dead.
I don't know if you are expecting me to defend it somehow... if so you're going to be terribly disappointed. Those kids fall into the 80+% statistic I outlined above and, unfortunately, are part of the group who will not be helped by the panic laws being passed now.
and it always amazes me that Republicans. who argue for smaller government, "get the government out of our lives", blah blah--are the first to ask the government to protect their kids for them, while they're off earning more bucks to pay off that SUV.
107. I think you're getting your panties in a wad for no apparent reason
You ask, "Does that mean we should not try to stop pedophiles?" while obviously missing the point so many of us are trying to make: The current panic laws being passed do nothing to prevent molestations from happening. They only appease worried parents and allow them to go about their business AS IF they are safer and their children are safer.
The current laws are a lie -- one that is going to cost many more children their lives.
Now, instead of attacking everyone who isn't willing to sign on to your personal beliefs about what should be done, why don't you take a moment and sit back and think about the problem rationally? Perhaps there are things which can be done which would both prevent pedophiles from offending and help parents/guardians to understand the protective role they play.
Pedophiles are people that seek out, stalk and hurt our children. In our country, it is against the law. While I agree, they are sick ~ whether they are incarcerated or hospitalized matters not to me,,,, as long as they are off the streets.
This is not about civil liberties, it is about children being hurt.
68. I think they should shoot the motherfuckers on the spot
and no, I'm NOT kidding, as long as we have the death penalty that is, this is how it should be utilized in these cases. As soon as the bastard whips it out knowing he's going after a kid - SHOOT HIM. What these people do fucks a person up their whole life and most ALL of them do it to LOTS of kids. I have seen the affects first hand on more than one person who is close in my life. Fuck these monsters.
My preferred punishment would be life in prison without ANY possibility of parole on the second offense with no statute of limitations between offenses. You do it once we get you at least 5 years of intensive treatment in a secured facility. This would be followed by a year of supervised transition living in the real world. After that it is up to you to continue treatment at the states expense according to your own volition. The current registry system remains in place with improvements in enforcement. If you commit a second offense, say GOODBYE to the real world, lock you up and let you die in prison.
These predators are openly looking to have sex with underage girls (and boys) and even the attempt--just like attempted murder or attempted bank robbery--is a criminal act.
However I have a real issue with the stings being conducted by tv "journalists". These operations should be conducted by law enforcement. If they want to allow a cops-style cinema-verte coverage, fine. Being exposed on tv might make a few of these scumbags think twice before they go wreck some kid's life.
are ALL rights inalienable of just the ones identified as inalienable (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)?
If all rights are inalienable, then convicted felons should be able to own guns. Prisoners should be able to vote. Minors should be able to drink alcohol. I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre.
225. strict constructionist, i see. and my answer is
we give trials to decide guilt and have judges to interpret the laws. the accused shall not have limits on government power removed from his enumerated rights when it may bear on his liberty. we should not toss out the rights of a specific class even if that one class deserves your contempt.
I was just asking for your definition so that you were not a moving target, something I suspect(ed) you may become. You are the one that went to "the document," not I.
I did not say that these people did not deserve a trial. I did not say that we should take away any of their due process rights. I did ask why the "luring" of pedophiles over the internet is a violation of due process, is entrapment, and what civil rights it violates. To this point, nobody has given me anything. Including you. You toss out nicely charged words like "government power," "enumerated rights," and "liberty," but you do not say how this specific instance is a violation of any of these.
I assume that they are still Mirandized, that they have the right to council, that their trial is speedy and by a jury of their peers (if they so choose), that they have a right to confront witnesses against them, etc. Which of these, or other due process rights, do you claim are being violated. Specifically, please. If you do not know all of the due process rights granted by "the document" (again, the standard you set, not I), then stop yipping about them like you do.
What lawful standards have been broken? I keep asking, and you keep evading. It is leading me to think that you are full of shit. I don't want to believe that, but unless you start answering the question instead of making these sweeping, propagandistic claims, it is the conclusion people will reach.
131. It seems to me this argument is due to facts we do not know.
If you know a person has a problem with drug addiction and offer him drugs just so you can arrest him for buying drugs, that would offend most civil libertarians.
If on the other hand, you hang out at a know drug selling corner, you let people know you are selling and an addict approaches you, that is very different.
What we don't know yet is whether these guys were targeted by cops who contacted them pretended to be kids and offered sex or were these guys trolling through chat rooms known for this sort of thing with the specific intent to have sex with a child?
It is also important to point out that intent is not enough. For a crime of attempt, you have to prove a person did more than just prepare to do something wrong, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they took affirmative steps toward the commission of that crime.
Free Speech Blue Ribbon Online Campaign? Not the kind of Free Speech "they" are supporting (which includes child pornography), BUT, as Patriots we support the original intent of our Founding Fathers, Free Speech With Responsibility. Join this alternative Free Speech Campaign by displaying this banner. I guess I'd like to know who THEY is?
127. Would you have ever thought there'd be a slippery slope from Al Queda...
...to Quakers? Or from Al Queda to vegans? Well, apparently there was, since both Quakers and vegans were spied upon using the same 'policies' (since they were neither laws nor regulations) that were put in place for Al Queda.
I don't think it's so absurd to keep an eye on how EVERY policy might be interpreted in the future, given what's been happening lately.
1) They haven't even been indicted, much less tried, yet. They are only suspected pedophiles until that point.
2) How this nation treats any of it's criminal suspects (before trial) DOES have a bearing on how the rest of us are treated.
3) Quit waving that straw man around. Nobody here is 'defending pedophiles'. Why do you hate America?
4) You didn't address a single point of my post. The policies used to justify spying on Al Queda were used to justify spying on Quakers and vegans. If you can't see the obvious similarity of the issues, I doubt there's much point in continuing this.
Many psychologists will tell you that pedophiles can't be rehabilitated, and the repeat offence rate is quite high. Add to that the tremendous damage that their crimes cause. If you've never been molested, you have no idea what that does to your psyche, it's a scar that never heals. To even try to compare this to political crimes is absurd.
While I don't believe in retroactive laws - I believe that's plainly against our Constitution - I have no problem with creating newer, even stricter laws for these sickos. They really should be locked up for the rest of their lives. I have no sympathy for them at all.
Just because I have no sympathy doesn't mean I'd want to see them burned at the stake. I have no sympathy for mass murderers either, but that doesn't mean that I believe in the death penalty for them.
Also, that study deals with sex offenders. "Contrary to popular belief, convicted sex offenders have relatively low rates of recidivism compared to other offenders. On average, untreated sex offenders sentenced to prison have a recidivism rate of 18.5%. In comparison, recidivism rates range around 25% for drug offenses and 30% for violent offenses. 6 Thus, people convicted of sex crimes tend to reoffend less than people convicted of many other types of crime."
It doesn't differentiate between offenders and predators. If I get a blowjob in my car, and a cop catches me, technically I'd be a sex offender. Chances are I'm not going to take the chances of getting caught again. That's one crime that doesn't get repeated. I'd like to see a study that focuses solely on hard-core sexual predators, ones that focus on young children. Because this study doesn't do that, it lumps them all into one group. Since there are far more offenders than predators, of course your results are going to be skewed.
* Rape is the most under-reported crime in the United States. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations. Uniform Crime Report, 1990
* Only 16 percent of rapes are ever reported to the police. Source: National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, 1992
* One reported forcible rape (penetration of a female forcibly and against her will) or attempted rape takes place nearly every five minutes in the United States. This statistic does not included unreported rapes or other sexual assaults, including assaults against men or many children (boys, or girls sexually assaulted but not raped). Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations. Crime in the United States. 2001
* One in three girls and one in six boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18. Source: Diana Russell, Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, 1988
* Twenty-nine percent of all forcible rapes in America occurred when the victim was less than 11 years old.
* Source: National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, 1992
* 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. Source: National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, 1992
* One in four sexual assaults takes place in the victim's home, making it the most common place for an assault to take place. One in six takes place in or near a relative's or friend's home; one in five on the street; one in six in a parking garage or commercial building. Three out of five sexual assaults occur at night, with the largest proportion occurring between 6:00 pm and midnight. Source: Crime and Crime Prevention Statistics
to compare a child molester to a political protester. It is absurd to compare being a criminal to being jewish. Absurdity didn't stop that from becoming reality. The problem is that although you think you have a solid definition of "these sickos", you must be careful in creating a system that treats "sickos" in a brutal manner or with fewer rights than the rest of us enjoy. The danger is that someone else with a different idea about who is "sick" will come along and use the apparatus you have put in place to serve a different agenda.
158. I am going to say a few things that I hope will put an end to this thread.
I was molested as a child over a long period of time. I am now suffering from PTSD and a lot of other mental problems, I can't work, I can't sustain relationships of any kind, and what happened to me as a child has destroyed my life in so many ways I can't even count them all. My father, who was the perp, worked for the school district. Guess what he liked to do? Parents went to the school district with complaints, and the School Superintendent - whom my father knew - got my father off. My father was never punished for anything that he did, for anyone that he hurt, because everyone was worried about HIM and HIS life. He's dead now, and I feel relieved. How many other children are out there suffering like I am because no one wants to actually do anything about molesters for fear that HIS life might be destroyed? What about OUR lives?
The whole premise that catching a person who WANTS to molest (which is not a natural tendency in most of the population) is somehow a violation of that person's rights is so horribly offensive to me that I can't even express it. You don't get it! If the man has the desire, he WILL commit the crime - either now, or later. What purpose is there in letting this man free in the community to indulge himself where he can't be seen or caught? Where some buddy will get him off by raising doubts that 'good ol' whomever could be a disgusting pervert? Guess what - perverts look normal, just like your neighbor and your best friend. Why not expose his desire to commit the crime and catch him before he hurts someone like me and destroys their life?
Where are MY rights in this? This whole thread seems to imply that I have no rights.
I say arrest them and toss them in jail BEFORE they hurt children until we find some cure for what ails them. And if that process is televised on TV so parents know to keep their kids away from the pervert, then I say more power to 'em. If the man didn't want to commit the crime, he wouldn't show up to commit it.
And for those of you arguing this stupid premise - desist NOW! Your argument is horribly offensive to someone like me who knows first hand the devastation these monsters create in a child's life. I guarantee that whatever embarrassment these men feel from being caught on live television doesn't hold a candle to what I've had to live with my ENTIRE LIFE!
If you think what a pedophile does is in any way comparable to what a war protester does, you are absolutely INSANE. Trust me, I know.
175. Showing up to a house to engage in sex demonstrates a desire to "act"
on it. That's what happened with the NBC situation. Now, I think the reason they/NBC "GE" are perpetuating this crap is because the ACLU defended nambla, they like to paint all liberals with the "they support pedophiles" bullshit. I'd rather not add to that inaccurate stereotype personally.
194. Exactly - it's quite different from other sting operations
that really ARE entrapment - for instance, where you have police officers wandering around black neighborhoods offering to sell crack and marijuana to people. Or when you have undercover officers walking up to men and offering sexual services for a fee. THAT is entrapment.
Wow, mzmolly, you have your alphabet working well for you today. How you made the transition from NBC Dateline to NAMBLA is beyond me.
But one thing is for certain, if you found someone online who was looking to place a contract killing on someone, and that person showed up for a face-to-face meeting with a gun and the money, I think an arrest would be warranted. You wouldn't wait for the "hit" to take place.
Now, in the pedophilia case, the man is looking to commit pedophilia on a minor and shows up with some beer and a condom. To me its the same thing. There was intent to commit a felony. You don't have to wait for the felony to transpire for a crime to be committed.
180. I am so sorry FormerRepublican. This is very controversial but I just
read an article in which survivors of nazi concentration camps AND incest were said to have experienced MORE lasting trauma from the incest than the camps. I don't have a link, and I'm not negating either experience as beyond what humans should have to endure, but I found that shocking.
I am proud of you for having the courage to share your painful story with us all.
The problem with pedophiles who act on their impulses is that they do have a high recidivism rate.
And the reason why they have a high recidivism rate, as any psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you, is that they DON'T think what they're doing is wrong.
Time and again you'll hear these people use the same excuses - that the child "tempted" them or the child "enjoyed it also". They don't change their behavior because they don't think its wrong and they don't think it hurts anyone.
Whatever it takes to get them off the street, short of entrapment, should be done.
221. So you think everyone has to shut up because of what happened to you?
What is that? You are going to shut down this thread? Talk about wielding your victimhood as a weapon.
Justice is not determined by the victims. Victims tend to be more interested in revenge than justice, they are, shall we say, biased. Justice can only be determined by people who have no personal interest in the outcome.
252. Anyone remember the Dukakis debate, the death penalty question?
When someone asked Dukakis would he favor the death penalty if someone killed his wife? Its an invalid debating tactic and I thought that remark about "this will kill this thread" was on the same level. And I figure anyone so quick to throw it out there must be thick-skinned (or else they just expect everyone to gulp nervously and shut up, in which case they should get over that).
Policewomen pose as prostitutes and then arrest the johns for solicitation - is that wrong (if you don't believe prostitution should be a crime in the first place, please just consider the "sting" aspect of the question)? What about undercover operations to expose drug dealers? Hit men? Money laundering? Buying guns and WMDs illegally? Child slave labor or sales? I mean the list goes on and on - would you say all of those are bad? Because to me if it's against the law, then a sting is legal and just. I don't see any way it's entrapment or unethical.
Political views aren't ruled by law. That would be a completely different scenario.
Let me jump ahead for a moment: if someone's thinking, "well, political views aren't ruled by law yet, yes, point taken. But then it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen. We can't just do away with all laws because we're afraid someday a law will be created to use against us. We need to protect the legal system to make sure that doesn't happen.
203. Perhaps it's possible that even pedophilia is a continuum.
What is it that makes our wish to protect children stronger than a desire to have sex with them? As some have pointed out in this thread, sometimes a difference in age of more than 3 years is enough for a criminal charge. At the same time, the advertising environment is full of sexual images of and for pubescent (and younger) girls.
At one end of the spectrum is the Sicko who would rape a young child and kill him or her to cover his tracks. But what's at the other end? A middle-aged man who marries someone 30 years his junior? A 17-year-old boy who can't resist the pouting insouciance of a voluptuous 14-year-old?
And then there's the idea that if a group of people can be successfully defined and demonized, the baiting and torture of that group will sell tickets. There's lots here to be disturbed about.
but maybe someone can tell me - what are the people posing as minors doing? pretending to be 8 year olds talking about sex? pretending to be 16 year olds picking up older gay men? pretending to be runaway teen prostitutes? what? I see a world of difference between any of these possibilities.
And what possible motive would anyone have to watch a show like this?
216. I don't see a connection between pedophiles and liberals
I've never seen these shows, and probably never will. But questions of media prudence aside, I don't see the arrest of those out trolling for kids to abuse as being a trojan horse for doing the same thing to liberals.
222. "Men are only as faithful as their options" - Chris Rock
Its funny because its true, and its true of a lot more things than just adultery.
Many many people would have the capacity to do many many bad things if presented with the opportunity, but they live their whole lives without doing those things, because they never get the opportunity.
I think it is false to assume that these people who are "stung" by police in these operations either have in the past, or would in the future, make an assignation such as the one the police lure them into (if for no other reason than I doubt very many real 12 year old girls offer to meet older men in motel rooms).
The police are indeed manufacturing a crime that might not ever have occurred otherwise. Everyone just assumes, with no support or factual basis for the assumption, that the person in question would or has done similar things.
268. Actually, if they are in chat rooms "chatting" with kids
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 06:33 PM by mzmolly
who they should have NOTHING in common with about SEX, there is reason to believe they've done such a thing in the past, or would in the future. But, it matters not as a crime only needs to happen once to ONE person before it is considered a crime.
258. That case is easily distinguishable from the cases being discussed
on this thread. Obviously, the police went too far in Poehlman.
However, the court points out that in the more typical situation,i.e., where an adult attempts to make contact with a police officer masquerading as a child (as opposed to the adult woman he thought he was communicating with in Poehlman), entrapment would not be successful defense. The cases cited in support of this point actually reinforce the proposition that the NBC cases do not constitute entrapment.
304. That's why in such operations, police has to be careful
not to act in a way that would induce someone to do what he normally wouldn't do otherwise. That goes for murder for hire stings too. But it doesn't make pretending to be someone you are not (in this case, a child) illegal to make an arrest for someone. You just can't cross that line.
266. Why dont they show the police officers who show up at the sting?
You know that some of the people they are talking to are police trying to catch pedophiles disguised as kids. And what about the real kids that show up trying to get on NBC? Ill bet there are a lot of those, too. I want to see them.
270. It's fine with me. A lot of Republicans are probably worried though.
I'm really for anything that takes the GOP criminal element out of play. Tough enforcement of laws against pedophilia, statutory rape, wife-beating, embezzlement, incest, bigamy, serial killing, fraud, drunk driving (this means you Bush and Cheney!) and the rest would decimate the GOP coalition.
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 09:00 AM by iamthebandfanman
especially since almost every male is a non-acting one.
its been my experience from just simply asking people that most men find younger women attractive(Underage-teenagers). i think there needs to be more studying done on the psychology of it and what drives that kind of though pattern or desire exactly.
i think people released into society convicted of such crimes should be watched after they are released for atleast a set amount of a grace period(atleast) along with intensive psychiatric care and rehibilitation.
most sexual offenders simply cant control the impulse that comes over them, but i have confidence with the proper medication and theropy, that this impulse can be supressed...because i see the trait in many many people and they supress it on their own..which means its possible.
300. I'm mixed on this, because on the one hand it is entrapment
and the person has technically not done anything wrong (since they showed up at a location to meet with a person who does not even exist, even though their intentions may be criminal they haven't done anything illegal).
But on the other hand, they showed up intending to abuse and harm a child.
I don't have a great amount of sympathy for them.
But I can't help but wonder how much the cops, during the sting, are provoking them to show up. That is, if it were a real 14 year old or whatever on the other end of the conversation, would the person still act the same?
305. It's a public service for people with young kids.
Many parents have no clue as to what their kid is doing, especially when the kid gets on the internet. Having shows such as this demonstrates to parents the dangers of allowing their children unsupervised access to internet.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.