Question regarding Dateline's "To Catch a Predator"

[MadBadger]

I have been wondering this since this series began on dateline. I'm hoping there are some people on here that know the law regarding this. Does anybody know the law that is actually broken by these people? Please dont laugh this off as something stupid, Ive just always wanted to know what the law is because the people think they are minors they are going to meet, but they arent actually talking to a minor.

[devilgrrl]

1. I'm not sure of the laws broken but I know of someone that was busted on the show.

The things you don't know about people.... :scared:

[etherealtruth]

19. Its really freaky

Though, I don't know anyone caught on the show ... I do have a close friend that went to her computer one morning only to find that her idiot husband had downloaded child pornography:puke:

I guess these people don't exactly walk around announcing that they'd like to have sex with kids

[LiberalFighter]

35. I had someone start a sex chat with me that was underage thru Yahoo IM

I wasn't exactly friendly with her. Or maybe it was a him. Never attempted to contact me again.

Most of the other times it has been those that supposedly were from Africa or Russia. I just refused.

[MADem]

2. Soliciting sex from a minor

They can bag them if the perps think they are soliciting from a minor, even if it isn't a minor.

[MadBadger]

5. To me, I dont understand how a law like that can exist

[MissB]

9. I suppose because the alternative would be to wait until they

actually follow through with victimizing a minor.

[MadBadger]

13. I Know that is awful

but I have the spirit of a Defense Attorney in me (because of my love for the show "The Practice"). I just wonder how some things are legal, such as this kind of operation that this show does. I remember CHris Hanson telling one of the people that they are guilty of "Soliciting a minor." He didnt say intent, but just that he did solicit a minor. It just doenst make sense to me.

[Warpy]

27. Don't forget that these men don't just talk dirty to a kid

while they play with their willies. They go to what they think is a kid's house with a definite purpose in mind. This is follow through.

That's the difference. That's also why Foley isn't in jail. Unless a former page comes forward and puts Foley at the scene, he'll walk.

[MadBadger]

28. But I see the difference in they have proof he actually talked to minors.

[LiberalFighter]

36. The same as soliciting sex from a prostitute

even though the person is a cop dressed as a prostitute. They made an offer of money for sex.

[MADem]

15. I have to say, I am fairly libertarian in regard to some laws, but when it comes to perverts

who try to fuck around with children I get a bit of an authoritarian streak I didn't realize I had.

I just think anyone who messes with kids needs locking up. No argument.

I realize some do not agree, and that's their right. But I'm not gonna be swayed on that matter.

[PassingFair]

25. Intent

If you hire someone to kill your husband, THAT is illegal
in and of itself.

It shows INTENT to commit murder.

Making an assignation to have sex with a minor show INTENT
to have sex with a minor.

The "snatches" of text that the read on air are but excerpts
of the intentions of the culprits.

That is the law.

[melody]

3. Intention is everything

They were intending to solicit sex from a minor, not just that minor.

[htuttle]

4. Intent is enough to convict for any number of crimes

Intent to buy or sell drugs (there doesn't have to be any real drugs)
Intent to hire a hitman when you're actually talking to an undercover cop
Intent to defraud, etc...

[rusty_parts2001]

6. Its the meetup that seals their fate.

Its an indicator that they intended to act on the solicitation. Otherwise the online chat stuff is just pure fantasy and probably not prosecutable.

[MadBadger]

8. I would think

that the law could easily be challenged in court, but I'm also most likely wrong.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. They don't all get convicted. I just watched the last one, Ft. Myers, FLA, and there

were a few who didn't enter the house. They didn't make it entirely clear which ones were convicted and which ones were not, but I'd have to imagine the ones that didn't come into the house with condoms and Jack Daniels were going to be a tougher case.

[hfojvt]

20. no, the one guy who killed himself was not going anywhere

They knew it, and went to arrest him for some of the laws he had broken, like 'talking sex with a minor' or some such. When they went to the house that person killed himself.

[ComerPerro]

7. its a cheap, profit-driven ploy designed to give suburban parents a scare and a thrill

while actually doing nothing to protect children

[donco6]

12. I agree

I hate that show.

[INDIA]

14. It is certainly profit-driven, but the ends justify the means in this case.

"While actually doing nothing to protect children."

False.

1. The show has captured dozens of sexual predators.
2. The show has raised the profile of the dangers of online predators. People/parents are now more aware.
3. The predators themselves are aware of the show, and there is evidence the show had deterred them from attempting to meet children over the internet. That's one less tool they have.

And yes, it would probably be a lot more honorable for a non-profit or state run law enforcement to do what Chirs Hanson is doing, but when you can't argue that the show has risen awareness for parents and children about a dangerous situation.


It's a net good thing in my opinion.

[LiberalFighter]

37. There were guys on that show that had seen the show before

yet they attempted to do it anyway.

[LoZoccolo]

41. I don't have anything against them doing it or airing it during sweeps periods, but...

...I think they should use the fact that it draws a lot of viewers to maybe spend five or ten minutes at the end of the show talking about how to prevent and detect the more common forms of abuse, which are perpetrated by people entrusted to take care of children and often goes on for long periods undetected if at all. I think I heard somewhere that they do that in the book that they just put out that goes along with the To Catch A Predator series, but it would increase the value of the public service they are performing if they used the more widely-viewed show as a platform.

[Marie26]

11. Solicitation of a minor online.

Yes, it is a crime. No, the fact that they were not actually minors is not a defense.

[Christian30]

16. I think it should be cancelled

the show, that is. I don't see the public benefit.

[MadBadger]

18. In terms of their motives for doing the show

I always thought they were genuine, until they came out with "To Catch a thief." Like this has turned into a series of "To Catch a" I was sick to my stomach when I heard that.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. It's primarily sensational titillation, with a smidge of possible public good IMHO.

I'm just waiting for them to come up with increasingly snazzy, snarky "entrance" lines for the host when he barges in on the pervs.

[pink-o]

17. That's not a stupid question at all!

I've also wondered whether a good lawyer could get their client off due to entrapment. That defence works on a lot of other sting cases, why not this one?


I agree: I hate the show, because they're something sick and voyueristic about it. However, I also have no liberal compassion for ANYONE who hurts an innocent child or adolescent. If you've ever seen a 35-year-old man take the stand and sob his heart out while telling of a Priest/Coach/Doctor/Uncle/Father who sexually violated him when he was a kid, then I'm sorry: no punishment or embarrassment is too much for pedophiles.

[jbnow]

29. It's not entrapment because

the decoy does not initiate contact and doesn't initiate sexual content.

If the "child" did bring up sex it would still be unlikely to meet the "reasonable person" test of entrapment. If you use persuasion or or coercion that's entrapment. Presenting opportunity is not.
Since they have the transcript of the chat the accused can't claim what isn't true about it.

[GRLMGC]

21. I just wonder how they get releases

Do they need releases to put these men's faces on tv? Its just bizarre that someone would consent to have their face on tv and be exposed as someone who would potentially have sex with a minor.

[Ian David]

24. I always supposed they offered them $500 toward bail to allow their faces to be shown. n/t

[jbnow]

30. They don't need releases because

it is considered a news show, not entertainment.
Isn't that something? I bet a lot of the guys hate the TV public exposure even more than the criminal charge.

Not all the guys who show up and get charged are shown on TV but that is due to time.

[ComerPerro]

31. I'm not so sure that is true. The show Cops always blurs faces, right?

[jbnow]

32. I saw the show once and googled the release

question because I couldn't imagine why they'd sign a release. In a Q&A transcript with the show (I think on MSNBC site) someone asked that and them being a news show and not needing one was the answer given.
That's the same way I learned why it isn't entrapment.

I haven't seen Cops but maybe they are considered entertainment or perhaps they are more polite? Dateline was already considered a news show before they started this, so that might give them the edge over Cops.

[INDIA]

33. Thanks for the info. That's very interesting stuff. n/t

[ComerPerro]

34. huh, odd.

[LiberalFighter]

39. It's because it is a FOX show production that they have to blur

Well, we could always use that reason.

[Ian David]

23. As much as I hate that show, I still wish they'd run that sting in Washington, DC...

Preferably while Congress is in session.

[immoderate]

26. Hmm...Good idea -- "To Catch a Congressman"

Have journalists pose as lobbyists who solicit favors from government officials for monetary compensation. Think they'd catch anybody?

--IMM

[philosophie_en_rose]

38. Probably depends on the state.

Likely to be soliciting sex from a minor or something similar.

In order to be guilty of soliciting sex from a minor, there usually has to be more than the internet chats. The state has to prove intent to go through with it. Which is why the guys are arrested when they show up with condoms, porn, and (in at least one case) other children; instead of being arrested at their houses.

[UNCLE_Rico]

40. If these guys had any brains to begin with...

they'd frequently say/chat "I don't believe you're a really a 16 y.o. girl, I think you're probably another 40 y.r. guy like me but that's fine, I'm bisexual anyway ... ".

Of course, if they were really smart, they'd keep copies of their conversations (off-premises would be smart) to prove it later. Do that, and proof of intent, it would seem to me, gets rather difficult to prove.

Not that I'm trying to write a how-to manual here, I'm assuming based on my many many years of hanging around this site (in various incarnations) that none of us are child-predators.

I will say, however, that I do have a rather hard time seeing how, if a person is old and responsible enough to commit some heinous crime, be charged under adult laws, get sent to adult court, and be sent to adult prison ... they are not old enough to decide who they want to have sex with. Especially given the rate of relative rates of maturation of boys vs. girls and that in case of juvenile crimes we're talking almost exclusively boys, and in cases of predation I'd think it's *mostly* female victims.

However, I admit to *not* being a parent, and that there's no way in holy hell I'd want my 16 yr. old baby off screwing some 40 y.o. man, so ... parents, you can spare me the lecture, I already 'get it' :)