66 replies to this topic

[Nymh]

I haven't seen the show, so I can't accurately comment on whether I think it was entrapment.

I also can't really judge if these "children" that they pretended to be were entirely innocent. It's one thing to rape an unwilling underage victim, it's completely another thing to be approached by someone underage and have them basically seduce you into meeting them despite the age difference. Both illegal, but very different.

[iargue]

I am going to have to agree that the show helped to curb some potential sexual predators and caught several who had every intention to do exactly what they thought that they were there to do, otherwise they wouldn't have arrived. "I was just going to sit down with her after she finished this six pack of wine coolers and show her what condoms look like, that's why I had two in my wallet. Then I was going to explain to her that drinking, having sex, and stuff like that is just inappropriate for someone her age." ...yeah I'm not buying that when they are traveling hundreds of miles when you could easily type that kind of message.

The show was entrapment, clearly, but I feel as though entrapment regarding malicious sexual intent is justifiable. The reason I feel this way is, as LW and several others have stated, if the show prevented even one predator from harming another person then it accomplished its purpose. I am convinced that it dissuaded more than a single predator from taking the stop from fantasizing to actively being a predator. Any single one of them that tries saying that it is entrapment should simply reexamine the simple fact that they went there with the clear and concise intent to have sexual relations with a minor. Televised simply to dissuade other predators and potential predators from doing (more of) the same.

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.

Entrapment is forcing them to commit the crime. All that they did was pretend to be innocent and easy girls that were impressed and liked them. This provided the predators with easy chance to commit a crime. For entrapement to happen, they would have been forced to travel long distances and try and have sex with the child.

I've never seen TCaP, being English.

Did they target specific people with prior records? Or did they fish in chatrooms and such until they got a likely suspect?

Baiting people in chatrooms.

[Waser Lave]

Entrapment is forcing them to commit the crime.

It's not.

[Sweeney]

Do you know how much I don't want to hear iargue's opinion about this?

I will pay everyone who reads this thread not to reply to him.

Spoiler

I won't. But let's do it for fun anyway.

[Ladida]

In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.^[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. 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 informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). 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.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime had it not been for inducement or persuasion on the part of some government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. For example, if a defendant had purchased illegal drugs from an undercover officer, he may be found not guilty if it is determined that the officer initiated the transaction or aggressively pressed the accused to complete it.
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

• The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
• Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
• The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that he was entrapped as an affirmative defense.

Source: Wikipedia

I've also never seen To Catch A Predator before, I've only read about it. I would think 2. on that list wasn't satisfied.. Unless adults can really be convinced by supposedly underage kids to have intimate relations with them.

If the people producing To Catch A Predator were really serious about cracking down on child molesters, I'm going to assume that they probably would ensure that they aren't doing anything that could work in the perpetrator's favour when it reaches to judicial system.

Edited by Ladida, 11 June 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[ilovepolkadots]

in response to the argument that the embarrassment of being showed on television would result in the perpetrators being less likely to seek out help, i couldn't disagree more. first you have to consider that within the spectrum of individuals who rape/molest children there are those who think there is nothing wrong with it and those who do see that it is a mental health issue - so those who are able to feel embarrassment and/or shame might actually be helped. but as far as clinical treatment goes for rapists (child or otherwise) there is no cure/method that has proven successful.

then you have to take into account that the majority of individuals who maltreat children where maltreated themselves in a similar manner. so entrapment or not i feel as though it is justified in that it has the potential to prevent this cycle.

[Melchoire]

I haven't seen the show, so I can't accurately comment on whether I think it was entrapment.

I also can't really judge if these "children" that they pretended to be were entirely innocent. It's one thing to rape an unwilling underage victim, it's completely another thing to be approached by someone underage and have them basically seduce you into meeting them despite the age difference. Both illegal, but very different.

That's another thing, the guys on the show were lured in by an under age girl who was MORE than willing to have sex with them. In some of those cases she even got them to agree to bring drugs they could do together. As far they were concerned it wasn't against the girl's will.

[Romy]

As far they were concerned it wasn't against the girl's will.

Does that justify it?

Edit: "it" being having sex with a person SIGNIFICANTLY younger then you.

Edited by Pikachuu, 11 June 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Melchoire]

Does that justify it?

Edit: "it" being having sex with a person SIGNIFICANTLY younger then you.

No, but it's not really rape any more is it?

[Elindoril]

No, but it's not really rape any more is it?

As far as everyone else thinks it is, unfortunately.

You touched me? RAPE RAPE RAPE!

[Romy]

No, but it's not really rape any more is it?

I guess not. One of the parties is too young to understand and object.

[Melchoire]

I guess not. One of the parties is too young to understand and object.

They thought they were chatting with a 16 yo. Not a fucking toddler.

Edit: even if it was a young child, they would still object. They don't have to know what it is, they just know it's something they've never done before and it's obviously very strange and uncomfortable to them.

[Romy]

They thought they were chatting with a 16 yo. Not a fucking toddler.

Edit: even if it was a young child, they would still object. They don't have to know what it is, they just know it's something they've never done before and it's obviously very strange and uncomfortable to them.

Whatever.

I can't fathom why you are defending people that take advantage of children in one of the worst ways imaginable.
They deserve any and everything that comes their way.
There is NO justification or excuse for that. EVER.

Edited by Pikachuu, 11 June 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[Bone]

I can't fathom why you are defending people that take advantage of children in one of the worst ways imaginable.

He's not. He's defending people who are coerced by a non-governmental group into having sex with people who they think are willing.

[Random]

Haven't read one post in this thread.

Fuck those pedophiles.

[Nonexistent]

Fuck those pedophiles.

Oh I'm pretty sure they'll like that

[Ladida]

He's not. He's defending people who are coerced by a non-governmental group into having sex with people who they think are willing.

To Catch a Predator is an American reality television series that featured hidden camera investigations by the television newsmagazine program Dateline NBC. It was devoted to impersonating underage youth (on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15)

Taken again from Wikipedia. I personally don't know what ages were involved.

What I have against it is, even if the 16 year old or other underage jailbait was dying to jump on their junk, no adult should ever decide it's ok to have sex with him/her. No amount of trickery should even make it possible for that adult to think it's fine to go ahead with it. If they do decide they want some of that, there's something seriously wrong with them. The correct response would be to give the kid a talking to (if even that), and then get the Hell away. Immediately.

[Melchoire]

Whatever.

I can't fathom why you are defending people that take advantage of children in one of the worst ways imaginable.
They deserve any and everything that comes their way.
There is NO justification or excuse for that. EVER.

I said time and time again, that their actions intents were wrong. You must've read them...but that the televising was also wrong, not to mention it's the legal system that proves their guilt not a TV show.

[redlion]

Given that they completely fucked over someone's life.

No. Many sexual 'crimes' are rather minor compared to the filthy gutter thoughts running through everyone's minds right now. Many sexual criminals don't get very far for various reasons, which reduces what can be charged.

Touching a girl is different than touching a girl you know? The problem is that usually the only two people that know which of the two was actually the case are sitting opposite each other.

So they do to jail for a few years and then get out? So what? The person that they did shit to will be suffering for their entire life. They will always have nightmares. They will always struggle with trust issues, and they will always always have to deal with unnecessary reactions because of this. Its not like they just stole some money, and that was it. They fucked over a person's life, and in that situation others peoples lives to because they now have to deal with this change.

Right. Because a child of two is really going to remember the babysitter that stuck fingers up their butts. Oh wait! Changing diapers, yeaaah. You're overestimating to some degree the severity of your average sex crime. I feel like 90 percent of sex offenders simply got caught doing something that everyone does. Sixteen year olds fuck, and in some states it's illegal unless you were born so close together that you are practically irish twins.

Sex criminals don't just get out. They register (for life in some cases) in their state, and you can look up their current address. They didn't necessarily all fuck up someone's lives. so it's not fair to make sweeping acusations about sexual offenses.

The victims/bait on the show aren't children, but thats who the predators target, thats who they thought they'd found and were attempting to harm. IMO, even though there was an adult on the other end, they were still trying to abuse a child and are just as guilty as if there had been a child waiting for them.

Thought crimes!

Please, refrain from telling me not to think any bad thoughts while you make jokes about your own molesting tendencies. It's hard enough as it is with all the JB in the world.

[WharfRat]

My only other concern with the moral outrage is that the age of consent varies wildly by location and culture (and even state in the U.S.) I'm in no way defending child molesters. I'm simply stating that what one person finds an appropriate age to consent to sexual activities varies from place to place and the show was IMO entirely entrapment. (For example, in many states in the US the age of consent is 16. In some states it's 18.)

As a follow up, at what age was your first consensual sexual encounter? Were you below the age of consent in your state? It's one thing to rape or molest and another to rape by statute of age of consent with a willing participant due to locale.

[Melchoire]

My only other concern with the moral outrage is that the age of consent varies wildly by location and culture (and even state in the U.S.) I'm in no way defending child molesters. I'm simply stating that what one person finds an appropriate age to consent to sexual activities varies from place to place and the show was IMO entirely entrapment. (For example, in many states in the US the age of consent is 16. In some states it's 18.)

As a follow up, at what age was your first consensual sexual encounter? Were you below the age of consent in your state? It's one thing to rape or molest and another to rape by statute of age of consent with a willing participant due to locale.

Yeah, it really is too much of a variable to tack on a solid number to. But I guess 16 is fairly reasonable as long as they understand that teenagers don't magically begin to understand sex as soon as they turn that age and anything younger should be considered rape.

My cousin was wed to a 40yo when she was 20. Their marriage isn't that great, and the guy imposes too many pseudo-islamic rules on her and the general consensus is that she's not very happy about it. But then my other cousin was wed to a 16 yo when he was 25. They're one of the happiest couple I've ever seen. So it really does depend on the persons involved.

[Sage]

I consider the TV show to be of no more influence than surveillance camera footage in a hotel lobby, to be honest. Sometimes it's admissible in court, sometimes it isn't. As far as the humiliation of the people caught in the act goes... I have difficulty finding sympathy for these people, but from a pratical/legal standpoint, it is not entrapment and the fact that they are not actually talking to an underaged person (as far as the person knows, this really is a kid) doesn't matter; their intent doesn't change just because they're being misled. They're operating on the assumption that the person they're talking to is a minor, and I refuse to ever accept that a 15-year-old is fully intellectually comfortable with the idea of having sex with anyone, least of all someone that far their senior. Statutory rape where it's clear and obvious that the minor is fully cognizent of their actions and did not in any way protest what went on is one thing; what (would have) happened in that show (if the person was not interrupted and the kid was actually a kid) was not statutory rape.

Also, these people go as far as obtaining supplies and travel method of their OWN volition, not through encouragement from anybody except their "playmate," so that's not entrapment either. It might not need to be aired on national television, but they don't need to be knowingly committing a crime either. The only difference between this show and World's Wildest Police Chases is that most of the videos from the latter are not police sting operations.

Edited by Sage, 11 June 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Melchoire]

I consider the TV show to be of no more influence than surveillance camera footage in a hotel lobby, to be honest. Sometimes it's admissible in court, sometimes it isn't. As far as the humiliation of the people caught in the act goes... I have difficulty finding sympathy for these people, but from a pratical/legal standpoint, it is not entrapment and the fact that they are not actually talking to an underaged person (as far as the person knows, this really is a kid) doesn't matter; their intent doesn't change just because they're being misled. They're operating on the assumption that the person they're talking to is a minor, and I refuse to ever accept that a 15-year-old is fully intellectually comfortable with the idea of having sex with anyone, least of all someone that far their senior. Statutory rape where it's clear and obvious that the minor is fully cognizent of their actions and did not in any way protest what went on is one thing; what (would have) happened in that show (if the person was not interrupted and the kid was actually a kid) was not statutory rape.

Also, these people go as far as obtaining supplies and travel method of their OWN volition, not through encouragement from anybody except their "playmate," so that's not entrapment either. It might not need to be aired on national television, but they don't need to be knowingly committing a crime either. The only difference between this show and World's Wildest Police Chases is that most of the videos from the latter are not police sting operations.

Steven Tyler with his 14-year-old groupie:


Neither of them were responsible about it and it was a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure she had a pretty good idea what sex was.

[Sage]

I can never adequately word how I mean this, so bear with me, but generally what I'm referring to is knowing that sex is more than a mechanical process that feels good (after the first time).

[Melchoire]

I can never adequately word how I mean this, so bear with me, but generally what I'm referring to is knowing that sex is more than a mechanical process that feels good (after the first time).

I'm not sure some adults would even understand it in that way =P