66 replies to this topic

[Sage]

Yeah, no shit... Guh. The funnest activity two people can do together that has a chance of irrevocably changing their lives.

[Romy]

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.

Why should that be a problem if they are getting potential predators off the street?

Would these people not be predators otherwise?

Edited by Pikachuu, 11 June 2012 - 10:55 PM.

[Melchoire]

Why should that be a problem if they are getting potential predators off the street?

Would these people not be predators otherwise?

Potential crimes are not crimes.

[Romy]

Potential crimes are not crimes.

I'm perfectly okay with getting a "Potential" predator in jail.

[Melchoire]

I'm perfectly okay with getting a "Potential" predator in jail.

That's ridiculous. But whatever...

E: Just to be clear, you're talking about someone who hasn't committed the crime, correct?

[Romy]

That's ridiculous. But whatever...

E: Just to be clear, you're talking about someone who hasn't committed the crime, correct?

I'm talking about someone that FULLY intended to commit a crime but was prevented from doing so.

A random person walking down the street is not a potential murderer.

[Sage]

That's ridiculous. But whatever...

E: Just to be clear, you're talking about someone who hasn't committed the crime, correct?

There are charges for crimes which have not been committed but someone tried to. See also: Attempted murder, attempted breaking & entering, attempted rape, etc.

Edited by Sage, 12 June 2012 - 12:40 AM.

[luvsmyncis]

I'm perfectly okay with getting a "Potential" predator in jail.

I know quite a few here on neocodex that would fit that bill.

[Elindoril]

I know quite a few here on neocodex that would fit that bill.

You'll never take me alive, pigs!

[Frizzle]

I laugh at the people getting so emotionally involved at the thought of peadophiles that they lose all rational thinking and control over a very simple situation.

A peadophile is someone driven by a sexual instinct. Someone who wants to have sex with prepubescent children. Last time I checked, a 15/16 year old is not prepubescent in the vast majority of cases.

How many people here lost their virginity before they were 16? What happens if you lose it to a 18 year old? People are mainly focusing on the age gap, not the issues of peadophillia (which it isn't,).

Bare in mind this is a cultural issue in America and wouldn't take place in places such as Spain, Portugal and Holland where the age of consent is around 12-14 years old.

Also bare in mind these incidents aren't rape and not even close. The "victim" is usually goaded as consensual and sometimes even the one who initiates it. So there is no issues of no consent. In the UK at least, statuary rape is only committed on people those 12 or under. I'm assuming a similar law in place for America.

For those who believe this a widespread issue, it isn't. Most acts of rape or peadophillia are committed by family members, spouses or close friends. It's very rarely by random strangers.

I think a lot of people in this thread have very little experience in the field of law, social studies are in dealing with sex offenders. Let's leave this topic to the experts and professionals.

[iargue]

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.

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.

I'm speaking specifically of the people on the show, and the actions that they wanted to do. I'm well aware that some teens get screwed over, and some people get screwed over from it. There are still a large amount of people that did do something bad, and that has screwed up people's lives. It's also clear that the what the people that were caught on the show were planning on doing, would have screwed up someone's life very badly.

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.

Completely irrelevant.

This is about the show "To catch a predator". Not about a 16 year old having sex with another 16 year old. Or even 20 years old with 16. We are talking about 30-40 year olds having sex with 12-15 year old kids. That's not acceptable by any standard. I've never met a child that started off having sex at 12, even willingly, and ended up well off in life. Nor have I heard of any stories of it happening. (Besides men bragging, which you always take with a grain of salt).

Potential crimes are not crimes.

So attempted murder isn't a crime?
Attempted robbery isn't a crime?
Showing up to someone's house with a gun saying "I'm going to shoot you" isn't a crime?
Threatening to kill the president isn't a crime?

By your reasoning, we should let terrorists enter our country and fly on our planes because "They haven't yet committed a crime". Who cares if the person talked about it online,and planned it online, and everything. As long as they don't actually blow something up that ,makes it okay. They are not criminals then, they are just people.

Edited by iargue, 12 June 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Drakonid]

I think a lot of people in this thread have very little experience in the field of law, social studies are in dealing with sex offenders.

I was reading the first page thinking exactly that and decided not to post for some reason I can't recall, but when I reached the second half of the second page.
Leaving the knowledge in law(or lack of) aside, I'm quite surprised by the ethic of some users....

[Romy]

I know quite a few here on neocodex that would fit that bill.

Heheheh. Very true xD

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.

Being plastered on national television should be required of all predators.
They are going to be on a federal website anyway. It doesn't really matter at all IMO.


Most jobs require a background check. It's not like they will ever be able to keep the terrible things they did a secret. Hell, when i began volunteering for Heal the Bay they required a background check.

I'm speaking specifically of the people on the show, and the actions that they wanted to do. I'm well aware that some teens get screwed over, and some people get screwed over from it. There are still a large amount of people that did do something bad, and that has screwed up people's lives. It's also clear that the what the people that were caught on the show were planning on doing, would have screwed up someone's life very badly.

I can't even begin to understand what point you were trying to make here...
Clarification please.

[Nymh]

I've never met a child that started off having sex at 12, even willingly, and ended up well off in life.

Yes you have, you just don't know it.

[Kyle]

Bump. How about THIS?
http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_c1

(CNN)

-- A new Louisiana law requires sex offenders and child predators to state their criminal status on their Facebook or other social networking page, with the law's author saying the bill is the first of its kind in the nation.

State Rep. Jeff Thompson, a Republican from Bossier City, Louisiana, says his new law, effective August 1, will stand up to constitutional challenge because it expands sex offender registration requirements, common in many states, to include a disclosure on the convicted criminal's social networking sites as well.

Thompson, an attorney and a father of a 13-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son, said he hopes other states will follow Louisiana.

Social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have been removing sex offenders from their web pages for years, but Thompson said the law is designed to cover any possible lapses by social networking sites.

"I don't want to leave in the hands of social network or Facebook administrators, 'Gee, I hope someone is telling the truth,'" Thompson said Tuesday. "This is another tool for prosecutors."

The new law, signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal earlier this month, builds upon existing sex offender registration laws, in which the offender must notify immediate neighbors and a school district of his or her residency near them, Thompson said.

The law states that sex offenders and child predators "shall includes in his profile for the networking website an indication that he is a sex offender or child predator and shall include notice of the crime for which he was convicted, the jurisdiction of conviction, a description of his physical characteristics... and his residential address."

I don't own my child's body

Several states now require sex offenders and child predators to register with authorities their e-mail accounts, Internet addresses or profile names to social network and other web sites, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A few states such as Illinois and Texas even outright prohibit sex offenders, as a condition of parole, from accessing social networking websites, the group said.

The Louisiana law is the latest addition to statutes requiring public notice and registrations by sex offenders, Thompson said.

"It provides the same notice to persons in whose home you are injecting yourself via the Internet," Thompson said. "I challenge you today to walk down the street to see how many people and children are checking Pinterest, Instagram and other social networking sites. If you look at how common it is, that's 24 hour a day, seven days a week for somebody to interact with your children and your grandchildren."

Facebook applauded the new Louisiana law, even though it "will have no direct" effect on its service, the company said in a statement to CNN.

"Our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities already bars registered sex offenders from using Facebook," the firm said. "We take the safety and security of our users, especially the many young people on Facebook, very seriously. We have consistently supported legislation to help strengthen law enforcement's ability to find, prosecute and convict online sexual predators."

Violators of the new law could face imprisonment with hard labor for a term between two and 10 years without parole and a fine up to $1,000. A second conviction carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment with hard labor for a term between five and 20 years without parole and a fine up to $3,000.

Thompson consulted prosecutors and the attorney general in Louisiana when drafting the law because last year, a federal court struck down a Louisiana law that outright banned sex offenders and child predators from using Internet. The court found the law too broad, Thompson said.

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana sought to block the enforcement of that state law that tried to limits sex offenders' use of the Internet, arguing that it infringes on constitutional rights. The law had targeted registered sex offenders convicted in crimes involving children and prohibited the "using or accessing of social networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks," according to the legislation that was signed into law in June 2011.

Today, sex abuse victims are less alone

Louisiana lawmakers, however, have not given up on that stricter law. In fact, a revised version was passed by the Louisiana legislature and signed into law in May, but Thompson is skeptical that latest version can survive a court challenge. The revised, new ban prohibits certain registered sex offenders from intentionally using a social networking website, Gov. Jindal said in a statement.

Said Thompson about that new law: "It may very well fall under scrutiny and attack. That's one of the reasons that I created the bill I did. I'm not trying to create a ban. I'm just trying to create an expansion of the existing notice requirements."

Edited by Kyle, 20 June 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[Melchoire]

Bump. How about THIS?

Not enforceable.

E: it's kind of a slippery slope when you start taking away people's anonymity and personal privacy like this.