To Catch a Predator = Entrapment?

[Aesir]

For those of you who don't know the NBC special "To Catch a Predator." Is when consenting adults lure "older" men into thinking they're trying to solicit sex to a minor. Many think hey as long as they get these sickos in jail it's fine. But is it really?

What law is being broken? They're not soliciting sex to a minor the decoys are usually your everyday people who play as female minors then forward their findings to the FBI. So there's no soliciting sex to a minor. There's not even a minor involved until the man gets there then he's arrested.


I can understand the logic behind this I can't help but see this as a perversion of United States law.

 

[SkylerOcon]

It is. They never uncover any proof that he had attempted to do this before. It could have been a one-time thing.

They never break a law.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I believe that in these cases, there only needs to be intent to engage in sex acts with a minor. So it doesn't matter if the other person they're talking to is a minor or not: if the perpetrator believes he/she is a minor, that qualifies as intent.

 

[Aesir]

But should intent be punishable by jail time? I think not, they never engaged in the act and the act certainly wasn't going to be committed. Why not just mark them as a known sex offender? that makes far more sense lesser punishment for a lesser crime, not the same punishment for a lesser crime.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Intent usually gets you more jail time in most cases.

 

[Crimson King]

I have a few problems with this show. First, it is Chris Hansen's self-righteous jerk-off session. There isn't even a remote doubt in my mind he doesn't give a **** about the people he is capturing. If he did, he'd help them get counseling and work out their problems.

Secondly, on that tangent, the show crucifies the would-be pedophiles. I consider child-rapists, child molesters, pederasts, and pedophiles to be subhuman ghouls, BUT I think they still deserve some chance at rehabilitation. Instead of making them a piece of public execution, why not actually help them.

Finally, as stated, most seem to be so coaxed into the conversations. I've read a few www.pervertedjustice.com logs (I think they are the ones helping Hansen with this show), and they do catch some legitimate, repeat offenders. PJ also stays as stand-offish as possible, until the would be rapist does force contact.

 

[snex]

actually what these sting operations do is enable the police to get a warrant to search the guy's house, and THATS when they find the goodies. and THATS what the guy goes to jail for. it would only be entrapment if they tried to prosecute the guy for a crime he wouldnt have otherwise committed without police urging.

anybody who is bold enough to try to meet with a child they found on the internet probably has quite the collection of kiddy porn.

 

[Crimson King]

That assumption is what leads me to oppose the death penalty for child molesters. To Catch a Predator really lures in the possible pedophiles to the point that, even if they have nothing, their life is over. Imagine what will happen when one guy, who had no intention of having sex with a minor is coaxed into meeting one at this house, and gets caught. Life over.

 

[EC_Joey]

From what I've seen of the show, it seems like there is little to no coaxing involved in the online chat logs. Most of the time it is the alleged pedophile who takes the initiative and suggests meeting in person. It is the chat logs that prove intent. Showing up at the house is simply proof that they are willing to carry out that intent.

I don't believe that this is entrapment because the people who are caught KNOW that it would be wrong to show up at the house, but they do so anyway.

 

[Aesir]

It's usually the decoys who bring up meeting and having sex and the men just go for it. I wouldn't really be opposed to this if they were only catching known sex offenders, but they're catching first timers who haven't engaged in the activity. and going off of "If we weren't there this wouldn't have happened." Which is exactly true if you weren't there he probably wouldn't have shown up.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

I remember seeing in the show that they didn't coax. They said something about only pretending to be minors and not pushing a sexual conversation or a meeting. It was either on that show or on my local news that found people who do similar things in my city.

I actually haven't seen the show in a long time but aren't there some people who send some graphic pictures to the people posing as minors. Thats already breaking a law.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

what will happen when one guy, who had no intention of having sex with a minor is coaxed into meeting one at this house, and gets caught. Life over.

That makes no sense.

 

[Chaco]

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. They trick a person who isn't a sex offender into coming there, and then his life his over. He gets registered as a sex offender but he did nothing.

And I also think it's harsh that everyone in some odd square miles of where a sex offender lives, everyone knows. People can change.

That would make an interesting DH topic. Sense some don't believe in people changing.

 

[riboflavinbob]

I think it's pretty sick of us to exploit and humiliate the offenders. Sure what they're doing is wrong, but what right do we have to go in with cameras, and broadcast their misery all over the nation? I mean come on... people have done worse things, why aren't they humiliated in such a manner? It's not even that good of a show, and it also destroys the public face of those communities involved. Who came up with this sick show?

 

[cF=)]

They trick a person who isn't a sex offender into coming there, and then his life his over. He gets registered as a sex offender but he did nothing.

Nothing is a big word. You have to understand that these pictures were done probably without the child's consent, or through abuse of power. Watching such pornography means you agree with these facts, which is why the offence is punishable. However, I agree with CK's point because this is like saying you should kill followers of the KKK because they endorse an opinion. Until they actually kill a black, they did nothing.

 

[Chaco]

Nothing is a big word. You have to understand that these pictures were done probably without the child's consent, or through abuse of power. Watching such pornography means you agree with these facts, which is why the offence is punishable. However, I agree with CK's point because this is like saying you should kill followers of the KKK because they endorse an opinion. Until they actually kill a black, they did nothing.

Very true. But I was saying in the sense of what another said and one was tricked over there and they have done absolutely nothing at all. What then? And I see what you're getting at.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

It does seem rather like entrapment, but I haven't actually seen this, I'm only going by these comments.

Do these people actually get arrested, or do they get counseling?

 

[Grandeza]

I believe having such a conversation with a minor or someone you believe to be a minor is illegal along with meeting with them for such purposes. I would say it is not entrapment because the person is the one who got onto the internet and started sexual talk with one who is thought to be a minor.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Ok, I think that maybe they should do that, and tell the police, and let them deal with it, rather than both the police and the public.

 

[Reaper0329]

The only reason the adult goes to the location is to attempt to solicit sex from a minor. It's perfectly legal, and IMO is much like a drug sting.

 

[samdaballer]

intent and solicitation to a minor is what laws are being broken

 

[znintendotaku]

yes i think it is entrapment......

 

[znintendotaku]

It does seem rather like entrapment, but I haven't actually seen this, I'm only going by these comments.

Do these people actually get arrested, or do they get counseling?

both, plus mass public embarassment
sry about double post...

 

[DeliciousCake]

This reminds me of a previous debate we had about inchoate offenses. One of the points brought up was that, if the person had the intent to do something bad, why should they be rewarded by being let off the hook? This is similar as it's premeditation to a crime, as well as solicitation. Aside from being publicly embarrassed in front of millions of viewers, there's nothing really wrong with a pedophilia sting at this point.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I saw this mentioned on Richard and Judy today, and I just went on YouTube to watch a bit of it.

What I don't understand is that this is what you call entertainment? How on earth is this entertaining? It's just cringe worthy TV, and yes it is entrapment. Maybe I wouldn't mind if it was just the police that did this, but why does NBC have to be involved? What is their purpose for being there?

 

[OffTheChain]

So long as its getting a few more perverts off the streets I don't see any real problem.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

That doesn't really answer the question to why it's being paraded as entertainment.

 

[OffTheChain]

Its informative entertainment, that's what I would justify it as anyway.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I wouldn't really call it that either. It's just like waiting outside of an anger management class, coaxing someone from it to beat you up, then when they're about to, you whip out some cameras and say "Lawl you're on national television and now we're going to arrest you for Assault".

That's doesn't even seem morally right. The police could deal with this fine themselves, we don't need to be there infront watching and booing and throwing rocks.

 

[OffTheChain]

Its not like that at all, that example you gave is stupid because no ones going to justify it, the people there are taking the right steps in getting help for an anger problem, the people in TCAP are perverts who have intentions of sleeping with underage kids and what not, the show not only exposes them it stops them, the intentions are made clear before they even bust the cameras out. Also it gives tips on how to spot one which is good for people to know, most cops I believe would want people to have that knowledge.

All I'm getting from you is you'd rather have the law enforced perfectly then help stop a child from potentially getting harmed, tell that crap to a mother or father off the street and they'll think your crazy, laws are man made so I don't see why they can't be bent, atleast in dealing with something like this.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Its not like that at all, that example you gave is stupid because no ones going to justify it, the people there are taking the right steps in getting help for an anger problem, the people in TCAP are perverts who have intentions of sleeping with underage kids and what not, the show not only exposes them it stops them, the intentions are made clear before they even bust the cameras out. Also it gives tips on how to spot one which is good for people to know, most cops I believe would want people to have that knowledge.

Which is fine. I probably wouldn't have a problem with it show if it did that, but as soon as that presenter man steps out, you realise that NBC are only doing it for viewers. Instead of trying to make an informative show, they're trying to make an entertaining one.

All I'm getting from you is you'd rather have the law enforced perfectly then help stop a child from potentially getting harmed, tell that crap to a mother or father off the street and they'll think your crazy, laws are man made so I don't see why they can't be bent, atleast in dealing with something like this.

Not really, we have Crimewatch over here. It shows CCTV footage, photos of suspects, and re-enactments of crimes, then appeals to the public for information. Technically that can be seen as bending the law, but the difference is that this show is made to be informative, rather than to be entertaining.