On-line predators ....how disturbed are you?

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:37pm

I have a history of defending the indefensible and here I go again. Last night I watched a show that used adults posing as 13 year olds to entrap men to solicit sex from the fictitious 13 year olds. Later the men who made dates with the 13 year old, showed up at an agreed upon location and were caught on camera by the news show and later arrested by local police.

My problems with the TV piece are the following:

1. There were NO children involved!!!! None. Zero. Cero!

2. When does fantasy and role playing become a crime?

3. most important...if this is happenning with real kids, (which I have no doubt it is) where are the parents?

edit: please tell me that this bothers some of you just a little. Updated On: 2/4/06 at 06:37 PM

[Overthemoon6]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:38pm

WTF?? That's a little unfair. Well, I don't know really how to explain it, but w/e.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:40pm

It's just this side of prosecuting for a thought crime.

Back when people bought their porn in magazines, the US Postal Service was the #1 manufacturer of kiddie porn. Using seized illicit materials featuring photos of people under the age of consent, porn buyers were sent unsolicited ad catalogues promising "forbidden" porn available from Europe. People would order from the catalogues (produced by the government) and find themselves being prosecuted for purchasing kiddie porn.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:42pm

Which is what happened in Capturing The Friedmans, didn't it? They're able to get away with this as the knee jerk reaction to pedophilia is so extreme, people won't stop and examine how scary the bigger picture is.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:46pm

It's no different than a drug sting or a prostitution sting. I see no problem. In this country, there are intent and conspiracy crimes.

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:46pm

Oh my god!!!! I thought I was alone. I was watching this show last night and I turned it off after an hout or so because it was too scary. People being bated into committing crimes!
Updated On: 2/4/06 at 06:46 PM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:47pm

Chita, what would you define as "entrapment"? What was the M.O. of the undercover reporter? I saw a similar segment a few months ago on a 20/20 / Dateline-type show, but it was the "predator" who initiated the contact and directed it to more sexual territory, not the faux-kid.

[EadieWasALady]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:47pm

Brendan Stryker comes to mind preying on an entire message board.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:50pm

You see no problem, at all, with stings?

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:51pm

type, this is the 3rd installment of the same show. It has obviously been so popular with people thinking that it helps real children defend themselves from on-line predators, that it has been done 3x.

How does this type of program help kids? This is just another example of TV cashing in on people doing stupid things...on both sides of the camera.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 06:51 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:51pm

Chita - if it was completely virtual I might agree.

But, my understanding is that these men came to people's homes in order to engage in sexual relations of some sort (if I am thinking of the same report and show).

In that instance, I think the line has been crossed. It is no longer virtual.

Under your argument, no set up or sting operation would ever be permitted, because the crime was not, for a better word, consumated.

You are right - in most instances you ask, where are the parents. Many parents and adults are behind the curve when it comes to the Internet and what is actually posted by their children. MySpace is a great example. Kids are posting pictures of themselves with way too much personal information.

If someone is plotting a murder, and they do not actually get to complete crime, you can still charge them with attempted murder, or conspiracy to commit murder. I think the same applies here. If they actually go to a house, with the understanding that they are going to have sex with a child, then to me, that is something that needs to be stopped.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:51pm

no. I'd rater get rid of these peopel for attempting to **** a fake 13 year old before they **** a real one.

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:55pm

MySpace was used in this report.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:57pm

Myspace is a dangerous place.


while I agree that the parents need to be there, but they aren't so the kids are vulnerable. Are suggesting we do nothing and just let these gets get raped? let'm get what they deserve?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:57pm

So what's the morality of setting up a false situation to catch somebody doing something that is touted as being "immoral."

Catching somebody who is plotting a murder and stopping them can't really be considered the same. It would be more like if a woman was being emotionally abused by her husband some undercover sting operative appeared out of nowhere and tells her he'd wack the husband for 20 bucks.

Approach enough women with that offer and eventually somebody will say yes. Ya bust her and the crime's prevented?

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 06:57 PM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 6:58pm

did you just suggest that child molesters and pedophiles are victims?

while it's true that many of them were the victims of child molestation, that does not excuse them from committing the same acts.

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:00pm

No. I'm not suggesting we let the kids get raped. But in these cases there no kids!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:00pm

Again, what was the method used to "entrap" these people? If the "kid" is the one aggressively pursuing the "predator", entrapment could be argued. But on the Dateline segment in November (which was actually a thread on here, I think started by Sueleen), the "kid" is just present and available - it's the adult who initiated the contact and made it sexual.

Also, regarding MySpace, here's part of the Dateline segment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11064451/

Did anyone see CNN Headline News yesterday, about the 6 girls who were assaulted because they met a man claiming to be younger than he was, through MySpace?

Furthermore, I don't support the argument that because it turned out there were no kids, it's okay. Even if this was entrapment, the mens rea element is still present.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 07:00 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:01pm

I'm with zone on this. On every show I've seen like this it's the adult initiating the dialog. If they are stupid to make a meeting arrangement with a minor, they deserve what they get....which hopefully is jail

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:02pm

If only stupidity were punishable with jail time...



Updated On: 2/4/06 at 07:02 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:03pm

Ah, but there's the idea of kids, so it's bad enough.

Remember, under Janet Reno's Justice Department and the Clinton Administration, it became illegal to cut pictures of children in their underwear out of a clothing catalogue and collage them into "provocative" positions.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:04pm

Again, I am going off of the prior two stories, I only watched part of last night.

But, these guys (and at the end they said only men, which I cannot believe true, only men were in their sample) were looking for this online.

They are the one's initiating contact.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:04pm

But they still committed a crime chita, attempting to **** a 13 year old is a crime, regardless of if the 13 year old is real or not. They had the intention, and took the action, toward ****ing a 13 year old. thus, a crime is committed. Now, i agree, there is a difference between wanting something, and doing something. There are plenty of people i would like to kill, but, that's not a crime, and it's not a crime, because i haven't taken any sort of action actually kill someone. But, if I were to someday, take action in an attempt to kill someone, i would have committed a crime.


The same thing has occured here. Had these men been content to stay at home and just masturbate and think about the 13 year old (who, yes, in fact did not exist) it would have been fine, but they didn't just home and masturbate while thinking about a 13 year old, they went to find a 13 year old, thinking they were gonna score with the 13 year old, and thats a crime.

criminals, get, arrested.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 07:04 PM

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:05pm

yes and they found adults not kids. where is the crime if not in the mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:05pm

They were already willing to break the law and engage in sex with a minor. The fact that the minor wasn't real in this case doesn't change that. Had there been a real 13 year old, would you still be defending them?