Re: To Catch a Predator
McNutty,
Calm down dude. I'm not condoning the act of molesting a child. My argument is that I'm not a big fan of stings (or the precedent they set) in the first place, and in particular when the methods are not good ones (such as when they include a made for TV element). If we were talking about murder, I would feel the same way.
Different people have different core assumptions about certain things. I don't get bent out of shape about your fundamental views (which I very much disagree with), so please don't get "ILL" about mine.
[ QUOTE ]
You keep making this dichotomy about a "consensual sex" with a"hot 14 yr old" and rape of a 9 yr old. Answer me with where do you draw the line..are "hot 13yr olds" still okay for the "consensual sex". What about "hot 12yr olds"? If you really believe that 14 yr olds are mature enough for "consensual sex" with adults I just don't know what to say.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've totally misunderstood and misrepresented my argument. My point is not that sex with hot 14 year olds is OK. My point is that this particular hot 14 year old does not exist. And it seems to me that this is such an extreme situation (very attractive, very persistent, very smooth, very home alone) that you haven't proved this person is a threat to any 14 year old who does exist. You're simulating a situation that isn't too accurate with what men will actually encounter. So I can't help but feel that you're catching some men who would never have found an opportunity where their criminal desire got the better of their judgment. Having some small, mostly latent desire to do something bad is not a crime as far as I'm concerned. So when law enforcement pushes a lot of buttons to bring out that latent potential, I can't help but disapprove.
I'm all for getting people off the street when you can prove they were likely to have committed a crime. But I don't know what likelihood this really proves. You can certainly say that the collateral damage (of convicting guys in stings who never would have ended up harming a real person) is worth it because of the actual crimes you do prevent. And that's a valid argument, and again mostly just a matter of fundamental opinion. But I don't see how you can really deny that some of these people wouldn't have actually hurt anyone.
And further, if these men are really perceived as "threats," why not treat them as such. OK, we caught you in the sting... you're gonna go to jail for a couple years, you're gonna work minimum wage jobs the rest of your life, you're gonna have a stigma that no one can ever forget, your life effectively sucks now for that awful thing we caught you doing... but oh, you're gonna be back on the street where you can harm again.
I have a dynamic view of this issue. I don't see it as black and white. Sure, it's fun to say "I care about the safety of our children! This is unacceptable!" But the truth as I see it is that this issue needs to be looked at more dynamically. Yes, arbitrary cut offs are necessary. But the fact is, consensual sex with a 17 year old (where that might be illegal) is NOT the same thing as forced with an 11 year old. I don't know who would actually say he sees those two things as roughly the same. So why make it the same offense? Why not create a more dynamic code of law, to separate crimes that we mostly see as very different? I know there are somewhat tougher sentences and whatnot based on exact circumstances (and of course, the variance of what judge you get and whatnot). But roughly, it's the same crime. And that doesn't seem effective to me. I'd much rather differentiate the classes of this offense.
If you want an extension on my view of this issue, I would like to see people who have committed a more serious offense get much more time behind bars. Life in prison or even death is fine with me, if what they did is bad enough. But punishments like that simply are not possible when the 21 year old who banged a 17 year old (or the guy who got caught in a sting, but hasn't actually harmed anyone) are included in the mix. People just wouldn't stand for killing those brands of offenders. (But they're OK with effectively ruining their lives.) So some sort of separate class of offenses would need to exist for harsher punishments to be possible. And as long as people like you are out there screaming about "He walked into the house, book him!" "He's harming our kids!!!" rather than be willing to look at the objective difference between certain offenses, then a dynamic approach is not possible. And without a dynamic approach, harsher punishments for the harsher crimes are not possible.
Look, I'm operating from the belief that everyone has, to at least a small extent, some latent potential to do bad things. And that if the right buttons are pushed, most people are capable of most things. Molest a child, murder someone, steal something. We could all do any of that, imo, but mostly our better judgment prevails. To prove that someone is a threat, I think you have to avoid pushing buttons that would probably (or even arguably) not ever be pushed by real people in the real world. And I think the methods in some of these Predator stings do indeed push unrealistic buttons. I don't think anyone with the most mild of criminal potential should be seen as a criminal. I think he should be seen as what he is. Someone who apparently has some potential to commit a crime. Based on whatever trust you have in your methods, you can conclude what degree of help this person needs. If you think that jail time and a felony charge is the only possible deterrent in a certain instance, fine. But in some cases I truly believe that the scare from being caught is more than enough on its own. Add mandatory counseling and surveillance, maybe even a lesser crime, a huge fine, forced volunteer work, combinations thereof, and I think you have a much better situation for everyone. Do you really think (in the instance where no one is actually harmed) that throwing them in jail, ruining their career and positive contribution they might make to society, and then letting them walk the streets again with limited correction (and limited incentive to maintain good behavior, now that their life sucks anyways) is the best situation for ANYONE!? Fix the problem and let the cancer doctor go back to saving lives. I'm sick of the way our system self-interestedly misrepresents the idea of justice. And more fundamentally I'm sick of the voters who fall for it.
You can argue that PJ's methods are fine. You can argue why mandatory felony charges are best for society. I would probably disagree, but there are fair arguments you can make. But please don't misrepresent my view to be that I think sex with children is OK, just because I disagree with our legal system's methods.
|