Dateline NBC "to catch a predator", possible entrapment?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for people who are opposed to PJ's process.

Would your position be different if the process was altered a bit? Like this:

Real 12 y/o logs in to a chat room, waits for a predator to approach them.
Real 12 y/o chats with predator, until the predator initiates a conversation of a sexual nature.
Adult employee (or police officer) then takes over control of the account.
Adult employee sets up time, place, etc. to meet with predator.

In this case the argument can be made that there is a real potential victim, but the police are intervening in what could turn into a dangerous situation. I see no difference between this and, say, a parent who finds out their child is being harrassed online by an older man, reports the activity, and the police perform a sting using the child's account.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess this is better in that sense, but something seems wrong/unethical with using children that way. I'd rather PJ stuck with whatever it did before it started working with police.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those situations are completely different from what we're discussing in this thread. The issue is arresting people for crimes where there is no actual or even potential victim.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are potential victims though. What if these guys end up actually getting in contact with a real minor? Then there is the potential of this girl getting brainwashed (yes, brainwashed because that's what these guys do) and starts up a sexual relationship? It's Dateline and PJ that are out there finding these guys, before they find the girls.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no potential victims as a direct result from the guy's actions.

You're right, maybe some time in the future he may do something bad. However it's a terrible idea to start arresting people for potential crimes committed against imaginary victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for people who are opposed to PJ's process.

Would your position be different if the process was altered a bit? Like this:

Real 12 y/o logs in to a chat room, waits for a predator to approach them.
Real 12 y/o chats with predator, until the predator initiates a conversation of a sexual nature.
Adult employee (or police officer) then takes over control of the account.
Adult employee sets up time, place, etc. to meet with predator.

In this case the argument can be made that there is a real potential victim, but the police are intervening in what could turn into a dangerous situation. I see no difference between this and, say, a parent who finds out their child is being harrassed online by an older man, reports the activity, and the police perform a sting using the child's account.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess this is better in that sense, but something seems wrong/unethical with using children that way. I'd rather PJ stuck with whatever it did before it started working with police.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is exactly why they don't use children. Yet you also have a problem with there being no actual children involved...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for people who are opposed to PJ's process.

Would your position be different if the process was altered a bit? Like this:

Real 12 y/o logs in to a chat room, waits for a predator to approach them.
Real 12 y/o chats with predator, until the predator initiates a conversation of a sexual nature.
Adult employee (or police officer) then takes over control of the account.
Adult employee sets up time, place, etc. to meet with predator.

In this case the argument can be made that there is a real potential victim, but the police are intervening in what could turn into a dangerous situation. I see no difference between this and, say, a parent who finds out their child is being harrassed online by an older man, reports the activity, and the police perform a sting using the child's account.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess this is better in that sense, but something seems wrong/unethical with using children that way. I'd rather PJ stuck with whatever it did before it started working with police.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is exactly why they don't use children. Yet you also have a problem with there being no actual children involved...

[/ QUOTE ]
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can both dislike using real children as bait as well as dislike charging people for crimes when no one is specifically at risk.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those situations are completely different from what we're discussing in this thread. The issue is arresting people for crimes where there is no actual or even potential victim.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are potential victims though. What if these guys end up actually getting in contact with a real minor? Then there is the potential of this girl getting brainwashed (yes, brainwashed because that's what these guys do) and starts up a sexual relationship? It's Dateline and PJ that are out there finding these guys, before they find the girls.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no potential victims as a direct result from the guy's actions.

You're right, maybe some time in the future he may do something bad. However it's a terrible idea to start arresting people for potential crimes committed against imaginary victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are the potential victims from his actions?

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those situations are completely different from what we're discussing in this thread. The issue is arresting people for crimes where there is no actual or even potential victim.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are potential victims though. What if these guys end up actually getting in contact with a real minor? Then there is the potential of this girl getting brainwashed (yes, brainwashed because that's what these guys do) and starts up a sexual relationship? It's Dateline and PJ that are out there finding these guys, before they find the girls.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no potential victims as a direct result from the guy's actions.

You're right, maybe some time in the future he may do something bad. However it's a terrible idea to start arresting people for potential crimes committed against imaginary victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are the potential victims from his actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's results-oriented to say there were no potential victims. Surely people on a poker forum of all places should understand this concept. Multiple examples have already been given in this thread.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those situations are completely different from what we're discussing in this thread. The issue is arresting people for crimes where there is no actual or even potential victim.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are potential victims though. What if these guys end up actually getting in contact with a real minor? Then there is the potential of this girl getting brainwashed (yes, brainwashed because that's what these guys do) and starts up a sexual relationship? It's Dateline and PJ that are out there finding these guys, before they find the girls.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no potential victims as a direct result from the guy's actions.

You're right, maybe some time in the future he may do something bad. However it's a terrible idea to start arresting people for potential crimes committed against imaginary victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are the potential victims from his actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's results-oriented to say there were no potential victims. Surely people on a poker forum of all places should understand this concept. Multiple examples have already been given in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
And those examples have been bad.

Of course it's results-oriented. This isn't a poker game. There's no theoretical line, deviations from which are easily explained by sample size. This is real life, real people, and a justice system.

Homer, it's possible that at some point in your life you may murder someone. We don't lock you up on the basis that there's a potential, unnamed, imaginary murder victim in your future.

So what's the difference between the potential child molestation and your potential murder victim? The fact the pervert has expressed a tendency and intent to have sex with kids, of course. I don't believe that that's good enough to lock people up though.

Of course there are potential victims in the sense that somewhere down the road a predator may hurt a child. However at the time the perv is exposed on TCAP, it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a particular child and say, "If the perv were able to continue this actions, this child would have been hurt."

I totally understand why people would want to lock up sickos that prey on children before they have a chance to harm anyone. They are a huge detriment to society and we'd be better off, at first glance, by simply removing them.

The issue is not these individuals, but rather the individuals and groups who have the authority to punish them, that we need to scrutinize. At least in America, we've chosen to grant people certain liberties, because if we don't protect those liberties for everyone - however sick and undeserving the individual - it becomes far too easy to abuse the rights of law-abiding citizens.

[BEP]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course there are potential victims in the sense that somewhere down the road a predator may hurt a child. However at the time the perv is exposed on TCAP, it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a particular child and say, "If the perv were able to continue this actions, this child would have been hurt."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning is so miserable. When a person is arrested (without explosives) and is deemed to be conspiring a terrorist act it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a particular person and say, "If the perp were able to continue his actions, this person would have been hurt."

The suspects on Dateline NBC show up at the house with a mountain of evidence (chatlog, solicitation, condoms, lube, booze) that PROVES that they intend to have sex with children.

The law and courts correctly deem that these men are dangers to society and that children with internet access all over the country deserve to be protected from these men.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reasoning is so miserable. When a person is arrested (without explosives) and is deemed to be conspiring a terrorist act it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a particular person and say, "If the perp were able to continue his actions, this person would have been hurt."

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is if he is allowed to carry out his plan someone will potentially be hurt. And you can point to these people. If he plans to blow up a plane it is anyone is on that plane. In these cases there is no chance that anyone gets hurt. There aren't even any potential victims.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course there are potential victims in the sense that somewhere down the road a predator may hurt a child. However at the time the perv is exposed on TCAP, it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a particular child and say, "If the perv were able to continue this actions, this child would have been hurt."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning is so miserable. When a person is arrested (without explosives) and is deemed to be conspiring a terrorist act it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a particular person and say, "If the perp were able to continue his actions, this person would have been hurt."

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, wtf. Sure you can. Maybe you don't know their names, but you can certainly say, "All the patrons of JFK airport would be put at risk."

[ QUOTE ]
The suspects on Dateline NBC show up at the house with a mountain of evidence (chatlog, solicitation, condoms, lube, booze) that PROVES that they intend to have sex with children.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're absolutely right. However there's nothing illegal about wanting to have sex with children. I think it's disgusting, but it's not illegal. It also SHOULDN'T be illegal to "intend to have sex with children," simply because that's a very abstract "crime."

My litmus test is simple. If a person acts unfettered, would someone be harmed by his actions? In the conspiracy case, the answer is yes. In the case of the husband hiring a hitman, the answer is yes. In the case of a bank robber, the answer is yes. In the case of an internet predator talking to a child, the answer is yes. In the case of an internet preadtor talking to a decoy, the answer is no.

My reasoning is solid and available for people to examine and criticize.

[ QUOTE ]
The law and courts correctly deem that these men are dangers to society and that children with internet access all over the country deserve to be protected from these men.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that they are a danger, and that children need to be protected. However I believe that the first line of defense should be the parents. I believe that law enforcement can and should step in when a crime is underway or developing, and they should prevent the crime from finishing and harming a child. I don't believe that law enforcement should be allowed to arrest people for actions that would be crimes if certain other conditions are true. Frankly, the government should not be able to restrict people's civil liberties because parents want to be lazy and allow their children to use the internet without supervision. Like it or not, child predators do have civil liberties until they're actually convicted of a crime.