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

[VoraciousReader]

[ QUOTE ]
I am uncomfortable calling teenagers "children" or "kids", and conflating paedos with ephebophiles. I don't know, one just seems much less worse than the other to me. I tend to assume sexually mature teenagers are pretty smart and able to think for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is terrible. Are you 13? Or have you just forgotten what it was like to be 13?

[amead]

Plenty of 11 and 12 year old girls (and boys) are also targeted for this sexualization. But I mean, a 14 year old is still a kid. Minors and all that.

[amead]

[ 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 ]
This is a good point that I tried to make earlier. To anyone having an issue with there being no 12 year old girl getting sexed:

What if the 12 year old was at the keyboard but someone was telling them what to type (but they could still read all of the damaging sexual content)? Should the pedo be arrested then?

What if the 12 year old is at the keyboard touch-typing blindfolded while the police feed her what to say?

It seems like the details of the 12 year old girl shouldn't be nearly as important as what is being done by the criminal who is looking to stick it into a kid. Once we start debating how much reading/typing the little girl needs to do, we're lessening the importance placed on the destructive and illegal behavior.

[amead]

[ QUOTE ]
Those children are never at risk of this guy completing the specific crime that he is arrested for at the time he's arrested for it because they were never there. Now if the guy was on his way to some kid's house that he was after, you'd have a case.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean, you'd have a case? Obviously you are ignorant of the law here, because these pedos are being CONVICTED of crimes. There is a case, and the verdict is guilty, every time.

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am uncomfortable calling teenagers "children" or "kids", and conflating paedos with ephebophiles. I don't know, one just seems much less worse than the other to me. I tend to assume sexually mature teenagers are pretty smart and able to think for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is terrible. Are you 13? Or have you just forgotten what it was like to be 13?

[/ QUOTE ]


No, and probably yes. But that doesn't invalidate my point that there are levels of wrongdoing. Trying to seduce a post-pubescent girl, a young teenager, into a consensual relationship (although the law says she isn't allowed to give consent) is in my mind very different from a violent attack on a pre-pubescent; yet the words "child" and "rape" get used interchangeably in both these situations.

Of course I abhor the idea of grown men trying to pick up minors online, but they're not all equally evil, and for some the emphasis should be on treatment rather than punishment and a lifetime stigma which will leave them no option of ever having a normal life; which will, in fact, only ensure they go on offending.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So here's a question for you: what if instead of locking these people up, PJ informed the neighbors and workplace of the guy of the fact that he may be a predator? Now you've increased awareness so that parents can take more precautions and no one had to be locked up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you pose the risk of these workers, neighbors, etc. taking action against these offenders themselves. What's to stop a guy from killing his neighbor because he solicited a 12 year old girl online?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, maybe the fact that he'd GO TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE FOR COMMITTING MURDER

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Person makes 10 tons of methamphetamine in the lab in his garage. Police apprehend him as he attempts to distribute his goods. No victim, no crime. Let him walk!

[/ QUOTE ]
If the suspect carries out his plan, lots of people get hooked on meth.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Man hires hitman to kill his family. Police intercept communications detailing the plan to tie up his wife and two young children, before setting the house ablaze to burn them alive. Can't arrest him yet though! No crime has been commited. No victim, no crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the suspect carries out his plan, a family is murdered

[ QUOTE ]
3. Group of radical fundamentalist terrorists make their way into the United States, bringing with them a crude radiological bomb. They plan to unleash this weapon into the water supply of a major city. DHS and the CIA infiltrate their cell, but must wait until the bomb is detonated and some victims are created before arresting the perps. No victim, no crime!

[/ QUOTE ]
If the suspects carry out their plan, millions of people are harmed or killed

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.

[BuckyK]

[ 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.

[pergesu]

[ 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.

[BuckyK]

[ 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 ]
So, the cops need to wait until a girl is molested/raped before they can charge with a crime. Intent has not purpose anymore? You say in your previous post that it is okay to arrest someone who plots with an undercover agent to kill his wife. Now, this guy never actually made a deal with a hitman, so therefore, the crime was never going to be committed. This is the same thing as a decoy being used where grown men find them in chat rooms and initiate conversation which eventually lead them to trying to have sex with a decoy they believe is underage. You can't have it two ways.

Edit: I misread your post, and see the scenario is different.