To Catch a Predator

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
Guids (and others I guess),

I think some of you are confusing what some people are actually arguing. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is actually defending the act of molesting a child. No one is saying that the people who show up at the house haven't done something bad, to some degree. But is what they've done really bad enough to get the felony and the tv exposure? Should consensual sex with a 14 year old really be seen as the same thing as forced rape or sex with a 9 year old?

Like others have said, a lot of these guys are probably just desperate for sex, and when a hot 14 year old invites them over, they eventually go for it. Exemplary behavior? No. Felony? That doesn't seem right to some of us.

To some extent, shouldn't the harm actually caused play a role in the punishment? Or are you just content with anybody showing any likelihood of hurting a minor getting the full treatment? What exactly is it that crosses the line for you? Is it walking through the door? Is it getting out of the car? Is it driving on the street? Is it getting in the car? Is it talking to the girl about sex on the internet? Is it telling your friend that you think a certain underage girl is hot? Is it thinking a certain underage girl is hot? What exactly is it? Where exactly do you say "BAM, that's a felony, no sympathy for him!"?

I believe most people have some latent potential to hook up with a minor. Men have hormones. But we also have a sense of judgment that usually keeps those desires in check. If someone's desires get the best of them in this artificial scenario, do you think that means that it was particularly likely to happen with a real 14 year old (who presumably isn't likely to be very hot, very willing, and very home alone)? Or do you think maybe all we've proved is that they have *some* capacity to hurt someone, and maybe that they are slightly more likely to do so than the average person? Since no child was actually hurt, I'm more willing to want to give them the benefit of the doubt (and maybe force them to attend counseling, and keep them under some sort of supervision for some amount of time) than I am to want to put them on national TV and convict them of a felony.

Does this mean I'm sympathetic to child molesters? According to you, yes. Or maybe it just means that I care about having a legal system that seeks to distribute punishments fairly, and differentiate critical circumstances accurately.

But the fact is, lenient sentencing of people who are perceived as child molesters does not win elections for judges and city officials. Being reasonable with your methods in sting operations does not fill quotas for undercover agents. It's how the system works. And as long as there are people like you out there screaming for someone's head rather than be willing to make some sort of level headed analysis of a situation, then it's how the system will remain. And it's a shame.

It's possible to care about an issue because of the precedent it has on your system. Accusing us of being sympathetic to scum bags is a real myopic (and unfair) way to look at what we're saying.


Ideally, I would like to establish different tiers of sexual abuse. It's ridiculous to think some sort of blanket offense is actually a good policy. Should a 45 year old who had forced sex with an 8 year old really be no different than a 21 year old who had consensual sex with a 15 year old? Not only does one person get a punishment/stigma that he probably doesn't deserve, but the scummier person benefits from a lightened punishment and a dampened stigma. On one end you have the most gruesome type of person out there, and on the other end you have a potentially decent person who was a little horny and made a mistake (and probably harmed no one). It's OK to differentiate between these things without being "sympathetic to child molesters." I'm sure you think you stand for some nobel things. But, IMO, it is stances like yours which make effective compromise (and ultimately the heightened punishment of the more serious offenses) close to impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, "consensual" sex with a 14 year old should really be seen as the same thing as a forced rape of a 9 year old. the whole point is that a 14 year old is not old enough (in our society) to determine what effects of what she is doing will have on her. If you dont think a 30 year old sleeping with a 14 year old doesnt "deserve" a felony, I dont know what to tell you, other than dont be a lawyer.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont think a 30 year old sleeping with a 14 year old doesnt "deserve" a felony, I dont know what to tell you, other than dont be a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch out for those double negatives there, captain. Remember that they cancel out. You wouldn't want that well thought out argument of yours to be lost on a technicality.

[McNutty]

[ QUOTE ]
Guids (and others I guess),

I think some of you are confusing what some people are actually arguing. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is actually defending the act of molesting a child. No one is saying that the people who show up at the house haven't done something bad, to some degree. But is what they've done really bad enough to get the felony and the tv exposure? Should consensual sex with a 14 year old really be seen as the same thing as forced rape or sex with a 9 year old?

Like others have said, a lot of these guys are probably just desperate for sex, and when a hot 14 year old invites them over, they eventually go for it. Exemplary behavior? No. Felony? That doesn't seem right to some of us.

To some extent, shouldn't the harm actually caused play a role in the punishment? Or are you just content with anybody showing any likelihood of hurting a minor getting the full treatment? What exactly is it that crosses the line for you? Is it walking through the door? Is it getting out of the car? Is it driving on the street? Is it getting in the car? Is it talking to the girl about sex on the internet? Is it telling your friend that you think a certain underage girl is hot? Is it thinking a certain underage girl is hot? What exactly is it? Where exactly do you say "BAM, that's a felony, no sympathy for him!"?

I believe most people have some latent potential to hook up with a minor. Men have hormones. But we also have a sense of judgment that usually keeps those desires in check. If someone's desires get the best of them in this artificial scenario, do you think that means that it was particularly likely to happen with a real 14 year old (who presumably isn't likely to be very hot, very willing, and very home alone)? Or do you think maybe all we've proved is that they have *some* capacity to hurt someone, and maybe that they are slightly more likely to do so than the average person? Since no child was actually hurt, I'm more willing to want to give them the benefit of the doubt (and maybe force them to attend counseling, and keep them under some sort of supervision for some amount of time) than I am to want to put them on national TV and convict them of a felony.

Does this mean I'm sympathetic to child molesters? According to you, yes. Or maybe it just means that I care about having a legal system that seeks to distribute punishments fairly, and differentiate critical circumstances accurately.

But the fact is, lenient sentencing of people who are perceived as child molesters does not win elections for judges and city officials. Being reasonable with your methods in sting operations does not fill quotas for undercover agents. It's how the system works. And as long as there are people like you out there screaming for someone's head rather than be willing to make some sort of level headed analysis of a situation, then it's how the system will remain. And it's a shame.

It's possible to care about an issue because of the precedent it has on your system. Accusing us of being sympathetic to scum bags is a real myopic (and unfair) way to look at what we're saying.


Ideally, I would like to establish different tiers of sexual abuse. It's ridiculous to think some sort of blanket offense is actually a good policy. Should a 45 year old who had forced sex with an 8 year old really be no different than a 21 year old who had consensual sex with a 15 year old? Not only does one person get a punishment/stigma that he probably doesn't deserve, but the scummier person benefits from a lightened punishment and a dampened stigma. On one end you have the most gruesome type of person out there, and on the other end you have a potentially decent person who was a little horny and made a mistake (and probably harmed no one). It's OK to differentiate between these things without being "sympathetic to child molesters." I'm sure you think you stand for some nobel things. But, IMO, it is stances like yours which make effective compromise (and ultimately the heightened punishment of the more serious offenses) close to impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. What these guys have done is bad enough for me to feel just fine about charging them with a felony. They aren't just fantasizing about having sex with minors. They purposely seek 'em out in chat rooms talk to them and then go to their house to have sex with them . Now for the people who just chat and don't make plans to take it farther than that well i guess for me it would depend on the actuall text of the chat to see if they showed intent and if they did just text well i guess charging them with a crime is okay with me. The fact that they are charged with felonies does not mean that the punishments are the same as for people charged with molestation. There are more serious and less serious felonies. And if we end up tipping a little toward the more serious end...well i can live with it.

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. Any age line is going to be arbitrary. In our society it seem like 16-18 is where we draw it. I think I can live with that. The only non-arbitrary line i can think of is sexual maturity and i'm sorry with girls getting their periods earlier and earlier due to improved nutrition and health care i don't like a line where a 12yr old or younger is fair game.

Also, ur statement about these guys as probably decent people who were a little horny and made a mistake and probably harmed no one makes me ILL. This the same type of rationalization that these sickos always offer as their defense.

One of my good friends used to be a decoy for these types of cases and she always told me how gratifying these cases were as when these guys were arrested...subsequent search warrants always revealed extensive child porn and/or evidence of unreported molestations.

[ijustwannawrite]

im new here and i registered to ask this question -

first of all predator show is the biggest joke i have ever seen if you want to get technical, these guys never really committed a crime because they may think they are talking to a 13 year old but they are not. its a decoy. u cant go to jail for 1st degree murder if you if your victim doesnt die.

now lets get off the show and talk about the REAL predator cases not the fake stings on tv.

how come the old man that goes to a 13 year olds house to have sex is thrown in jail for child molesting or predator or whatever, and the 13 year old walks away free and with sympathy. i think these 13 year olds are the real sick [censored]. i mean come on 13 years old is old enough to know that inviting a total stranger over the house isnt coming to drink milk and play shoots and ladders. and even more punishable should be the kids that say come over im interested in sex heres my address my mommy isnt home come over and if we get caught, only ur getting trouble because i will just lie and say i thought you were coming to play hop skotch with me. these 13 year olds are the real sick ones for giving out their address and going into chat rooms anyway. they are the child predators of the future punish them.

any thoughts???

[ALawPoker]

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.

[Oranzith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to regard a person as "scum" for something that they cannot control..

I have no problem, however, regarding someone as "scum" for refusing to suppress a tendency that would harm another person...

whether or not harm to another person occurrs is my main focus in evaluating these types of things.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I'm a psycho killer, I'm not scum if I try to kill people? And I am scum if I succeed?

I think that's unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psycho killer, qu'est que c'est
Far better
Run away
Psycho killer, que'st que c'est
Far better
Run away
Oh yeah