To Catch a Predator: Creating Crime

[Poofler]

I wasted an hour of my life watching Dateline's To Catch a Predator. For the few, if none, who don't know the program: an advocacy group poses as underaged children on the internet and invites adult men to come have sex with them. They are arrested upon arrival in a sting operation. I'm interested to see what the forum thinks of this activity, and for those who think it is permissable in this instance, but not always, where would you draw the line?

[[Phill]]

Has anyone been tried and convicted because of this program?

[hmkpoker]

How underaged?

Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
How underaged?

Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely beyond the scope of the OP.

[clowntable]

This is actually an interesting philosophical question, good post.

I will spent some time thinking about it and post my conclusions.

[pvn]

Thoughtcrime.

[Poofler]

I'm pleased at the apparent wide difference of opinions, I'd like to hear some reasonings though.

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone been tried and convicted because of this program?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and none have used the entrapment defense with success.

[ QUOTE ]
How underaged? Buggering a consenting sixteen year old should not be a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

The advocacy group poses as 12, 13, or 14. Young enough where the men always are aware that having sex with them is against the law.

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughtcrime.

[/ QUOTE ]

They usually charge them with transmitting obscene material to a minor too. As for actually having sex, these guys get nailed under intent laws. I guess showing up at the house with condoms passess for intent - taking considerable steps towards its completion, beyond thought. Like if a shoplifter put something in their purse, but didn't actually remove the item from the store yet. Even then, I tend to agree with you. You don't know that all these guys would have gone through with it, so instead we criminalize the probability that they will. But taking the intent laws as given, no one has an opinion of why it is or is not acceptable for authorities to misrepresent themselves or entice citizens into committing a crime?

For those who say yes, but not always, when do you tell authorities to stop? Is it ok for them to close off a street so no cars can be seen, and then bust people for jaywalking? For what types of crime do we draw the line?

For those who say no, but sometimes, where do you start drawing the line? Is it kosher to go into a violent anarchist chat room, tell everyone the president will be wide and open at block X on Sunday. And then stake out rooftops and arrest anyone who comes with a gun?

[xorbie]

I'd say that taking the step from talking online to showing up at a young girl's house with condoms is definitely crossing into criminal territory.

[zyqwert]

It is a private group doing the 'entrapment', not the police. Here's what wikipedia says about the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverted-Justice.com

When I read the 'PJ' website a couple of years ago I was impressed with their methods and safeguards, they work pretty hard not to entice or initiate and they run their IM through a proxy logger to prevent a rogue volunteer from making stuff up. They post the chat logs so you can decide for yourself.

[Poofler]

Yeah they work in tandem with the group. That's part of how they avoid entrapment. I was simplifying so as not to get into a discussion of the legal nuances that allow a private group to do the actual misrepresentation. The authorities coordinate with the group, and stake out houses with the group. PJ would never do this if authorities didn't cooperate. In my opinion, their involvement and support of the operation associates them with the actual misrepresntation. If you want a more accurate phrasing: Should it be legal for authorities to cooperate in an operation where people are enticed/faciliated/whatever into committing a false crime? Ie: the girl isn't actually underaged, or a girl, but the perp belives he is, which would be a crime if the perp's beliefs were true.