SEriously they tell you straight up what they are and what they are abou.

Perverted Justice

And that is exactly the type of justice we see when looking at the show.
Scubatim


Really I went to PJ just like you asked me... here is what i found in 5 minutes The predator is banditcap the make believe victim is Torpedo Dorito (by the way the name torpedo may be suggistive of anal sex it self)


Torpedo initiates the idea of being more than friends. Torpedo initiates the idea of having a sexual relationship, unless you want to pretend that use me means something different than what it does. Hey I got more

QUOTE

Torpedo Dorito [7:25 A.M.]: what are you doin?
banditcapt71 [7:25 A.M.]: chatting with you and another friend
banditcapt71 [7:25 A.M.]: I was concerned about you from the IM you left me that night
Torpedo Dorito [7:26 A.M.]: its ok i just signed on to look at some porn i woke up boned
banditcapt71 [7:26 A.M.]: I went to be with a woody thinking about you
Torpedo Dorito [7:27 A.M.]: really?
banditcapt71 [7:27 A.M.]: you're beautiful Luke
banditcapt71 [7:27 A.M.]: I have one of your pictures on my screen right now
Torpedo Dorito [7:28 A.M.]: i need to find new porn i have used the same ones for so long

ahhhh isn't that wonderful perveted justice felt the need to pretend to have a boner... why is that??

want more???

What's this... it looks like an attempt to initiate the "pervert" to show MORE of himself

more??

QUOTE

Torpedo Dorito [7:50 P.M.]: can I call you on the phone?
banditcapt71 [7:50 P.M.]: as many times as you like
banditcapt71 [7:50 P.M.]: I probably will never get tired of it
Torpedo Dorito [7:50 P.M.]: whats your number?
banditcapt71 [7:50 P.M.]: ok its (631) 294-7654
Torpedo Dorito [7:51 P.M.]: whats ur name again?

Escalation of the relationship again initiated by PJ. Scubatim, who is supposed to be seducing who here? I thought the pervert was the predator...
Now you see the evidence does it change your position??

Here is the link you can read the whole thing... i like the little part where PJ creates a little sob story to show vulnerability.
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=banditcapt71

QUOTE

Nearly one million people get reported missing every year. Fortunately, many of these cases end quickly and with happy endings. Unfortunately, not all do. In 2006, 641,983 children under the age of 21 were reported missing. "There were an estimated 58,200 child victims of nonfamily abduction" in 1999, according to this PDF file. Anything you would like to say in rebuttle?

huh yeah... how many of these were children on the internet trying to get adults to come have sex with them... because thta is what PJ does correct?? Telling us how many people were abducted in 1999 does nothing to further this debate.

QUOTE

Given the fact that these men were going to what they knew at the time to be a young girl's house while she was alone to have sex with them is a crime. It is also a crime to sell or buy drugs from what you know to be a drug dealer that is actually a cop posing as a drug dealer. Again, no drug dealer, but what you know it to be at the time is what is important. Any facts to refute my points here?

I've got one... how about the fact a transaction has to occur. Maybe if the actress/actor laid down and allowed intercourse to occur we would actually have an accurrate analogy. In your case you would say look up the drug buyer... before he buys. You would say we should make it a crime to think about buying/selling drugs. Thus you ridea of Justice fall in line with the ideals of self named perverted justice.

SEriously, they tell me what?

I honestly didn't take it that way, but our minds probably don't work the same....

How does he initiate the sexual conversation?

Know any 14 year old boys that don't get erections, or talk about them? Should they not participate in the conversation at all?



At what point does the adult make the decision not to share pornographic pictures with a 14 year old child? Providing pornographic material to children is illegal, you know? I took the conversation as the boy had a poor quality picture, did he ask for a full frontal nude picture? I missed that part....Where did anything get posted about anyone asking for a nude?



They, by law, have to verify the person behind the screen name is an adult, verfy who this person is and that they have traceable information. They do this through a phone call. Again, don't you think the adult in this situation should have ended the conversation a long time ago? Just because a 14 year old continues to talk doesn't mean that it is ok.


Just because PJ plays the part of a confused 14 year old gay boy doesn't make what they are doing illegal. How many 14 year old gay boys are not confused and vulnerable?

Actually, if you were paying attention, these statistics were to refute someone's claim that strangers are not dangerous, that children do not get abducted. It's ok that you didn't follow the conversation, and you used the wrong quote to debunk something that it didn't relate to.

I think agreeing over the phone and or chat to come over to her house for sex and then showing up is a transaction. When someone shows up with condoms and alcohol, what do you think is their expectation?

You forgot to post this part of the alleged entrapment...


It's amazing that there are people that think these sick perverts are the victims in these cases. I am glad the court system doesn't seem to agree with those that want to stick up for the pervs that troll chat rooms looking for their next victim. Any one that wants to argue in favor of the creeps that try to get kids to have sex with them can do so, but realize the scum that you are defending.

I've been biting my tongue for a while but that last post has so many holes in it that it could lure some real perverts...



You mean other than the fact that Bandit suggests a friendship and it was PJ that upped the ante to boyfriend, implying something of a sexual nature? Whether you believe Bandit would've brought it up eventually is irrelevant, PJ should never bring it up.



You're kidding, right? All bandit said was that he was talking to another friend and that he was worried about some IM he got some night, then out of left field, PJ brings up an erection?!? (Pardon the pun) Again, why is PJ bringing this stuff up out of nowhere?



Well unless you didn't actually read it, I can't imagine how "its like all just face is hard to see you" could be construed as anything but "show me more than just your face".


You know, it's really hard not to use a fallacy like the slippery slope argument, but when you yourself bring up drug and prostitution busts, it's pretty fair game if you ask me.

As far as drug busts go, I don't see a problem with those. The drugs are right there! They could bust them with possession right then and there.

Prostitution I have bigger concerns with, especially when they target the "johns". But, even then, a transaction has to occur, or at the very least, a price agreed upon. I still believe that it is entrapment, and just because the courts don't see it that way, doesn't end the debate for me.

Here we are now, dangling candy in front of a baby. You may think that pedophiles are the most evil people on the streets and you have every right to do so. However, imagine being a straight man and that heterosexual sex is illegal. Now, one night on the computer, someone dangles a woman in front of you. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't talk to her? I know, I know, it's a hypothetical question and it seems silly, right? Well pedophiles have no more control over who they're attracted to than you or I do. THAT is why the recidivism rate is so high with sexual offenders. Fifteen years in prison doesn't cure your heterosexuality, does it? Why on earth would anyone believe it cures pedophilia? These people need therapy, possibly medication to ever live a normal life. However, they can't exactly "come out" as a pedophile without ruining their life anyway, now can they?

Back to PJ. There are no children involved, and I can't believe our courts believe that thoughts are a crime. I don't like where this is going....

Scubatim i got a little time because i need to go to sleep.

First your question:

QUOTE

Torpedo Dorito [5:45 P.M.]: thats kewl but I kinda want a boyfriend
banditcapt71 [5:46 P.M.]: I do too but I was a bit too shy to ask you, because of my age
Torpedo Dorito [5:46 P.M.]: if you dont just use me its ok

Honestly, that isn't self-explanatory?? "I kinda want a boyfreind, if you don't, Just use me. Ok."

Are our minds working two different ways again. Please tell us Scubatim what does "just use me, it's OK" in the context above mean to you.

I am giving you what you asked for... evidence that PJ is putting sexual thoughts in the heads of the "predators", you are now putting on your blinders..

Know any 14 year old boys that were on this chat?


If our legal system wasn't set up to give "sick perverts" the benefit of the doubt, you might have a point. But it was. Hookers, scumbags, murderers, they all have the Bill of Rights on their side. As do you and I. The fact that you consider these people scum (and I may agree with you) has nothing to do with whether these tactics are legit.

Ok, I have to run, so I don't have the time to actually respond to every point you made, but I will later this afternoon, but I do have time to ask you and everyone else that thinks PJ is doing wrong this; By your arguments, to bust these pedophiles, you think there actually has to be a victim. You are saying that these guys have to actually be talking to a child and to approach the child and take part in a sexual act with the child to bust them. Correct me if I am wrong. From what the arguments from my opposition on the topic have said, since there isn't a child and these guys might be showing up just to be on TV, not really with the intent to have sex with these children, they are innocent. By that reasoning, these pedophiles would actually have to rape a child to secure a conviction according to my opposition. What sense does any of that make? Wait until a child has been raped, then make an arrest? You are actually supporting the idea of not preventing a child from being raped, just only after they are a victim? Again, correct me if I am wrong.

I will come back this afternoon to respond to the rest of your points if you wish, I have to run.


With the number of law enforcement officials, state attorney's offices that conduct this exact same type of sting operation without the TV cameras, and the number of pedos that get convicted, I think the courts have decided that the tactics are legit. If you think otherwise, there is a Supreme Court that is there to hear your arguments.

Well, there are a number of no-knock raids conducted by police and the FBI, and that doesn't make it legit. There are a number of coerced and false witnesses to sex abuse that secure convictions, but that doesn't make it legit. Police regularly secure "confessions" and other evidence from underaged defendants without legal or parent advice, but that doesn't make it legit. So excuse me for not being impressed with the "number of pedos that get convicted" by this type of action, not to mention the other sting operations you cite.


I have no standing to make any arguments before the Supreme Court...

The SCOTUS in the past has been against overly-broad legislation to protect children...

Supreme Court Blocks Child Online Protection Act



final adjudication of COPA


As for there not being real children in the chat room, there is court precedent for that as well.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

So what you are saying is that we have to wait until a child becomes a victim. And even then, we have to hope that that child is brave enough to come forward before other children become victims, which is usually the case. By then, we have several children that have been raped and are now victims, just because you think we are too hard on the pedos.

I like how you have no trust in the judicial system citing that there are no knock raids. Since you can find a couple of instances, it must be previlent througout the law enforcement community. These guys that are showing up to have sex with minors must be coerced into doing so. You are right, let's just get those that actually do rape and even kill a kid. Good plan.


You cite something that does happen, but to a much lesser extent that not. I find these arguments to be futile.


That legislation was to force private businesses to restrict access to their content, not to put any presidence that exposing the material to minors was legal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act COPA has nothing to do with this issue. It is still illegal to knowingly provide pornography to children and to knowingly solicit sex of a minor. Why do you find these laws to be bad?



Yes, they did rule that movies that depict child sex was not illegal. How does this relate to "As for there not being real children in the chat room, there is court precedent for that as well."? Your source does not relate to the necessity for a child to be chatting with a pedophile instead of an adult posing as a child.

...



Again, this applies to child pornography. Images of children engaged in sexual acts. This does nothing to further your argument that there has to be a child involved in the chat. If two adults knew that they were chatting with adults and one was role playing, I could see your connection. In the cases on PJ, there are two adults and one of them thinks the other is a child, no knowing that it is an adult posing as a child.

What I was saying is right there in the text box. Feel free to debate what I have actually said, rather than extrapolating 3 or 4 events that may or may not occur depending on something I didn't say.

Here is something I actually did say on the subject. Feel free to disagree.



Now you have me saying that "I have no faith in the judicial system." I don't even know how to respond to that. Police use tactics that I find wrong. They secure convictions. My problem is with the tactics. Is that clear?


What laws did I "find to be bad?" I said "The SCOTUS in the past has been against overly-broad legislation to protect children..." And they have.



- The US Supreme Court has held that images of imaginary sex with a minor are protected speech.
- They also hold that sex with an adult to appears to be a minor is protected speech.
- Perverted Justice's chat logs contain an adult pretending to be a child, talking about sex.
- They say that these chats in and of themselves are a crime.

What am I missing here?

Yes, I'm saying there should be a victim, as is the case in just about any case from vandalism, murder, to rape. Even in civil lawsuits, you have to show damages.



I don't think you're wrong, I think you and many others are considering these arrests from an emotional perspective, not a rational one. I certainly do not want children to become victims of rape or molestation, I just don't think we should be arresting people that haven't even spoken to a child. I think better ways to handle these things are:

1. Every chatroom and IM service should have a mandatory "report inappropriate content" button. If an adult, male or female, is trying to speak with a child inappropriately, that child can press that button. It would have to be reviewed by someone to determine if the police get involved. I think that only one warning should be given first to make sure we're not targeting someone who was just messing around and had no intention of actually committing a crime.

2. There should be some kind of equivalent to AA for people who are attracted to children. They need help, not shackles.

3. Medication to lower sex drive could be used on a voluntary basis, or court ordered if they have actually committed a crime. I believe many will take it anyway because many sex offenders are not violent, and do not want to go to prison. They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves, "my life isn't complicated enough, I think I'm going to have a strong sexual desire for children so I can go to prison".

4. I think we need to get parents more educated and involved somehow. There are ways they can limit usage on the computer and on the cell phone. Plus, no father wants to think of their fifteen year old daughter as someone who's soliciting older guys online, but there are tons of them. I, myself, have had dozens of underage girls contacting me through myspace, some of them half my age!! I caught my sixteen year old cousin talking to a twenty-two year old guy online. I asked her if she knew he was older and she said she was the one that contacted him. Gosh, it was too bad that the router just happened to stop working shortly after....

I agree Ataal. Unfortunately questioning of "authority" in cases such as these often gets spun into a defense of pedophiles.

Consider Amlord's infamous response to Wertz's well thoughtout post very early in this thread.

Scubatim


Yes, but good luck with kids coming forward, because they're are not victims. The people at PJ are not coercing, but they are inticing. They are telling the adult to come "use them" they are telling the adults "how much they love porn", "how much they want a mature boyfreind" They say they are underage, but have decidedly adult conversations with adults. They escalate the conversation, they invite the adults over they are initiators on so many level.

By the way we don't want to protect pedophiles we don't want law enforcement, PJ or whoever, asking people to become pedophiles then arrest them when they comply.

What if it is the adult converstion that is causing the attraction?

Of the people arrested on these stings what percentage have been arrested for previouse sexual assaults to wards children??

It has been made clear to me that those that oppose my position have no legal basis for their position. I also have found that some even say that there should be no legal grounds to arrest people that attempt to rape a child. I am unable to comprehend why a child has to be raped and become a victim before we can stop the sickos that are doing the raping.

I can tell that no matter the facts that are presented, the children that are violated, and the sick things that people are doing to the children, I won't sway the minds of those that oppose my position. This may be viewed as a consession by those that oppose me, but it isn't, but I refuse to discuss this any further with anyone that disagrees with the efforts, and the tactics of anyone that works hard to take pedophiles off the street. I think it is reprehensible to find fault with the efforts to prevent such a heinous crime. To insist that the only time to make an arrest is after this tragedy happens to a child. Feel free to consider yourselves winners of this debate, but there is no way that I will try to counter any discussions of stopping these efforts. I refuse to continue to dignify any responses that claim that efforts to stop these guys from raping a child before it happens are not legit.

The ends justify the means. So, to borrow one of your tactics and put words in your mouth, If Charles Bronson went out and blew away pedophiles, that would be OK, since it's reprehensible to find fault with the efforts to prevent such a henious crime.

I hope you reconsider, take a deep breath and debate some of the pretty good points being made here.

My point is that they're not preventing a child from being raped. There's not even a child in the picture here.

Please don't bow out of the race because you can't sway anyone's position on the matter. I would venture to say that most of the debates we have here on AD never change anyone's beliefs. It does, however, provide a medium for which to discuss events and policies in a civil manner.

Scubatim, I will probably agree with your stance on 90% of the other debates here on AD, I just don't agree with this one because it's riddled with thought crime. I put it in the same category as hate crime legislation. Both are laws, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

I don't think anyone here is supporting child rape. Shame on you for suggesting it.

Quite a straw man you have set-up.

I know this one has been dormant for a while, but after watching America's Most Wanted last night, I wanted to bring this up again. It appears some here would like to think online predators aren't an issue, and don't even exist. Some would like you to think that those that troll chat rooms are only fat, ugly old men. According to this story about a real 12 year old girl, that met a real pedophile, who is still walking the streets due to poor police work, that did exactly what some claim doesn't happen. I highlighted some points from the earlier post. I am not sure how to respond, but maybe statistics would be best. Remember, " This is an act. A sham. A hoax. How many 13 year olds chat with fat balding guys? The answer: None. It's not a problem." and " This is an act. A sham. A hoax. How many 13 year olds chat with fat balding guys? The answer: None. It's not a problem."

Link


Link


Link


I know this is a duplicate, but it is worth repeating: Link


So, this really doesn't happen. Strangers aren't really dangerous. Yeah, right!

No - you have a comprehension problem. Show me one post - just one - that have said pedophiles are not a problem. Just one.

What HAS been said, is that no crime is being committed in regards to the TV show. No underage girls/boy exists. Technically speaking, the subjects of the television show are communicating with a consenting adult. We are destroying the lives of people who are potential pedophiles, but who in reality, are not.

Obviously, there are some repeat offenders and some with a criminal record of this behavior. But there is no way for us to know whether or not the person was role playing, has a fixation with dangerous activity, or has so low of self-respect, that he wants to be degraded on national TV. People are weird and there is nothing you should put past anyone. But being weird does not necessarily constitute criminal behavior. Finally, I've watched the show a lot of times and I never see any hot female teachers trying to pick up underage boys. Does this problem not exist in reality?

You really need to look at the arguments here instead of having your mind made up already. Nobody is defending pedophilia or suggesting it doesn't happen. That's an absurd claim. However, the debate is whether the criminalization of intent is proper or not. My beef with the crime of intent, is that if you allow government to do it with this subject, why can't they do it in other walks of life? Why stop at chat rooms? Why not give drivers of high performance cars tickets for speeding even though they've only revved the engine at a read light? Heck, speeding kills people - this seems to be a far greater hazard than 14 year olds being picked up by old fat bald guys in chat rooms at random. Whether you agree or not, that's the point of our arguments.

Couple things I have noticed while working around pedophiles for the last 20 years- they are uusally not fat old bald guys- and they are not even men half the time. You would be very suprised at how many female pedophiles there are- and how many of them just get away with it. But I digress- fat old bald guys have been the far and above minority of pedophiles I have helped to incarcerate. Most are young men or women. Most are social losers, who only seem cool to the underage- because they are willing to hang out with the underage. usually starts out by a friend of a friend willing to score some drugs or alcohol for the underage party.

The true serial pedophile is really quite rare- it is far more likely to be a 'pedophile by chance"- in other words, some guy or gal gets the "okay" from the underage to get some action, and they have no chance (the pedophile that is) of getting laid by someone that is atractive and of thier own age.

There was one very disturbing case I worked on not too long ago, with some kind of orgy set up by some high school students- it was pretty bad behavior, wouldn't want to ever hear of my kids getting involved in this yadda yadda. But anyway, a bunch of girls set up a 'girly gang bang" with a couple of guys- one of them being 20, the youngest girl being 15. Only person charged was the 20 year old man, but the 17 year old male, and the 18 year old females- where not charged. This entire incident was set up by 3 18 year old females- they initiated it, they talked the younger girls into it, and lied about the ages of the younger girls to the 20 year old- who thought they were all 18, and even went so far as to check a couple IDs. Yet, only he was charged, due to the span of age difference.

Sex crimes that are not outright strong arm rape are a very difficult thing to get some consistancy out of- and it is even worse when it becomes a thing of media entertainment.

If I had it my way- the 3 18 year old girls would be up on the statutory rape charge, and I would have let the 20 year old male go. But the only one that will end up on the sex offender list is the 20 year old male.

And the girls-thier response to the DA? "Next time we will make sure that the guy is not too old so he doesn't get into trouble"

NEXT TIME- scare any parents?

From the episodes of To Catch a Predator that I've seen - and it's just about all of them - the people involved were pretty much a cross section of the populace age wise.

The next time they do a reerun, I'm going to take note regarding age. I'm going to do a range, mean and median.

One can also do observation concerninf "fatness" and "baldness," but this is more subjective.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes.

There is a problem with that my friend- you see, on "to catch a predator" - they are not really interested in catching predators- they are interested in capturing ratings- that means that the "predators" have to get through "casting"- in other words- they aren't taking a sampling of a cross section of pedophiles- they are selecting "good TV" instead. A mildly retarded foot fetishist is a good attention grabber- however, I don't think he is a pedophile- just someone desperately wanting attention and a date- with anyone.

If we were to actually go and do a REAL cross section of pedophiles, I would guess it is probably 50% white males under thirty but over 20, about 15-20% of females, regardless of ethnicity, under 35-ish (though I see more and more that would be better in the "under 40" bracket) and then you get the regular cross section of people represented throughout our population.

About 90% of the black or hispanic males of lower socio-economic status I see are "crimes of stupidity" rather than anything else. A 15 year old gangsta girl wanna-be "hooks up" with a thug brother, and somehow, they get caught- he takes the fall. He usually does know she is 15 before arrest- but is quite sure, since 'she started it" that she will be quiet about it and not tell the authorities- until she herself gets in trouble for something unrelated and goes with the "I was abused by an older man and he made me do it" line- which is pure crap.

What scares me is how many young poeple (12 to 18) are so sexually agressive these days. Seems like a little fear would be healthy at this point, maybe not catholic school in the fifties oppressive scary, but something anyway.

There are 12-16 year old girls that are seeking out older men (even 40 and 50 year old men- I am in that age group- and it disgusts me! ) to "hook up" with. They lie about thier age, they lie about everything, and end up causing much pain and grief. Most men dodge this bullet through common sense and decency, not to mention a fair amount of "eewwww, you are young enough to be my GRAND daughter", that kinda ickiness if you are a father especially- but still, I can see where a guy would say "Oh man, this hot 18 year old chick digs older guys, specifically, ME"- not realizing they are dealing with a 12-15 year old girl!

Or, by the time they DO realize it- they don't care anymore- which I also find disgusting- but still, that is usually the way it works out, for the most part.

Real predatory pedophiles, the kind that scares us parents so much, well, they end up being hoisted on thier own petard.

Consider like this- this is "good police work" instead of "good TV"- there is a local grandfather that is a retired police officer that poses as an underage kid, boy or girl, and looks as to who starts being interested. After a commitment to meet- a search warrant is issued by a judge as 'probably cause"- then, they search this dudes computer- and, whatya know- thousands of pages of child porn, right there

no need to have a non-victim, just get probable cause to search- a pedophile will always be caught if they are one, by the evidence they have in thier personal residence- you don't need "to catch a predator" with a fake meeting with a fake teen to do this- the conviction rate for possession of child porn is MUCH higher than what we are seeing on "to catch a predator".

I don't disagree with you CR. What I'm saying is that the people caught in the show's web - be they hapless losers or whatever - do not necessarily fit the mold of "old, fat and bald."

OIC- point taken - what I am getting at is this- the show won't probably show the fat balding dude much- he doesn't make good TV drama. Icky isn't enough- you have to be outright strangely wierd now. People want to be suprised, they don't want thier own pointed verified here- like "oh my, that dude was wierd, where DO they get these guys"

It's about TV ratings and more. The editors at amazon.com have described Chris as "a nationally known authority on protecting children from child predators [who reently] testified before Congress." While this may not be an accurate assment of Hansen, it probably does sell books. Hansen's book is now in paperback.

.
http://www.amazon.com/Catch-Predator-Prote...5653&sr=1-2

Comprehension problem? That is mature. Good one! Did you happen to read the highlighted portions of the posts I quoted, or did you skim over that part? Why not contribute to the conversation for a change? Let me repost the quote for you specifically:

And

It appears someone here thinks that strangers are not a problem, and young girls don't chat with men online.

So what you are saying is that when Johns and drug users get busted by undercover cops shouldn't go to jail for breaking the law?


Anything supporting anything even remote to this as a possible defense by anyone that has ever been busted for soliciting children online? Anything at all?


I definately won't put it past those that I thought were intelligent on this board that are defending those that show up to what they know to be a 13 year old child's home to have sex with them.


No, but soliciting sex from a minor over the web is illegal.


Some don't seem to think so. Maybe you should start a show about that if you feel as passionately as these people do about pedos soliciting sex from minors through chat rooms.


Like your mind isn't already made up?


Again, read the highlighted portions in my previous post.


I would agree, I have proven it isn't true.


And I find those arguments absolutly absurd. They are completely off topic, and to even come close to defending those that solicit sex from minors is obscene.

Scuba- I think the real issue here- from people like me that actually work with LEO and prosecutors around the country dealing with crimes against children- is that it is entertainment, and NOT good police work, and we are not getting the real bad guys- that concerns me alot.

Now- when done by policemen, working with the prosecutors office, using existing laws to get actual predators- I am all for it- and you dont' need a "thought crime" to get these bad guys-

let me explain

in most states, and federally, child porn is a hard felony with lots of jail time. Busting these guys in this entrampment type setting makes them more victims than predators, and it is easy to get a charge or verdict thrown out from both predjudicial issues, and the entrapment issues, and to be honest- the sentencing is lighter.

The best way to go about it is actually- well, quietly until you have either a conviction or an iron clad charge.

I much more prefer cops getting "probable cause" quietly, not on a major network, and then going in and busting these guys. (The women usually don't do as much of it on the internet- they tend to "cruise" the highschools)

We have a retired grandpa ex school teacher and police officer doing that job here in Alaska, Homer to be exact, and he is one of the most succesful in the nation- if not THE most succesful, with more convictions of REAL pedophiles than Hansen can even HOPE to match- seriously- over 200 convictions and counting- through good police work and careful prosecution- so we can get the bad guys behind bars, for a very, very long time.

And 99% of those convictions are for volumes of child porn.

But there are no minors on the show. As many of us have indicated to you previously.

Other than the one poster you have quoted, not one of us is claiming that this isn't a problem. 3 or 4 of us are making the same point, and you don't appear to be able to refute it unless you twist our words and tell us what we are saying is "coming close to defending those you solicit sex from minors" or whatever. On this show (see debate topic), there are no minors!

The one problem I see is that of thought crime. If a girl tells a would-be sex partner that she's 18, and it turns out she's not, the partner could be charged with statutory rape. No one gives his thoughts any credence then, because there is a real victim. Given this, it seems backwards to me that chat with an adult who says she's 15 is a crime, yet 'real sex' with that person would not be a crime.

CW- you also brought up a good point here- the schizophrenia that we call "juvenile justice"- if the guy robs a bank with the 15 year old- she is charged as an adult- he has sex with her, he goes to jail because she can't make adult decisions like that?

We need some reform in this area to make it make some kind of sense at all anyway.

So law enforcement preventing children from becoming victims by using adults to pretend to be children and catching these predators is bad? Even when using civilians to do it, I support it 100%.


This one has made me almost fall out of my chair! First I get this response:

So I do. Then I get this repsonse:

What's next? Just show me 10 people that have said this or that? Find a different way to argue than to continue to raise your bar!


Explain to me why there would be a difference in your eyes if there was actually a minor instead of someone working undercover to catch a predator? Explain to me why there would have to actually be a rape of a child before you would support going after a predator? Explain to me why any type of sting in your eyes is illegitimate. These are concepts that I can not understand, and you are the one that needs to explain it to me.


We aren't discussing if the 13 year old says that she is 18. We are talking about 30 year old men that are trolling chat rooms looking for 13 year old girls, and when they find one, they prey on them. It is illegal to solicit sex from minors in chat rooms or though email. That is what this show is all about. That is what these stings are all about. This exact crime takes place in this country, more than what we know. More children get abused everyday than what gets reported. Look at the Catholic Church scandals. How many people came out and told their story after years of silence. The same is true here, and using a child as bait and telling them to have this type of chat with a predator so we can bust someone for the actual crime is irresponsible. Are you going to volunteer your 13 year old daughter, niece, cousin? I am betting no one here would want their child subjected to it, even as a sting operation. How do you suggest we go about arresting these people? Wait until your neighbor's daughter gets abducted and raped? How do you suggest we stop this from happening?

Yes, it's bad, and yes, I understand that you support it. I also think that using police personnel to impersonate prostitutes is bad, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with age. I understand that you support it 100%, but I humbly disagree with you.



I haven't raised any bar. What DaytonRocker and I are saying is that you seem to be painting our arguments with the same brush as the poster who said "there is no problem." We aren't saying that at all.


The difference between a minor and not a minor seems obvious to me. Soliciting sex with a minor is illegal, as it's a precursor to actually having sex with a minor. Soliciting sex with an 18-year-old (or a 37-year-old cop) pretending to be a minor is victimless. Unfortunately, until a 'predator' has sex with a child, he's not a predator. I don't have a solution to that, nor do I grant the government rights to go after people who may or may not do something based on some behavior. Children who score a certain way on standardized tests may be more likely to shoplift, but they should not be written up for said offense.

What is your opinion of the converse then? If an underage girl, online or in person, says that she's