Actually, I more than agree with you and that is what I was pointing out. They aren't catching the hard core ones by far. They aren't getting the crafty uncle or the beloved minister. They are getting the 23 year old loser who is looking for approval.

That is precisely why I don't like the show.

Looks as if the show is in deep trouble. 20/20 is running a show tonight about the various flaws of the program, which led to 23 men not facing charges due to sloppy procedure.

20/20 video highlight

The way that Dateline has ruined 23 innocent men's lives suggests to me that the dateline staff and the cops need to go to jail for a taste of thier own medicine.

23 men arrested- not one charge brought past the DA.

they didn't catch a single predator- what they caught were lonely vunerable men with no social hopes that were easy to con into appearing on TV. IT is as shameful as the pedophilia itself, and there should be monetary and criminal charges brought against NBC.

I watched the 20/20 segment on To Catch a Predator. The report was limited to the Murphy, Texas sting in which an assistant DA killed himself. At the time of the suicide, Chris Hansen and crew were in front of the man's house with cameras. At one point, Hansen gives the police the phone number of the assistant DA. Orher segmenrs show Hansen coaching the police in how to make the arrests more dramatic. I do not know if Hansen is this deeply involved and intertwined with police in the other episodes, but it was a bit disturbing.

One thing 20/20 pointed out was that this may have been a disaster waiting to happen. It may make good entertainment, but half a dozen cops charging one subject is a bit of overkill. As 20/20 asks, “what if a gun had accidentally gone off?” It is possible that a cop could have accidentally shot a fellow law enforcement officer?

The 20/20 piece raises the point Wertz made early in this thread about the blurring of lines among law enforcement, entertainment and vigilante groups.



The 20/20 piece was based on footage previously not shown of the Murphy sting, obtained by the courts.

BTW: Another member sent me this Rolling Stone article about To Catch a Predator. If that person wishes to identify himself or herself, that is their decision.

Rolling Stone Article

I have read through many of the posts, so my responses will address some of the issues that have been brought up by various posters.

1. I think this operation is legitmate. How this is legal is illustrated by the following found at Link


Does this mean that NBC televising it doesn't make it sensationalized? I would say that NBC is sensationalizing the busts, but it is still legal. The TV show Cops recording someone breaking the law and getting arrested is the same premise. Ultimately, it is about selling advertising for NBC, nothing more.

Some have claimed that no laws have been broken on the part of those that get arrested. The claim is that an adult chatted with another adult, which is not illegal. I would agree that that in itself isn't illegal, however the adult that is propsitioning the sexual encounter thinks he is chatting with a child. Compare to police vice stings busting people soliciting a hooker. The undercover officer posing as a prostitute isn't a prostitute, but the act that was intended is illegal, so the Jon goes to jail. Police use this tactic often. In the Perverted Justice situation, the civilians collect the evidence that law enforcement doesn't have the man power to do, record it according to what is required by the courts, and turn it over to the authorities.

2) In regards to Hansen entrapping the alleged perp, I would disagree. NBC only records what happens at the end of the process. Perverted Justice does the operation and brings the perverts out into the open. I will refer you to Link to read through how this being so similar to so many others posted on the perverted justice website is not entrapping someone. This guy knows that what he is doing is illegal, yet he continues to persue what he thinks is a 13 year old girl. Read the transcript and let me know that you think he was entrapped and he shouldn't have been convicted. The fact that he was convicted (learn more about the conviction here) just shows that the courts don't think any illegal prosecution has taken place. http://www.perverted-justice.com/ has hundreds of pervs that have been convicted and the transcripts of the voluntary communications including phone calls provided for review.

Thanks for your input.



What we really have is cooperation among Perverted Justice, NBC and the police. NBC could not be sensational without the help of Perverted Justice and the story wouldn't be as "exciting" without the police bust. It's a three way symbiotic relationship.

My husband and I have been kind of addicted to this show. Call it schadenfreude.

My question from the start has been "Exactly WHO initiates the sexual aspect?" Because if it is the perverted justice team member, then I would define that as entrapment. Men (I'm sorry, guys, I know it's not all of you) are notoriously weak when it comes to someone making advances. Yes, the person might be underage, but, like Cruising Ram said, they're losers. And a lot of them are really excited that they can "teach" somebody. They probably figure, "Hey, this 13 year old chick is a total slut if she wants me to come over, and is agreeing to all this stuff." And, in a way, they're kinda right. It is the rare 13 year old girl (boys are a different matter) who is going to have a total stranger to their house to do all sorts of freaky-deaky sexual acts. The ones who do are seriously messed up (Sorry, I know I'm gonna get it for that remark!).

Therefore, what worries me is not that there is a 13 year old girl in reality making advances toward a stranger online. No, if they're going to do that, Dateline is not going to save them. What worries me is the guy who goes online, acts like he's a 13 year old boy, says nothing overtly sexual, talks about how rough life is as a teen, how his parents are so unfair, blah blah blah---all these things will get into a lot of 13 year old girl's hearts, because---let's face it---when you're 13, the world sucks.
After awhile, she'll agree to meet him somewhere. Only he won't be 13. And he'll somehow, someway take advantage of her.

That's something Dateline should explore. THIS, however, smells like entrapment, using situations that probably don't happen.

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." That's the creed they should go by, both Dateline AND those losers who get caught on their show.

So without the cameras, would you still consider it to be a sensationalized event? Does the legitimacy of the process improve without Hansen?



I suggest that you go to pervertedjustice.com and read through the transcripts. Everyone of them the perv initiates the sexual content of the conversation.

In regards to the man posing as a 13 year old, that is a real situation and a real threat. http://www.wiredsafety.org/internet_predators/ has some good information about this threat. Not that it would be not worth the effort, but this type of sting would be very difficult to pull off. Trying to pose as a 13 trolling for adults that are also posing as a 13 year old to try to get a child to meet at an outside location in order to abduct them.

The problem is this:- I don't think they get many, if any, REAL predators off the streets. Watching these shows, I am reminded of how skinheads and other extremist groups recruit "cannon fodder"- look at the shoe fetish dude- man, obviously mentally not all there. I think perverted justice (I think justice is indeed being perverted here)- is basically using some barely sophisticated and old cons used on the mentally weak to get a sensational story, and probably some good fundage as well.

Have you ever wondered who falls for the "nigerian check scam", or all the other scams out there? Well, you see them on your TV under NBCs banner when you watch that show.

It is basically not far off from making fun of the retard down the street, just packaged a little better for entertainmnet.

The lack of charges alone should be the indicator here. If they had real cases, these dudes would be behind bars- DAs LOVE to throw these guys in jail- looks good on the resume', big time!

Without the cameras there would be no show and few people would know about Perverted Justice. So, I'm not sure you can separate Perverted Justice, Hansen and the police.

Chris Hansen has the tools to be a fine investigative journalist. He seems to be trapped in this mode. The Rolling Stone article I linked earler, indicates he has had better, more exciting asignments.



Rolling Stone Article

Bold for my emphasis.

That is exactly what we're talking about when we say "thought crime". It shouldn't matter in a court of law what you thought, only what you actually did. If anything, the evidence gathered by perverted justice should be enough for a warrant, based on probable cause, for someone's computer to see if they have pictures or videos of children. But, to charge them with the full act of statutory rape(or equivalent sentence) is completely unfair in my opinion.

The prostitution thing is a little different because money has to be exchanged or at the very least, a price is agreed upon. Personally, I think prostitution stings are entrapment. In some states, if an officer is on the side of the road waiting for speeders, they have to have at least their parking lights on, otherwise it's entrapment. That says to me, someone has a right to know there is a cop around, if they proceed along their path of criminal activities, they should be arrested.

Back to sex offenders of children. I'm going to try my hardest not to paint them as a victim, but keep in mind, they have no more control over who they're attracted to than I do. The only difference is, if they act upon their attraction, it's illegal. And we wonder why sex offenders have the highest recidivism rates. If having sex with a woman was illegal and had been since I was born, and one day on the internet, a woman was dangled in front of me, you're damn right I'd talk to her.

I'm not advocating we allow people to have sex with children, my point is, sexual need is one of the most powerful feelings you'll ever have. If it is illegal to have sex with someone you're attracted to, you should get therapy, not fifteen years in prison. My opinion is probably not a popular one, but it is just an opinion, so don't taser me bro!

Highlights are mine.

There's the problem I have. No 13 year old exists and he is judged on what you believe he "thinks". If I use this type of scenario as a defense, I'm going to jail.

It's entirely possible he thinks it's an adult acting like a 13 year old. Or, he really doesn't care because he's hoping he gets to be on TV. However, our mind-reading stops at what we beleive these people are thinking.

I don't know what the answer is because I believe predators are a real problem and predators should go away for a very long time. But I'm not convinced we should convict based on assumptions. Why stop with child predators? Because it's sensationalized?

I agree that fewer people would be aware of pervertedjustice.com, but would the operation be less legitimate without the sensationalism of the TV show? I don't recall if you specifically have disputed the legitimacy, so if not, anyone that has can chime in.

The legitimacy of Perverted Justice has been questioned on and off in this thread.

Here is an example:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=224736

Okay, I read through the Perverted Justice chat logs.

First I need to bang my head on the desk---the chat vernacular is ridiculous. "so u like 2 met w boys" etc. gets annoying after about two minutes.

Anyway, you're right. Technically they let the perp do the sex talk and initiate a meeting, though the PJ team member certainly has a hand in persuading in the right direction.

I still say that I'm doubtful many 13 year old girls would agree to meet with some total stranger who's so much older than them, but I guess it could happen. I'm just thinking of me at 13---I used chat rooms, I got a lot of sexual innuendoes and much more thrown at me, but I would never have met with anyone from online, my age OR older.

Sorry, but this is total window dressing for a DA---"I put x number of perverts behind bars this year!", and all the while the real threats (the uncle, the priest, etc.) are still out there.

The best way to keep these molestations down is to educate your kids about online use, and about the kind of creeps that can be out there, including their family members and trusted adults.

In short, it IS sensationalism, because it does no good.

I think you are refering to this quote:


My rebuttle is that in that line of thinking, the Johns that are busted for propositioning an undercover cop posing as a prostitute and the prostitutes that are busted for agreeing to have sex for money when propositioned by an undercover cop should all be set free and have their records cleared. Afterall, they didn't actually proposition a protitute and the prostitute didn't acutally agree to have sex with someone that actually wanted to pay for sex. Furthermore, people that sell drugs or buy drugs from undercover cops should be set free as well. People that want to hire someone to kill someone and proposition a cop shouldn't be convicted. Afterall, they didn't actually hire a hitman.

If you go here, you will notice that the perv initiated the conversation, the perv knows the girl to be 13, and knows that what he is about to do is illegal. At no time did she initiate the sexual conversation. She just responded in the same tone as a 13 year old girl. If he would have made the right decision not to go to the house and actually meet what he thought was a 13 year old girl, he wouldn't have been arrested.


Taking these pervs off the street does no good? How do you mean?

This is just one organization with a mission. The uncles and priests are harder to get, but I trust our law enforcement officials are persuing accusations as they arise. I agree that what is called friendly abductions or assults need to be addressed as well, but we can't just let these online predators continue.

You are actually in the majority by not meeting anyone online. Unfortunately, being in the majority only means that there are those that do meet people in real life. It is those victims that perverted justice is trying to protect by taking those predators off the street. Education is key, but it doesn't always stop everyone from making poor decisions and put themselves in a position to become victims.

I have read further and completely changed my views. And, by the way, when I said it did NO good, I was exaggerating. It does some good, just probably not as good as they thought.

BUT, I have read some of the slimiest logs on there, and they are frightening. Beyond scary.

This one actually seems realistic: http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=...ain_jaime_wolfe

I say, more power to PV if they can catch these people. I just don't think it's going to actually save real girls, because there will ALWAYS be predators, and they will find new and innovative ways to get what they want.

Jeez. I almost wanted to cry reading that one above.

Your opinion is easily changed by false imagery and lies. These are traps that focus on the sexual desires of men who are usually fat and sloppy, or wierd and unattractive. No 13 year old would ever talk the way this entrapment artist is talking and the only time a situation like this occurs is when the guy is trapped. Dayna_SaGR, you are going to allow your civil liberties to get flushed down the toilet because a cop tricked a horny loser into thinking he might get laid.

Just keep telling yourself, "There is no spoon."

It's all in your mind.

Boy- those perveted justice guys DO some good- no doubt about it- had time to really go through thier site- pretty good stuff alot of them are doing- When they get a conviction- I am all for them. It is the NBC program that is not really going after the high school teacher- they want someone less boring I guess?

We expect a predator to be this really slimy guy that gives you the creeps- but really, it can be the nice looking female school teacher as well. This is one thing I have noticed- there is no real demonstrated effort to go after FEMALE sexual predators.

Predators hang out where the kids are, mostly- meaning, they are probably a teacher, coach etc- someone that has unfettered access to your kids for 6 hours a day.

They are not some creepy cross dressing shoe fetishist- the reality is much more boring, until they get thier clothes off, then it is monstrous.

I am all for anything that catches a predator, when they have demonstrated, as some on the site have, of real grooming behaviors, not someone coaxed into meeting because they finally got some external validation telling them they are not wierd and creepy

I am of two minds on this one- catching bad guys shouldn't be good entertainment- it should be good cop work. I think it is a bit sick for poeple to be entertained by this, and become "addicted" to the show- to me, this is nearly as bad as the pervos, something along the lines of the perversion itself. I don't know why- maybe it is the voyeuristic quality that these "shows" have.

I liked America's most wanted, because it was realy a show case of folks on the run that the general public could help spot.

but what function does the TV show serve? I mean, the bust already happened. What purpose does it serve by making it entertainment too? I guess if someone told me they were "hooked on the show"- that person would give me the creeps too.

But- what, 232 convictions by perverted justice- kinda hard to argue with those results! And if you read the logs/blogs on that site- it doesn't take much to show the guys that got convicted were certainly predators- and, like I said before- almost always had priors- I can't even think of one time that a pervo was caught, the first time, before the first time they commited thier crime. They have had it reinforced by success, usually from around puberty. In other words- they had willing victims before, and when you do the charges- the floodgates open, and you find a few more convictions to REALLY nail the case in a 'slamdunk" to the point they plead out.

but I still don't see the practical purpose of "to catch a predator" except for ratings, and I have a pretty dim view of the poeple that continue to watch that show- because, quite frankly, what I do for a living, should NEVER be someone's entertainment.

I think we're all pervs in a way. Most of us have that shameful joy---schadenfreude---that makes us slow to see car wrecks, and is secretly disappointed when it's just a fender-bender and not a visible decapitation. No, we won't admit it. I'm going to get a lot of responses on this saying, "I don't have the shameful joy!"

When I say addicted, I don't mean that we plan our schedules around it, I just mean that we can't look away. It's sick, it's wrong...and it's entertaining. Same as "Temptation Island", "Nanny 911", etc. etc. Though I never watch reality TV (other than To Catch a Predator), 'cause it's all crap.

I actually think that one of the reasons for our schadenfreude is to say "Hey, it's not happening to me..."

Curmudgeon and I stopped watching "To Catch a Predator" some time ago,* about the time that the one guy committed suicide in his home rather than submit to the perp walk and the subsequent humiliation of a trial and conviction.

It also occurred to us how shameful it must be to the families of these men to see them caught--rightfully considering their attempts to have sex with minors--and have their faces and identities revealed on national television.

But before we stopped watching it, the question was posed, "What about women? Don't women do this?" to which Whats-His-Name (it eludes me at the moment) said, "Women don't do this." While it is certain that there are women who commit rape, statutory or otherwise, using the Internet to prowl and hook up with their victims is not their modus operandi.

The people on the show go after the people who show up at the houses, and it seems that it is men who are the moths that fly too close to that flame.

*We don't find it entertaining any more.

I guess I don't get it- been inthe medical field my whole life, guess from a pretty young age- so I just don't get the entertainment value of it.

It was the "Gotcha!" factor, seeing the hunter become the hunted--and caught. But the entertainment value didn't last for us. After a while we just thought it was sickening.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/onair/shows...pth/letourneau/

I would hazard an educated guess that they are nearly as plentiful as male predators- difference is, we don't really think that the young boy's life has been ruined by this experiance- even though, in my field, it is as clearly as devastating in thier lives as when males do it- look at this kid that hooked up with Mary Kay letourneau- he ended up marrying this predator.

I currently know of at least 10 female sexual predators- but they are not considered a "priority" by the DA- because juries like to let these ladies walk, considering the male victim as "lucky".

I personally know of one woman that has 4 babies by 4 different boys- she is 27, not one of those boys was over 13 when she got pregnant.

She was not only NOT charged with a crime - the boys were forced to pay child support.

Talk about a double standard anyone?

My husband and I really don't find it that entertaining anymore. It's sort of become like "When Animals Attack IX" or something...

Once you've seen the naked guy walking in the door with whipped cream and a six-pack, the rest is pretty obvious.

I've got to admit that that's pretty rotten, CR. The woman should have had the book thrown at her, unless she was mentally retarded.

well, ya, it is rotten- I guess that is why my nerve endings are shot into the anger zone alot- I see lots and lots of injustice and unequal applications of the law- even to those dangerous to children.

Okay- imagine if you will, a man throws a birtday party for his daughter. He has booze, some weed, a couple pornos, none of the kids over 15. Goes a step farther- hires some strippers, male , to come and dance for 8-9 11-15year od girls. One of the parents finds out, grabs her little girl and calls the police- what would happen to that man running the show- the adult that bought the booz, strippers, drugs and weed for the girls?

Jail time, right?

Well, this happened here locally- only, it was a nearly 40 year old woman that did it for that age group of boys. there were 3 adults at that party- all women above the age of 25, at least. One had two of her babies there- a 2 year old girl, and a 4 year old boy.

Well, the cops did bust the party, and haul the women off to jail- the charge? Giving booze to a child. No indecency to a minor- not the other 40 odd charges a man would have to be dealing with, and the near 40 year old woman ADMITTED to having sex with at least 2 of the boys on earlier occasions- no charges, why? Because those boys were LUCKY to have such a cool sexual experiance so early- the DA said you just can't get a conviction against a woman sex criminal unless there is a man there too, and then you can get her as an accesory. Really made that DA angry- but what could he do? The boy wouldn't cooperate, and juries just don't like convicting pretty white girls of these kinds of crimes.

They did one night in jail, didn't have to register as sex offenders- and the worst thing that happened to any of them- is that the dad of that 2 and 4 year old was FINALLY able to win custody- despite YEARS of drug abuse by that Mom, with the Mom in and out of jail- it finally took that bit before the judge FINALLY awarded custody, to the father that has a job, never hs been in jail, and remarried to a lovely woman, with a very nice little life going on.

We just don't go after women when they commit crimes the way we should.

The above is true, CR. You are right. But that's probably a whole other topic that can be started. In the case of "To Catch a Predator", women are never on there, not because Perverted Justice doesn't want to catch them, but because women as a rule don't go into chat rooms to find young boys. The women teachers who have sex with their 15 year old students (and, yes, there's a lot of them), are usually demented enough to think there's some kind of "love" going on---not just a one-night stand to satisfy an immediate need. Women can bide their time. The good (and bad) thing about being a woman is that if you want to have a one-night stand, you can find a guy pretty easily without even having to go online. But for an older guy, biologically speaking, there's just something about that 13 year old body that they can't resist, and once they get that "feeling"...well, they turn into morons, and drive 3 hours to get with Chris Hansen.

I would really like to see anything credible to support your claim that this type of activity doesn't actually happen. How do you even begin to think that you know that predators do not prey on young children?

It's easy to think of these people as "horny loser" or "fat and sloppy" or "wierd and unattractive." Show some credible evidence that pervertedjustice.com makes anything they post up. The pictures that are in the upper right corner of each page show many regular looking guys. Some of which are doctors, scientists and other highly educated people that are married with families of their own. They aren't looking for some "strange", they are looking for young girls to have sex with. They are the scum of the world and should be taken off the streets.

Exactly what civil liberties are getting "flushed down the toilet"? Please elaborate on this for us.

If you don't think this actually happens, see here, or here, or here.

I'm not going to argue with your other two links, but this one is an advertisement for internet filtering software. Ads like this are about as reliable as those for Nutrisystem or eHarmony. They are designed to sell a product not give accurate information. You demand "credible" sources from Barnaby2341, and rightly so, but give us advertising in return.

I overlooked the 'advertising', but do the statistics generally match the statistics in the other references? Are the statistics inaccurate? Do their statistics offer referencing? I agree advertisments aren't the most reliable sources of information all of the time, but sometimes they are. Sometimes they give accurate information, and in this case, I believe they did.

The references that the 'advertisement' cites can be found here. I think this substantiates the use of an advertisement as a reference. There are too many reports at that link to list here, feel free to browse through them at your leizure to learn more about crimes against children. Thank you for bringing my mistake to my attention. I hope that I have sufficiently added credible information to counter the use of an advertisement.

If you have the "statistics" from another source, it's best not to use advertising as a source. I'm sure you'll do better next time.

I might learn to like you, BoF! It was an honest mistake, I do understand your point about using advertising.

Hmmm, what I CAN'T find is how many poeple they "troll" before getting a "bite" and what kind of screening they use to seperate the "horny loser" vs the actual "predator"

They have 232 convictions since 2004- nationwide. We have over 2000 sex offenders listed in Alaska. I would hazard a guess and say we have more convictions in the state of Alaska in that time than perverted justice has had since 2004. Internet or otherwise- of course.

My point is this- you cast a wide enough net- you will get the bad with the not-so-bad. In the Texas case 20/20 was talking about- that was just crappy broadcast sensationalism. Not really getting ANY predators.

232 bad guys off the streets is a good thing- though many were convicted of pretty minor misdemeanors- contributing to the deliquency of and all that.

I read alot of the logs/blogs- and of the 232 convicted- I am pretty convinced they were ALL needing to do some hard jail time, so, in that perverted justice did some good.

As far as the civil rights issue- Baraby does have a point- if somewhat missed in the hyperbole - we are convicting and punishing poeple before they get thier day in court with this stuff.

They deserve the day in court, and to remain anonymous until proven guilty. Then, if proven guilty- kill them would be the best course of action- they are not to be 'rehabilitated" - but used in medical experiments.

So I am not really sympathetic to the pervos- it is that I feel that non-proffesionals are being used, and the net is so wide, it is bound to catch up with non-predators as well.

232 convictions may seem like alot of convictions at first blush- but I believe about 90% of these guys would have been caught with decent police work and cognizent parents.

I do know that to get active in the contribution of their cause, there is a lot of training involved. I have not found out exactly what and how much training is involved, but it appears by this page.

Perverted Justice (PJ) doesn't post their logs until a conviction is secured. Maybe I missed you point of "we are convicting and punishing poeple before they get thier day in court with this stuff. " Before you have the opportunity to read these logs, they have been convicted.

You are right about the thousands of registered sex offenders, however keep in mind that not all sex offenders are predators of children. Some offenders victims are adults. There very may well be more convictions in AK than on PJ since 2004, but then PJ uses volunteers that are spread across the nation. I think quantity isn't as important as the quality. If they were out to get every single online predator, their work may be sloppy and unusable in court.

PJ has an FAQ section that rebutes a lot of the objections mentioned in this thread. For instance:







You can find more answers to everyone's questions at http://www.perverted-justice.com/index.php?pg=faq#cat5

Yes, I read that part as well- but methinks they dost protest too much.

yes- entrapment does concern LEO types rather than private citizens- but the concept and the morality of it remain as well- just like a private citizen can't commit "censorship" because it deals with the goverment censoring- NOT powerful private individuals- though the result is exactly the same, and it is not etchical or moral either.

Like I said- it is NOT just PJ we are talking here- i