http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=224660

The above statement by DaytonRocker, from a closed thread caught my attention.

For a couple of years now, Dateline NBC and an internet watchdog group called Perverted Justice have teamed up to create shows called “To Catch a Predator.”

The way the operation works is this:

1. The alleged perpetrator contacts what he thinks is a child or young teen – a Perverted Justice decoy - on line. The “child” is in reality an adult posing as an underage person.

2. The alleged perp sometimes sends webcam pictures of his genitals and the chat logs are often graphic.

3. The decoy and the alleged perp arrange phone calls and a date at a sting house.

4. Once the alleged Perp arrives, he meets an adult actor playing the part of a young teen. After a few seconds of conversation between the model and the perp, Chris Hansen comes in and starts questioning the alleged perp on camera.

5. After some conversation, Hansen reveals his identity and informs the alleged perp that he will be on national TV.

6. When the alleged perp walks out the door, he is arrested. Depending on the state, the alleged perp is charged with crimes, often felonies.

7. Many have pleaded guilty and received jail terms, while others await trial.

Question for Debate:

1. Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

2. Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?

1. I do think this is very legitimate because they are taking people off the street who intend on committing a felony(sexual activity with a minor).

2. I'm all for this kind of entrapment. If it is entrapment by legal definition, then so be it. At least it's getting scum off the street and hopefully branded as a sexual predator.

NBC is not a government agency ; so Constitutional safeguards do not apply.




Nope. Those individuals appeared to be predisposed, independent of NBC's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt to commit the crime.

1. Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

Totally legit. No one is forcing the defendents to contact what they believe to be underage sex toys. In fact- if anything, they are "trolling for bad guys"- they let out the bait, and the bad guys snatch it up. It is quite a bit different, than,say, in the Delorean case, where they essentially say "hey, if you do a drug deal for us, we will save your company, please go find us some cocaine, mmmkay?" The real idea of "entrappment" is someone that is INDUCED to commit a crime that they would not normally be willing to do. These scumbags are obviously willing to commit a crime.

2. Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?

Below is the definition of "entrapment" that I copied off wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.

The only way this could be entrappment is if the police kept after him/her saying "oh come on, don't you want to meet this girl, come on, you know you want it" and perhaps even offer them some incentive as well.

in Sorrells v. United States (287 U.S. 435 (1932)) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".[5]

AND:

Court considered a similar case in which one recovering drug addict working with federal agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a predecessor agency to today's Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)) solicited another to sell him drugs on the premise that his own efforts were failing. Again unanimous, its opinion focused more clearly on the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense, and on that basis overturned Sherman's conviction as well, since although he had two prior drug convictions, the most recent dated back five years. He was also attempting to rehabilitate himself, had made no profit on the sales and no drugs were found in his apartment when it was searched, suggesting the absence of a predisposition to break drug laws. "To determine whether entrapment has been established," it said, "a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal".[6]

Okay- now the biggie:


In the Supreme Court's last major ruling on entrapment, Jacobson v. United States (503 U.S. 540 (1992)), which overturned the conviction of a Nebraska man for receiving child pornography via the mail, the subjective vs. objective debate was completely absent. Both the majority and dissenting opinions focused solely on whether the prosecution had established that the defendant had a predisposition for purchasing such material (which had only recently been outlawed at the time of his arrest). Since no other material was found in his home save what he had purchased from the undercover postal inspectors, Justice Byron White believed the operation had implanted the idea in his mind through mailings decrying politicians for assaulting civil liberties by passing laws such as the one the inspectors hoped he would break. Sandra Day O'Connor disagreed in her dissent, arguing that the record did indeed establish that Jacobson was interested in continuing the purchases. Analysts believed that was the Court's indication it considered the subjective vs. objective debate settled.

While NBC is not a governmental agency, they work hand-in-glove with local police departments, which are. So, I'm talking about the whole operation. The police or sheriff makes the arrest, not NBC, but NBC and Perverted Justice set up the arrest.

It's interesting to note that the first Dateline NBC programs did not involve police stings.

NBC is acting as an informer, a witness

So the defense is going to have to do its best to impeach the witness. That is not going to be an easy task when those guys are videotaped in the act. And usually they are so remorseful that they confess.

Can you say open and shut case?

That doesn't preclude the possibility of police entrapment based on the informer or witness.

You are still avoiding the fact that the government is involved.

Although BoF, you have not addressed this by Cruising Ram:



These slime balls came to engage in an illegal act. I don't see much entrapment here based on the legal definition of entrapment.

Entrapment is a defense. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove entrapment. The definition also varies by state. I wonder which states Dateline has done the show in.

The defendant has the initial burden of proving the government induced him to commit the crime. Then the burden rests on the government to overcome an entrapment defense by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.

Entrapment occurs when the criminal design starts with law enforcement officers, who plant the idea to commit the crime in the mind of an innocent person, and then convince him to do the crime so they can prosecute him.

“Predisposition” focuses on whether the defendant was an unwary innocent who, but for the inducement of the officers, wouldn’t have committed the crime.

The fact that law enforcement agents provide the opportunity or place for the crime doesn’t add up to entrapment. It’s only entrapment when the idea for committing the crime is planted in the defendant’s mind by law enforcement.

I don't have a problem with Dateline's series. Their biggest crime is sensational journalism. These men IM screen names they think are operated by underage children. Even if an underage kid IMs you first and starts talking about an inappropriate subject, do you have a sexual conversation with the kid or do you block his or her screen name? I hope the latter.

Is there any requirement that I address every line anyone chooses to write?

I haven't offered an opinion on whether or not I think this entrapment, only that a governmental body is involved in the process, which woluld make entrapment possible, though that would not be a question if NBC alone had conducted the operations.

Edited to add:



So far episodes have been filmed in six states – New York, California, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey and Texas – and the District of Columbia.

The Texas episode was perhaps the most sensational.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator

Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

Yes, I do. It is legitimate because these are real men who have real intent to commit unlawful sexual acts with minors. The huge downfall of the internet is the access it gives pedophiles and perverts to minors.


Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?

Hansen and his crew are exposing people. The internet is a vehicle that criminals (and these men are criminals) hide behind. It is a show that is beneficial in many ways. It sends the message out that there is a chance you will be on national tv if you decide to try to get with a minor, and it exposes those sexual predators who opt to break the law. And, it happens to be rather amusing to see such foolish men get busted.

Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

I have long had my doubts about this sort of operation. Not regarding Dateline NBC's ratings efforts so much as the underlying law and Perverted Justice's tactics.

In many jurisdictions, solicitation with the belief that the other person is a minor is a crime, regardless of whether or not the other person actually is a minor - and I find that law itself a bit questionable. As DaytonRocker put it, no one has really committed a crime. Unless one is actually soliciting sex from a minor, how can one be charged with soliciting sex from a minor? Besides, if it's a crime to talk about sex with someone you think is underage, is it not equally criminal to talk about sex posing as someone underage, tacitly encouraging sex with minors? (If nothing else, Perverted Justice is violating AOL and Yahoo's Terms of Service by posing as underage participants in their chat rooms - for what it's worth.)

Prosecuting people for intent is always dangerous territory and can, in some cases, verge on "thought crime". When entrapment tactics come into play regarding such "crimes", the water is further muddied. How, for example, is it determined that the suspects do believe that the decoy is underage? I've spent enough time in the gay.com chat rooms to have come across more 6' tall, 18-year-old jocks with blond hair, blue eyes, and prodigious genitals than exist in the United States. Do I "believe" these guys stats when I chat with them (assuming they're actually guys), even if I don't question them about it? Seldom - even when they have someone's pictures in their profile. But how does an uninformed observer know what I believe?

If decoys are going to be used to capture criminals, a legitimate tactic in relation to many crimes (and, possibly, if handled correctly, in relation to online predation), then they must be very cautious to ensure that the crime is initiated by the suspect. Any question raised in that regard can - and should - result in the charges being dismissed on the grounds of entrapment. The fact that Perverted Justice is not a law enforcement agency - and is actually more akin to a vigilante group - casts further doubt on these operations, especially as they don't seem to be as meticulous as the police are when operating such stings.

In Murphy, Texas, charges were dropped against all twenty-four men arrested in Perverted Justice's sting there. According to Collin County District Attorney John Roach, he had no jurisdiction in sixteen of the cases, since neither the suspects nor the decoys were in the county during the online chats, and dismissed the rest because neither the police nor NBC could guarantee the chat logs were authentic and complete:
The International Herald Tribune article cited above raises additional questions about such stings in private hands:
Dateline has admitted that it is often the decoy that first raises the issue of sex in Perverted Justice's stings. To me, this would cast doubt on the "willingness" of the suspect. That would also appear to be the case in Murphy, Texas - though that is, as far as I know, the only jurisdiction in which To Catch a Predator has run into any difficulties with the locals. I also find the "willingness" called into a bit of question as it is always the case that it is the "minor" who invites the suspect to his or her house. Without the enticement, would there have been a "crime"?

If such sting operations are going to take place, they should be in the hands of police. While Perverted Justice is not law enforcement, the fact that they collaborate with local authorities makes them "agents" of the police (in some cases, they have been temporarily deputized) and any evidence gathered is subject to the same scrutiny - and the same "entrapment" defense - as the police themselves. Could they be compromising investigations through shoddy work?

Even if vigilante sting operations were more effective than police efforts, I would feel more comfortable with chat logs being used to get court orders for monitoring a suspect's online chat or subpoenaing his hard drive for the sort of evidence mentioned in Jacobson v. United States cited by CR above:
I would much rather that there be evidence of intent apart from responses to a decoy. Some of the guys featured on To Catch a Predator have had records of previous sex crimes - and it's good that serious predators are off the street (if, in fact, they are). But others strike me as being pretty gormless losers with no criminal record. Many of them may not have willingly committed crimes without the decoy's come-on. Solely on the basis of contact with someone who is looking to hook up with an older man, I think it's difficult to tell whether this is a trap for the unwary innocent or the unwary criminal - or a dangerous mix of both.

Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?

It would seem that they are adhering to the letter of the law - for the most part - in the jurisdictions in which they've been operating, despite several court appeals, so I guess legally they're not. I must admit, though, that I remain uncomfortable with the operation.

As numerous men arrested in these stings have plead "guilty", it would appear that this is keeping some would-be predators off the streets. I wonder, though, how many of these men would have pursued such an assignation without sex having first been raised by the "minor" - and how many would have followed through without studied encouragement? To what extent is the crime being suborned? I also wonder how many of those guilty pleas are actually plea bargains? At least a few of the cases cited at Wikipedia have ended with suspended sentences (others with charges dropped or cases dismissed) - and many of the charges are misdemeanors to start out with.

But those concerns are more with Perverted Justice than with Dateline. My main problem with Dateline isn't that they're entrapping people (they're just exploiting - and, recently, subsidizing - someone else's potential entrapment), but they're further blurring the line between law enforcement and entertainment - or, worse, justice and entertainment. How many men in these cases cop a plea because they're on camera, regardless of whether or not they intended to have sex with a minor? How many court appointees recommend such pleas for the same reason?

And there's also the question, raised by Brian Montipoli at CBS's Public Eye blog:
And these are men, I might add, who have not yet been arrested, tried, or convicted of anything. Does such public humiliation (however well-deserved it may seem) constitute ex-judicial punishment for crimes that may not have been proved?

There's also the ethical question of NBC paying Perverted Justice for their sting operations, which they've been doing for the past several series. Montipoli and others have said this is tantamount to paying a source for a story (or, worse, paying a source to create a story) - and it could also be a conflict of interest for Perverted Justice as a foundation seeking non-profit status.

But the bottom line for NBC is... the bottom line. To Catch a Predator gets ratings - and does extremely well on rerun. I suspect that may be more important to them than actually catching predators. I look forward to the footage of Larry Craig on Dateline's toilet-cam in To Catch a Restroom Cruiser.

I suppose I have to add that I find the men featured on To Catch a Predator disturbing and have little sympathy for any of them - and those who are predators should be prosecuted. But we shouldn't allow the lines between law enforcement and vigilantism or between law enforcement and journalism to be blurred just because those being targeted fill us with disgust.


Final, idle question here: How many online predators are there really? How serious a problem is this? Has anyone found any recent statistics? The few stats I've seen cited seem to have been somewhat debunked. And, apart from one or two sensational stories like the Justin Berry case, most of the items I see seem to arise from sting operations. Do the majority of online predation crimes involve decoys?

To be clear, I feel no sympathy for the losers who are trolling for kids. But I have my doubts about the entire operation. They are basically convicting these people in the court of public opinion without the opportunity of preparing a defense. Dateline has an army of people preparing their case against the adults while the adults don't have any time to prepare anything. It's a complete setup from a to z. Although there are no excuses for their behavior, I'm not ready to take everything to the bank NBC is saying or doing that helps their ratings.

But why stop at adults looking for kids? Because it enrages everybody and is great for ratings? Why not set a stack of fake $100 bills on the sidewalk and arrest everybody that tries to take it? There are countless other ways to snag people that aren't as sexy as adults looking for kids.

I'm not a lawyer, but if you prepare a case to go to court, everything is literal. The "spirit" of an issue has long been thrown out the window and replaced with exact literal meanings. But when it comes to this issue, what you mean means more than what you actually did. I have a problem with that.

Nice defense of pedophiles, Wertz. Not nearly as intellectual as the defenses you've offered in the past, but still very reasonable sounding.

The bottom line as far as protecting kids goes is whether or not these guys showed up to the sting location intending to have sex with a person they believe to be a minor. It matters not (from a reality point-of-view) whether the person they will meet is actually a child, they intend to have sex with someone they think is a child. This is not a thought crime. These guys are acting on their impulse, not contemplating whether or not they should act on it.

From a legal standpoint, Wertz brings up good points about entrapment. I would guess that in some cases, this would fall under the definition of entrapment, especially if the decoy is the one who ventures into the sex acts arena first. I guess there is some merit in saying they may not have initiated the sexual relations if not offered, but the fact remains that they did act on a request. Yes, from a legal standpoint this may be loophole for them, but from a moral standpoint, they still made the decision to seek out the "child" in an attempt to have relations with them.

No sympathy for these guys--but I am curious in this day of cameras everywhere and the soon to be creation of lots of jobs for Watchers for these cameras, how long before the stings become commonplace.
Daytons probably spot on
Traps set everywhere for every conceivable crime. You touched it or looked at it or sorta moved in that direction so we KNOW you would have gone through with it.
Fines and more fines or more and more people in jail and so on.
Wonderful world some of you people are O.K with.
24 hour surveillance, thought crimes galore and hell it'll make great reality tv.

Here's to hoping the asteroid is on its way.

Hmmmm How's that ride down the slippery slope Christopher, or is this just a short trip on the hyperbole train?

You bring in the argument of thought crimes, but this is more than thought. These lowlifes are acting on their thoughts in coming to the locations to have a sexual encounter in which they know to be a minor. Now if they were busting people based purely from their on-line conversations, you would have a case in this being the thought police.

When I saw the title of this thread I rolled my eyes to myself as I knew it was going to be another thread more about protecting criminals than concerns for the victims.

1. Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

No, because the police are not doing the surveillance nor collecting the evidence. There are all kinds of problems with this. I actually know a few guys who do this work for the police here, and they get all kinds of special training. Rigorous rules for evidence are observed. "Perverted Justice" sound like they have good motivations, but they should not be in the entrapment business. If there weren't such a stigma around this, and there wasn't such public humiliation involved, I would expect someone to, er, sue their pants off, if you'll excuse the phrase.

2. Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?

I don't know, and I don't know that it matters, as they aren't the police.

I have to agree with Wertz on the "thought crime" aspects of this. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but it sure doesn't involve a TV crew. Sure, the guys are reprehensible, but would they have really found a 'real' child to do this to, if not for the entrapment? It's not like older men haven't been running away to love on young girls before there was "the internet." (Muhammed, Nabokov, Jerry Lee Lewis et al)

The question is what is the best way to stop these guys. I'm going to offer a novel suggestion and say that parents should keep an eye on their kids. There is no national pandemic of child-molestor-chat-surfers; it's all a bunch of hype. The 3% figure in the article Wertz linked sounds about right to me.

Whever the national media assures me that there is "a nationwide epidemic" of a given thing, I know that it's nothing more than groupthink. The problem is that reporters, producers, and news executives have never taken a statistics class, and wouldn't know a trend or pattern if it bit them on their behind. Church burnings, gay bashing, global warming, hurricanes, the millenium bug, public shootings, angry white men, you name it and the news have pronounced it a national crisis. Then the ratings come out and they move on. Nothing changes but the headline. None of these things are out of the ordinary, nor did they markedly increase in meaningful ways before the news reported on the 'crisis.'

NBC are the scumbags who showed the Seung Hui Cho's video before the VaTech shooting victims' bodies were even cold, even adding a proud peacock logo to it before distribution. As such, it comes as no surprise that their "news" division deems this crap fit for TV. Frankly, I hope that someone entraps their entire news division management on unrelated crimes as revenge, starting with Steve Capus.

So, you know with 100% certainty that some of these guys did not suspect it was Dateline and for some warped reason you or I could never understand, wanted to be on national TV? How could you know that they were 100% convinced they were going to have sex with a 14 year old if there was no 14 year old and no sex?

Nobody is defending the lowlifes that prey on kids. And nobody is protecting criminals. But I'm not willing to put blind faith in the lawyers and producers looking for ratings at any cost showing us what they want us to see and believe. I'm not willing to put that blind faith in any sting operation who's purpose is to drive up numbers for whatever reason. In Dateline, these people communicated with an adult and went to meet an adult. That's what actually happened regardless of what could have happened or what they thought was happening.

At the end of the day, what actually happened was these people communicated with and went to meet an adult. That is not a crime. The sting operation is based on people pretending to be something they aren't. However, the accused cannot be afforded that same defense.

Seems to get faster each day now Sleeper. I would counter more with the Frog in the pot of boiling water there Bub.
Bit by bit and inch by inch, people like you gladly give it all away just so you can nab at best a handful of people.
and when it comes to the act of anything criminal Sleeper, until the actual deed is done how can you be sure. While i wouldn't take the chances with kiddie hunters Sleeper, many is the time I have come close to doing something illegal or even--- for the religious--- 'immoral', to decide at the breakpoint it was not right and turn away.
Seems many these days think that even consideration and temptations are enough for a conviction.

I would love a ticket off the Slope Ride Sleeper--so howzabout yous guys stop greasing the skids.

Since you're using it to butress an argument, I just thought I'd point out that the frog in boiling water is an urban myth. Frogs aren't that stupid. As for people, well, you have me there.

That may already be happening. Under a Texas law passed in 2005, the individual does not have to be a minor, only that the alleged perp believes this to be the case.



Here are some interesting items that are not defenses for online solicitation. It sounds like Texas may have written it’s statute along the lines of “To Catch a Predator.”

It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection C
that:
(1) the meeting did not occur;
(2) the actor did not intend for the meeting to occur;
or
(3) the actor was engaged in a fantasy at the time of commission of the offense.


http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000033.00.htm

Edited to add:



You can style this as you wish Sleeper. Nobody has expressed much sympathy for the pathetic characters who get caught.

Another way of looking at the issue is making sure due process doesn't get swept under the rug because of we have an emotional issue.

This is insane. The Texas legislature has made it illegal for someone to have a fantasy and chat about it online? That is the very definition of thought crime, and cannot possibly be constitutional. What next, start arrresting authors and moviemakers? Arresting kids who pass notes to each other?

If I recall, the child online protection bill (or maybe it was the online decency bill or whatever) that Congress passed was ruled unconstitutional in part because of the provision regarding 'simulated' this-and-that. If there is no real child and no real harm, there is no crime. No sex with no kid cannot be criminal. Go solve real crimes and get out of people's heads.

A little bit of experiance here- I have worked with pedophiles for 20 years. There needs to be an 'out" in these laws similar to the entrappment cases I posted earlier-just the "gotchya" shouldn't be enough to convict- but it SHOULD be enough for a nice fat search warrant- you see, I have NEVER seen a pedophile without an "orgy of evidence"- thousands of pages porn, a line of victims that come forward after the initial arrest, several arrests in the past for "minor" sex crimes (meaning- misdemeanor exposure or something)

I have NEVER seen a single pedophile in all my 20 years that had just one little "episode" by the time they are 25 years old.

OK then. But what if the guy isn't a pedophile. What if they get a warrant and find nothing. It was all just an online fantasy, and for whatever reason he went to meet the "girl" (who may or may not be a girl). Now he's plastered all over network TV. Is that justice? Your "out" clause helps with the legal issue, but the guy still has his life ruined by NBC.

Exactly. It is my understanding that the men "busted" on this show do not end up getting arrested. It is more of an exposure.



Well, in my opinion, there is a difference between the 24 year old man going to meet the 14 year old girl, as opposed to the 50 year old man going to meet the 14 year old boy. The latter is a thousand times worse. Do you really think for a moment that the act would not take place if Chris Hansen weren't there and the girl or boy was a legitimate minor. Men show up with beer, condoms, you name it. Some drive for HOURS. They are there to do the deed.

That's simply not true. Except for the first couple of episodes, the alleged perps are arrested. NBC cameras are rolling as cops with guns drawn shout "get on the ground" or "hands behind your back." The Dateline crew has actually run footage of the men at the police station and at arraignment.

Oh, okay. All the better!! These men should have kept it to the internet. I have absolutely zero sympathy for any of them. Neither should you.

Watch the end - about the 6 min. 15 sec. point of this Youtube video It is representative of the arrest that happens after Hansen's interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_kADup_wZw

DP= to be fair- they guys are losers- but I would be very interested to hear or see the entire transcripts. These "decoys" can be very sophisticated in thier entrappment techniques- as evidenced by 14 of the charged in Texas being dropped.

In a situation like Texas- for so many charges to be dropped- I would hazard that these guys were set up and possibly didn't even believe the person was underage- just some kinky roll playing.

Consider this DP- If I describe myself as a 6'2" tall dark haired hard body- do you automatically expect that to be true? - but, just for kicks, it happens to be what you like, and you engage in some harmless sexual roll playing- there are millions of poeple doing this everyday.

When it comes time to meet, frequently there is the expectation that the person will probably NOT be exactly as described, and perhaps REALLY not even close

But you go to meet hoping for some kind of connection anyway- there are mulit-billion dollar "mainstream" sites for dating, and lots of just sex-hook-up sites.

So- no, if the dude (or dudette,those chicks will be next, there is nearly as many female pedophiles as male pedophiles- they are just not pursued like male ones, I see lots of them in counselling, they are just accepted by society, but no less predatory or damaging, I will start a thread on this later )

So anyway- if there is 0 evidence that the alledged perp has participated in anything illegal, I would not want to see thier lives ruined, and, in fact, I am hoping that Dateline gets sued to the point it goes off the air. I have also been around TV enough to know that you can slant anything you want to make ANYONE seem like a monster of epic proportions- that is how reality TV is working so well today- there is 1 minute of actual show you see to ever240 minutes of taping!

How many minutes are left out? Etc etc etc.

I am totally okay with arresting and exposing pedophiles AFTER a conviction, when further evidence is obtained.

I think, in this situation, we need a new law similar to Britians that allow alleged perps IDs to be revealed only if a conviction is obtained- because it really boils down to a massive punishment without due process.

And DP- the main key to a free society is due process.

I can take great pride in saying that the team I work with has never failed to "get our perp" (male and female pedophiles) and send them to jail. - you really barely even need dateline if there is good police work being done in the region with some national communication. But we used due process everytime.

I am very much for a british style law (IIRC) of not allowing the perp, if a private citizen ( I think politicians and celebrities ae excempt from this protection, and rightfully so) is arrested, then thier identity should be protected until a plea agreement or conviction is obtained, then there are no holds barred!

A while back, the sexual offender registry was created to control the "slimeballs" you refer to (a term I can't disagree with).

Right now, that list is useless in my opinion. People are on that list that did nothing sexual in nature, but were engaged in some other type of activity common to sexual misconduct. For example, urinating in public. You can now end up on that list now for getting caught peeing in public. Back in my younger days when partying was my full time profession, I wouldn't hesitate to walk behind a building to get rid of some of the beer I was renting. I wouldn't have ever dreamed about any kind of sexual misconduct ever. But that doesn't matter anymore. I could have been forced to register as a sexual offender because I couldn't hold my beer.

Even disorderly conduct in some cases or even an argument with your wife could put you on that list because somebody decided that behavior was consistent with sexual offense behavior. These are only a couple examples off the top of my head but I'm sure there are many more.

Everybody in my neighborhood was up in arms because they got the email from the city about a sexual offender that just moved in across the street from us. Instead of freaking out, I looked into it and it was because of a domestic dispute charge. There was nothing sexual in nature. But everybody in the neighborhood just KNEW the guy was a guilty as hell pedophile.

No offense Sleeper, but that slippery slope train has already left the station.

I just watched that clip along with a few others on youtube. Some of those guys seem literally retarded. I may be overestimating the sophistication of teenage girls, but "boot fetish guy" wouldn't have gotten anywhere near a real girl, on a computer or otherwise. I'm again agreeing with Wertz, who earlier asked "Do the majority of online predation crimes involve decoys?"

Since this is a media thread, I'll just add that I'm very glad I don't rely on television for much of my news or entertainment. Those who get off watching these guys get busted probably have some issues to deal with themselves.

This subject makes me think of the 2002 Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition. The Supreme Court decision made it possible to prosecute those who had fake child pornography the same as those who have real child pornography.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court made a bad decision. Child Pornography is a crime when children are harmed, not because of the fantasy in one's head.

I have played games where I have shot people and killed them. I do not shoot real people. It should not be a crime to shoot fake people.

The parallel with this topic thread are similar. Can or should someone be prosecuted when they think they are committing a crime but are not? The Supreme Court decision seems to indicate so. The Supreme Court seems to think there are heinous crimes where even pretending is criminal.

We should not be criminalizing thought, even heinous thought. We should not be criminalizing fantasy actions.

Pedophiles are a scourge on society. That does not justify any attempts to criminalize thought.

NBC does not seem to have committed any crimes nor has any of those they deceived.

Actually, I referred to this case earlier (and mis-remembered what it was). However, Ashcroft lost that case. The 9th Circuit ruled against the 'virtual' portion, and the SCOTUS ultimately agreed with them.

I stand corrected on the outcome.

1. Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

About as legitimate as notifying deadbeat dads they’ve won a prize and all they have to do is appear at a certain location to claim it, and busting them when they do. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re stupid enough to solicit a minor for sex (or someone you believe to be a minor) over the internet, you deserve whatever you get. The really dangerous predators are too smart to get caught like that.

What I don’t like is the breathless, voyeuristic, prurient nature of the program. I watched the first couple of shows, but it’s essentially the same thing over and over again. Aside from being downright depressing that there are so many grown men in just about every profession that want to have sex with kids, I’m not going to support that kind of TV by watching.

2. Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?

As others have noted, entrapment is tough to define. Obviously, some police departments are willing to take part in these televised stings. What I don’t get is that when the police use undercover officers in drug and prostitution stings, the perpetrator has to actually complete an illegal transaction before he can be arrested (disclaimer: I am not advocating that they wait for the guy to actually assault a child, just something more than him arriving at a particular location where a minor doesn't even live.). The Dateline stings fall into some ambiguous territory, as evidenced by the number of arrests that have been thrown out for various reasons. This show is not really about justice anymore; it’s about playing to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.


Unnecessary cheap shot. Moderator, moderate thyself.

Yeah, I haven't had time to post, we're getting ready for a road trip, but I thought Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was decided against the government. And

It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection C that:
(1) the meeting did not occur;
(2) the actor did not intend for the meeting to occur; or
(3) the actor was engaged in a fantasy at the time of commission of the offense.

Is bloody crazy. Keep up your reasoned reputation, Texas. Defendants basically have no defense here. I'm sure this new law will be challenged and if struck down I'm sure somehow liberals will be to blame.

I only paid attention to the first Dateline show and couldn't believe these guys were showing up. I didn't know Dateline was so invested in the series that it decided to fund Perverted Justice's operation, among other details. I guess I can back down on the statement that potential pedophiles don't have an entrapment defense if the decoy initiates contact because of legal technicalities, although I still think (a) you're a goddamn idiot if you don't take people at their word when they tell you they're underage, and (b) I still don't have a problem with stings run by police as long as the perp shows up.

It can get ridiculous both ways. If this type of sting isn't "legal" because there is no real underage child, why shouldn't bait cars (honey traps) used to catch car jackers and 18-year-olds informants asking adults to buy alcohol for them also be illegal? If you cannot call the accused a rapist in court because it may bias the jury, how long until you can't call a murderer a murderer and a thief a thief? (Hah, or maybe adult sexual assault victims will forever remain in a suspicious class by themselves.)

Where do the scales balance? It's irrational to insist a minor actually place him or herself in harm's way so our aversion to thought crime isn't evoked. Law enforcement can't make honey traps out of children without breaking the law themselves.

I feel exactly the same way! I was channel surfing one evening and had no idea what was actually occurring for a few minutes. I don't like the idea of putting these stings on television. IMO television programming is at an all time low anyway, and televising these stings just adds to it! RATINGS, RATINGS, RATINGS is all it's ever about!! If the live news isn't alarming enough for us, now we even have other forms of disgusting reality TV. Isn't it grand?

1. Do you think this operation is a legitimate police procedure? Why or why not?

2. Do you think Hansen and his crew are entrapping people with their sting operation? If so, is it worth it?
Any sort of entrapment scheme is not legitimate police work. Policing should be reactive not proactive. There is no proof that these people would be out molesting children if these Scum Bag pigs weren't out there trolling for them. At worst they beat off to pictures of young children. Can they prove these guys are actually a threat to kids? If not, then you are taking free people off the street for their thoughts and fantasies. Again, a real shame that the "Greatest Country in the World" that talks about "Freedom of Speech" like it's what sets us apart from the rest of the barbarian hordes is controlling your thoughts. Sad and shameful.

Hansen is a big fake. There is no kid. He starts reading off what these people wrote and starts talking about how these people want to do things to this child. First he embarasses the guy, then they throw him in jail. Does this strike anyone as odd that these people spend time in jail for fantasizing about a child that doesn't even exist? Thought crimes? A little scary if you think about it, but then again, thinking seems to be the crime, so don't do that.

Okay, but if you were a law-abiding, non-pedophile wouldn't you say game over when you find out your on-line partner is underage? There's role-playing and then there is potential law-breaking.



Well, listen, I have some empathy for the guy in his early 20's who thinks he's meeting a 15 year old. My husband happens to be almost 14 years older than me, so I understand sometimes age spans are irrelevant. However, there are laws in place and we must abide by them. There is no excuse for a 50 year old man to be going to see a 13 year old boy or girl. It's disgusting and wrong on any level. Period.




Hmmmm. I find it very hard to believe there are just as many female pedophiles.

There is no defense of pedophilia in this thread, Amlord - by me or anyone else.

This is one of the problems with discussions regarding laws that involve people who arouse contempt among most of us. Our judgment can become so clouded by emotion that it is impossible - for some people, at least - to even approach the discussion rationally. Seeing such irrationality - and in such an ugly form - coming from long-term and occasionally level-headed members is always disappointing, regardless of their position on the staff.

It is also disappointing to see this pattern yet again in our law-making - and I refer not only to the Texas laws cited above, but all of the jurisdictions that allow for prosecutions based on what a suspect believes to be true or knowingly pretends to be true rather than what is true.

As a few have already pointed out here, this is a slippery slope. Our country has a long, depressing history of invasive legislation arising from the delusions of crowds. The Mann Act, for example, which is now used for prosecuting interstate prostitution as well as sex between consenting adults (especially if the male is black and the female is not) grew out of the hysteria surrounding a non-existent "white slavery" myth drummed up by racists and xenophobes. The Comstock Act, which prohibited the sale of contraceptives in the US for over sixty years, arose from hysteria whipped up about mythical deliveries of obscene materials to unsuspecting families - with children!

Hysteria has fueled all kinds of campaigns and all kinds of legislation, usually protecting an assumed "us" from a targeted - and fearful - "them": witches, Jews, the Irish, blacks, prostitutes, communists, drug addicts, organized crime, Japanese-Americans, homosexuals, gangs, pornographers, terrorists, smokers, online predators, Mexicans, rappers, Chinese toy manufacturers, Republican Senators - you name it. Such creatures are usually "behind" perceived public threats - and they have been used as the justification for Jim Crow, Prohibition, the HUAC hearings, the War on Drugs, the War on "the War on Christmas" and numerous other, more insidious, movements - and laws.

Sometimes the threat is genuine. Regardless, when public hysteria is induced, we all too often rush to judgment - or, worse, to legislation - often open to broad interpretation, abuse, and - almost always - an expansion of the power of the government, especially the federal government. And allowing the federal government to become ever more intrusive into our private lives can have long-term consequences that are difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It's similar to the way in which presidential power and the notion of the "unitary executive" have been gaining footholds over the past several decades to the extent that we now blithely accept things that would have led our founders to a second revolt.

Little by little, civil liberties in this country are being chipped away; little by little, our Constitution is being redacted. Few are doing anything to stop it and many (often with heinous agendas) are championing it. To me, that's even more disgusting than some of Dateline's oft-quoted chat sessions.

So where are we headed here? We have numerous participants at AD who have no problem with ubiquitous surveillance cameras, no problem with warrantless wire-tapping, no problem with politicizing prosecutions, no problem with suspending habeus corpus, no problem with using torture, no problem with an executive openly flouting the law, no problem with aggressive warfare, no problem with punishment absent crime, no problem with "preemptive prosecution", no problem with amateur stings by vigilantes, trial by television, and punishment without due process. What the hell. Even Hamilton and the Adams boys would find this a nightmarish dystopia.

In case you still haven't managed to figure it out on your own, Amlord, let me make this perfectly clear: I am not defending pedophiles. And I would never - ever - defend ANYONE preying on children or anyone else. I am defending our Constitution, our laws, and our system of justice. I am questioning a law that punishes a person when no actual crime has been committed. I am questioning a tactic that could result in serious offenders being let off the hook because of what amounts to shoddy, possibly illegal, "police" work. I am questioning the right of vigilante groups to set up their own sting operations with no standards and dubious practices, potentially allowing genuine predators to walk. And I am questioning a television news magazine's right to punish suspects who have not yet been arrested for a crime - never mind having been tried and found guilty.

If you wish to address any of those points - or, indeed, points that anyone else has actually raised in this debate, Amlord - knock yourself out. But do try to curb the unwarranted slurs. They seriously lower the tone - they're unfair, unworthy, and unconstructive - and they don't do much for your credibility, such as it may be.


Now, to a point actually made:
This is where trying someone for intent raises difficulties. How do you know what is in a suspect's mind? How do you know that these suspects "believe" the person they're meeting is a minor? How do you prove it? How do you know that they "think" the person is a child? How do you prove it? How do you know what their actions will be until they've acted? And how the hell do you prove that? You may be thinking about murdering me. You may even buy a gun. And you might turn up at my house with it. Should you then be arrested for murder? After all, you were acting on your impulse, not contemplating whether or not you should act on it - whether you would actually have gone through with my murder or not. But, hey - who knows? - we may be getting a serial killer off the streets.

If we're simply talking about arresting people for soliciting sex with a fictitious character (whether it was they or the work of fiction who was actually doing the soliciting), then the visit to the decoy's house is unnecessary: the solicitation is in the chat. The "pay-off" to the sting - the decoy greeting the mark and ducking out, the confrontation with Hansen, the transcripts, the cameras, the dramatic arrest in front of the house is all... circus.

If we're going to have stings like this - ideally orchestrated by the police - I'd personally prefer using them to obtain search warrants and subpoenas to prove charges, not to stage episodes of TV shows which may never result in an arrest or a conviction. I'd like to see child predators taken off the street, not paraded about as entertainment and released. I guess I'm just conservative that way.

You might have a greater eye for detail than me, but you left out the beginning portion which really throws a wrench into this whole thing:



To me, "being induced" is a wide open term and could encompass many things. Quite frankly, if a member of the Perverted Justice team wasn't on the net, it could reasonably be assumed that he wouldn't have engaged in an extensive dialogue with the person and commit a crime. Who PM'd who first? Who suggested meeting first? Where posts made by the perveted justice team to "induce" or encourage the given criminal?

On a different note, I'm surprised that we have libertarians going for this kind of thing. I thought "victimless crimes" were something that were taboo to them.

You are correct Nebraska- libertarians are very big into repealing thought crimes and victimless crimes AGAINST ADULTS- there is a recognized, by the libertarian party, ideal that says that children DO deserve extra protections that should not be afforded to adults.

I do also recognize that our justice system in regards to juveniles is completely neurotic and insane.

For instance- if the 14 year old in question robbed a bank with a 21 year old, he/she would be treated as an adult in court, and locked up for life (potentially) - but if the 14 and 21 year old have sex, then there is a crime being commited AGAINST THAT same 14 year old, that couldn't possibly be acting as an adult?

Once again, we need a law against the media publicizing names or pictures of private citizens until a conviction is obtained.

This would cure the majority of the abuses against private citizens.

Which is weirder, the libertarian arguing for thought crime to protect 'the children' when there no victim, or the libertarian arguing for prior restraint against the press publishing photos. It's like bizarro world in here.

CruisingRam, how can there be victimless crimes AGAINST ADULTS? There is no victim, adult or otherwise. Why is 'thought crime' worse if the thoughts are about children? If you are talking about this NBC show, the chicks on the show are over 18. One decoy is 20. Another is 19. Who are the child victims of the victimless thoughtcrime non-crime that didn't even happen?

I will admit there is a grey area here- and I have my own ethical dilema in regards to this- i.e- keeping predators from being able to attack children vs the very legitimate "thought crimes" argument.

There ARE protections against the press regarding private individuals and thier right to not have thier image blasted on the news without thier permission.

I would actually be for a constitutional amendment in regards to the press as far as being able to publish someone's name or image until a conviction- because, the REALITY is that the innocent are bearing consequences, in some instances ( I would cast my view on the day care facility witch hunt in Cali as an example- I forget the exact name of it, I will do a google search and post it later ) Those poeple lost everything because of an ACCUSATION and it's sensationalism on the news. They were also unfairly tainted by the public because of thier exposure on the news, in just thier appearance in a shopping mall or such, being called "chesters" and whatnot- when it was found the case against them wa really the imaginations of some quack therapists.

So- to a libertarian, the idea is protection of PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS of freedom in my case. That is why I am for curbing the rights of corporations vs rigts of individuals- the practical application is more freedom, not less.

As with catching pedophiles.

As with my posts, it has to be balanced and nuanced.

I would raise the level for getting a conviction higher, rather than go all "thought crime" as posted before. I believe the evidence presented by NBC should not be enough to convict or put thier images on TV in involuntarily. IT should lead to search warrants on the spot to go and see if we have a pattern here, to investigate and see if there are any ACTUAL victims in these alleged perps past or present.

But I am not for convicting based on NBC broadcasts, and I am not for those folks lives being ruined until a conviction either- because,obviously their is punishment meted out without any due process at all.

On the other hand, on the "balance ledger" of protection of the public issue- predators of children ARE real, and ther should be a mechanism that allows them to be charged with the "grooming" part of the action- which, these investigations by NBC is all about- there is something going beyond the "thinking" part of the crime to the "action" portion of a convictable BEHAVIOR- the grooming of the child before sex occurs- it is measurable, it is definable and it is very, very bad behavior.

But the law needs to be clear as to the grooming behavior as it is written into the law- because a portion of this this is kiddie porn, former behaviors as a juvenile, etc etc.

My main concern, is maximum freedom for all in our society, victim and "thought crime" victims.

I'm not certain if "thought crime" is what this amounts to. I will grant those who are for these sting operations that the scumbags in these examples take concrete action to try and do illegal things. A person who drives six hours to see someone whom he thinks is underage, can't really be accused of a "thought crime." One of my larger state papers carried a story about one of these winners who thought he was carrying on communication witha 15 year old girl. He drove to another town to supposedly meet her and he met the handcuffs instead. He is being charged with using a computer to entice a minor. However, how does chatting with an undercover cop constitute enticing a minor?

Maybe he drove 6 hours to be on national TV and shake Chris Hanson's hand. Maybe he was looking for the thrill of being involved in a sting operation. Maybe he actually wanted to have sex with an underage person.

Just because there are other reasons that are not plausible to you (or me), doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. People are weird and do weird things.

So, while in principle I agree with you, I just don't think the literal actions of people should be overridden by deceitful actions. The 20 year old (or however old the decoy is) was pretending to be a kid. Why is it they can use pretending to make their case, but the alleged predators are not allowed the same defense? For example, "I was only pretending to be interested in children for the following reasons...blah blah blah.".

I would like to see child predators off the streets as much as the next person. But I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt these people are child predators because all parties are lying.

I have an idea that would accomplish the same thing, but wouldn't be as sensational. No internet service is a "right". So, I think the authorities should be able to monitor all communications with any account designated as a minor. If the same behavior takes place with a real child, the police could be waiting for the guy to show up and the minute he knocks on the door, take him down. He would clearly be guilty of inappropriate behavior because a real minor exists, the minor would be protected from potential harm, and the parents can deal with some serious issues their kid has.

I'm sure there are many other ways - this is just one idea. But putting losers on TV when we don't have any idea how either weird or mentally stable they are is not an answer. This is just ratings where a problem never gets solved. And to do this, it requires everybody to be a liar.

Okay- I watched like, way too much of this Dateline show on youtube- I think there are probably 2 real predators- the rest are victims themselves. Please allow me to explain.

There is a significant portion of any society that doesn't fit in anywhere, and are always looking for some kind of "love"- family, brotherly or sexual- just some outside force that gives them some sort of external validation.

Gangs use this the best with "disaffected youth"- at least 4 poeple on that show I would characterize as "willing to do anything for anyone as long as they show some kind of interest in me"

I put these guys kinda in the class of folks like the Columbine shooters, or gang members "cannon fodder" or aryan skinheads at the lower echelons of thier org- they are easy prey for someone that shows some kind of willingness to show affection. I have seen it in 14 year old girls wanting to get pregnant so bad so that someone will HAVE to love them. Had a next door neighbor girl do that one- she is very, um, unattractive, extremely overwieght, and she was trying to screw every guy in sight so she could get that love that a child has for a mama, that unconditional love they just know a child HAS to give them.

I think what NBC is doing to those folks is completely unethical- they are victims- like that foot fetish guy- classic case of a societal outcast that is looking for any kind of external validation.

Remember, I think it was "a star is born"?- might be wrong, where sally field is saying "they love me, they really really love me"- it is this kind of deal that drives poeple to wieard behaviors.

All humans, as social animals, seems to need external validation from the "pack'- and it is very easy to get a chunk of our society to do anything for that validation, especially when they are outliers in the first place.

Update, Texas Laws That Went into Effect, September 1, 2007

Texas just toughned some of it's laws. Prison terms for online sexual conversation have increased and Texas has added the death penalty for some child crime perpetrators. Before John Roberts and Samuel Alito, I think the federal courts ultimately would have struck down the death penalty provision. Now, all bets are off.

How much have the Dateline NBC programs inspired laws in Texas and other states? That's a good question.

Certainly Republican hypocrite Mark Foley thought the programs were important. Here is what he told Joe Scarborough.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15130487/page/6/



http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/083...b.8adbf9e0.html

I can't believe that CR believes that sexual predators are victims.

Just kidding you CR-just thought you needed a good swift boating on that easily misconstruable statement.

In all seriousness, your statement leads us to the contention about these guys being entrapped doesn't it? We aren't catching the serious bad boys here. We are catching the 22 and 23 year old dopes who were rejects in high school but now, think they have a shot with some girls. While they are undoubtedly losers and the nerds in school that remind us too much of the likes of ConservPat, we need to remember one thing-how is an officer trolling for pedophiles on the net not entrapment? If the officer wasn't online, could we honestly say that the 23 year old dope who drove 5 hours to meet the beefy, undercover cop would've met someone had the cop not been in the chat room? I'm not buying it, this is a victimless crime with plenty of poor judgment making weirdos getting arrested. Heck, maybe we should employ them as janitors to clean the Minneapolis airport bathrooms or something.

Nebraska- my point is more- they may not BE predators all the time- you cast the right net, you get odd poeple doing naughty things- and you may get an actual predator or three- which is great- but I am wondering now, from seeing a couple of the men, if they are predators at all, and not being truly "entrapped"- i.e.= not something they would normally do unless someone laid it out JUST right.

Unless there is corrobarating evidence BESIDES this- as I have posted here a couple times- yes?- I would agree they are a predator- if a little older- several offenses in the past- child porn in the home, ALWAYS works with children while perhaps even having none of his own- yadda yadda- I believe a case could be made.

What my point is- I think more than a few are weak minded individuals like DR kinda pointed out- someone that is off-kilter enough to do anything to get on TV, or will break any rule from anyone that says how hawt and cool they are.

Nebraska- it is simply that I don't want arrests unless there are other evidence other than just the show. And have a ban on showing these poeple until a conviction is meted out- either by guilty plea/plea bargain down-and then a misdemeanor is okay to publish- or by conviction, at which time anything goes.

Nebraska- I am saying, that working on the prosecutors side of the tool box, I know that folks can do wierd things when enticed, and not think about the consequences much- and I also know that the criminal justice side of our social equation is frequently wrong and over-worked enough to make mistakes, based on expediancy.

IN fact, I think the cops do a better job of busting REAL on-line predators than the NBC Dateline thing.

Mostly because they go looking for the kiddie porn afficiando's first- where they should start.