I’ve read quite a few of these transcripts.
The overwhelming majority of these creeps are not interested in adult women. They are obsessed with “taking a young girl’s virginity”, “being her first”, and/or “showing her how to have sex”.
Ick.
Cite?
No particular cite, just info from reading a few dozen of the transcripts on perverted-justice.com* and on dateline’s site. The “I want to be your first” line is almost ubiquitous.
- Not that I am a fan, these people are vicious, unethical vigilantes and their methods are despicable.
I’m fine with cops posing as kids in Internet chat rooms to trap child molesters, but I’m kinda leery of the ‘bait car’ stuff to trap car thieves.
The difference, in my mind, lies in the severity of the consequences of a successful crime. If someone steals my car, I can take the insurance money and buy another one. If someone molests a child, the child will likely be messed up for a good chunk of his/her life. The consequences are severe enough that it’s important to catch such predators before anyone’s a victim.
Similarly when someone makes noises about needing a hit man. Far better for them to get tossed into the pokey after contacting a cop posing as a ‘hit man’ than finding a real one, and getting imprisoned after their intended victim is successfully bumped off.
But leaving a bicycle out…that’s just ridiculous. Whoever steals an unlocked bicycle left in a public place, is only trivially stealing it from its owner, because the owner’s never going to see it again even if they let someone else do the honors.
However, I’m not sure it indicates the true motivation of these guys; it could just be a line they think will be effective in manipulating their victim.
I was wondering - is there really that much difference in prowling for 15 year old girls, versus for 18-year-olds? Sure there’s some difference, because the girls will mature in those three years, but society views one case as despicable and revolting, while the other is acceptable.
I thought about that because my wife expressed her disgust with me thinking that Julianne Hough is a hottie - I’m 47, she’s 19, and I have a 19 year old niece! What a perv I am! On the other hand, I was reading the book Why Beautiful People Have More Girls and it points out that my brain is hard-wired to be attracted to youthfulness in women, while my wife’s brain isn’t wired to be attracted to the corresponding youthfulness in men.
I don’t think I’d go as far as saying that 40-year-olds trying to pick 18 year old girls on the internet would be acceptable, even if it is legal.
Nothing wrong with finding 19 year old supermodels sexy. What are we, made of wood? But, “hey, baby, let me be ur 1st!!!111!!” signed, hunkydude47 is a little past the pale, no?
I can’t really answer all your questions, but if it helps any, the other common trait with these guys is hoping the victims don’t “have any hair down there” yet. Which is a trait usually associated with children who have not yet achieved puberty. :rolleyes:
Theres a difference between molesting a child and having sex with a willing teenager. Im sure a 13yo that has sex with a 30yo would regret it, but i strongly disagree that the child will be messed up for “a good chunk of his/her life”, hell if we are talking about a male i have a hard time believing it would be a negative experience at all. The “to catch a predator” guys aren’t pretending to be five year olds, hell in one episode they were using pictures of miss america as their bait.
The major problem i have with this is it makes people think they are getting rid of “child molesters” when in reality its just sick or lonely creepy people. Child molesters are uncles, friends, neighbors, sometimes parents or siblings, NOT creepy internet guys in the VAST mayority of cases. Making people worry about the wrong things is not the way to protect children.
Um…oh nevermind. 
p.s. Interesting comment/username juxtaposition. 
Yeah.
I uh … planned that.
Really?
I’m glad I hate children. 
Uh, yes really. We are talking about consensual sex here, and while i understand its not legally valid and why it is that way i just don’t understand why anyone thinks they are so terribly harmed by it. I’m not saying its a good idea and it should be encouraged by any means, just that a kid who makes a bad choice and sleeps with some creep is not fucked up for life because of it even in the very likely case that they come to regret it later.
I am of the opposite view.
“Entrap” someone for car or bicylce theft and it aint gonna ruin thier life.
“Entrap” some for trying (possibly) to get “some young stuff” and their life is pretty much ruined.
Or perhaps they thought that the person was just pretending to be a sexy teen (many are) and were just going along for the fantasy.
OTOH, is it so evil for a teen to contact another teen “for the purpose of having sex with them”? A 19yo contacting a 17yo?
Or as astro sez "is that apparently there are a number of surprisingly young teen girls who are quite sexual (ie horny) and want older male attention. "
I saw something on TV once (I think a local news show or something) that showed cops doing just that. They’d leave a car sitting around with the keys in it, then arrest anyone who tried to steal it. It was surprsing how many would try.
I think it’s legally different from the Perverted Justice bust becuase the people stealing the cars really are stealing the cars. They’re not just planning to steal a car that they think exists but doesn’t.
As well it should be, in my opinion.
I agree.
IFF the “entrapment” is about as on the up and up as it possibly can be.
When someones life is on the line, I hold the standards of legal system to a much higher standard of “rightness”.
Apparently the Indiana Supremes declined to review this case, so it’s “…a subsequent one…” at this point.
Needless to say, I agree with your comments and with the dissent in Gibbs.
Gibbs’ result is apparently compelled by an Indiana Court of Appeals decision from last year, Aplin.
I’m especially disturbed by the following language in the majority opinion:
In other words, the Court of Appeals says, Aplin is right because our Supreme Court didn’t take the case and overturn it. But the dissent points out:
The general proposition at issue is whether the crime of attempt can be satisfied without an actual victim. The federal courts and other states that have considered the issue have found that it does. Obviously, it’s for Indiana’s courts to say what the law is in Indiana; in this case, the Court of Appeals is using some downright shaky reasoning. I would hope that the Indiana Supremes step up to the plate at some point and shitcan this line of thought.
Uh, no we’re not. By law a child cannot “consent” to sex because a child cannot understand the repercussions of said act.
So if a 13 year girl old is psychologically manipulated into having sex with a 55 year old, who not only impregnantes her but also gives her multiple STDs (cus the kid had no idea about condoms), that’s no big deal? That won’t mess the kid up for “a good chunk of his/her life”?
If you really believe that, you really need to [Chris Hanson]go have a seat over there.[/Chris Hanson]