Again I refer you to the PJ website, and ask you to identify in any of the hundreds of chat logs they have posted there precisely where the “seduction” occurs. The men ALWAYS are the first to bring up sex, sexual practices, sexual experience. ALWAYS. Unless by “seduction” you mean “being there,” I fail to see what you believe is seductive behavior.
Enlighten me, please. Show me the seductive practices.
First, I’ve told you my standard for reading a PJ chat log. Second, I would ask you to prove that any more than a tiny minority of 14-year-old girls would encourage, not rebuff, the average middle-aged man on the Internet, especially after seeing pictures of various parts of his body–since that’s the inherently ridiculous claim. Until you or anyone else decides to meet the burden of proof in one or both of those questions, I have nothing to discuss with you.
It breaks down a LOT further than that.
Mice also do not have a society of laws. Even if men do find 14-year-old girls attractive (and i’m not convinced that all men do), they are also aware that attempting to have sex with 14-year-old girls is against the law in our society, and that there are penalties for breaking that law.
There is also the fact that a block of cheese is a non-sentient object. By contrast, a 14-year-old girl is a sentient being who has the capacity to be harmed, physically and/or emotionally, by having sex with a grown man. Also, our society has determined (rightly or wrongly) that someone this age does not have the legal capacity or right to consent to sex, so having sex with her violates our society’s laws regarding coercion and sexual assault.
Finally, your post seems to imply that these 14-year-old girls are just dangled out there waiting for any unsuspecting passerby to take the bait, or that they actively seek out random men and ask them for sex. This just isn’t how it works. These men are seeking out chatrooms and other online locations that contain these underage girls, and are (if the evidence is to be believed) initiating the sexual aspect of the discussions.
I don’t know about you, but i spend a lot of time on the internet. I also spend a lot of time on this message board, and some others like it. I’ve also been known to look at porn on the internet. And not once, in all of that time, have i accidentally stumbled across a chatroom full of adolescent girls, nor have i ever been asked to meet an underage girl for sex. I’m pretty sure that if a wanted to have sex with a kid, i’d have to actively seek out such opportunities.
Furthermore, even if a hot 14-year-old girl sent me a semi-naked picture of herself, and invited me to her place for sex, and i KNEW for certain that she was really a girl and not some cop, i STILL wouldn’t go to her place and have sex with her, because it’s against the law.
These guys aren’t just randomly surfing the web, and then being lured in to meetings by cunning tricksters; they are actively seeking out underage girls to talk with on the internet, are broaching the subject of sex, and are then going to private homes intending to have sex with those girls.
I’ve made clear that i think the “journalistic” aspect of these stings is reprehensible, and that i think law enforcement is sacrificing its integrity by allow Chris Hansen and the other leeches to be involved, but i just don’t see how this is entrapment, in either the legal or moral sense of the word.
Yes, you have. And for any of the PJ chat logs that resulted in a conviction after a trial, your standard was met: under oath, the PJ volunteer swore that the logs represented a true and correct representation of the chat.
About two years ago, a Massachusetts state policeman was caught in such an operation. He (ex-Sgt. Brian O’Hare) had agreed to meet a “14 year old boy” (who was in reality an FBI agent) at a shopping mall. The express purpose of the liason was for Sgt. O’Hare to “teach” the boy about various sexual acts (which are too gross to mention). Sgt. O’Hare confessed to various crimes, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison (he was relieved of his duities as a policeman).
So I guess the question is: is this type of “sting” something that news organizations should be doing? I can see agencies like the FBI doing it-but a TV network?
This man (O’Hare) was ruined-hois wife divorced him, his children disowned him…and life in prison for an ex-cop can’t be pleasant!
Is this how we ought to discourage crime?
Yes - why not? It’s illegal for an adult man to meet up with a 14-year-old boy to teach him how to perform sex acts. It’s illegal for an adult to attempt to meet up with a 14-year-old boy for this purpose, too, even if he’s not successful at it. Criminalizing the act makes good sense to me. Punishing those guilty of such an act also makes good sense to me.
Sgt. O’Hare, in your example, committed a crime and got punished. I’m just fine with that.
The paper said 16 out of 25 case were dismissed. Partly because they were not in the right jurisdiction ,but also because the transcripts of the chat room conversations could not be guaranteed complete and accurate. I find the conviction rate and the crappy work done by a TV show relevant. Peoples lives are being ruined for TV ratings.
Are you actually arguing that because PJ doesn’t post chat logs on their own site that show them in a poor light that all of their sting operations are on the up and up?
The PJ people are a lot of vile things, but stupid isn’t one of them.
Do you understand the logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam?
My argument, above, relates specifically to chat logs that have been used as evidence in a prosecution, admitted into evidence because the PJ volunteer swore under oath that they were accurate.
I also mention their site as a repository of many more logs, all also demonstrating the sequence I mention of the target mentioning sex first.
Your question now suggests that they have other logs, in which they DON’T follow that protocol, but they choose not to post those logs.
OK. What’s your evidence? It’s for the proponent of a claim to provide evidence for his claim. What evidence supports the claim that they act contrary to their protocol and then refuse to post the chat logs?
Are you just judging the conviction rate based on the 25 cases in Texas?
What about the cases in other states that have resulted in successful prosecutions, because the chat logs were admitted into evidence and verified by a live witness as being accurate? Do you know how many there have been, and what their success rate is?
When the article says that “neither the police not NBC could verify the chat logs were accurate,” do you know what specific evidentiary problem existed?
Suppose I were to tell you that they couldn’t verify the chat logs because the PJ volunteer, upset with the suicide event, had refused to testify. That would mean the logs couldn’t be used… but would it mean they weren’t accurate?
For this television show only, what are the ultimate conviction rates so far?
Your question requires me to be a PJ insider to prove my theory and because I want nothing to do with these psychos, that’s not happening any time soon.
But to suggest they’ve posted all of the chat logs they have when there are no unsuccessful logs is just being stubborn. It’s possible to take the devil’s advocate position too far you know.
By the way - one of the cases that Collins County refused to prosecute, that of Asif Khokhar, is now being prosecuted by nearby Harris County. Khokhar is being charged with the solicitations he made during the chat, which were made when he was in Harris County.
Collins County certainly could have prosecuted on the same facts, since the target of the chats was within Collins County. That they chose not to suggests their motive was something other than legal sufficiency of the facts.
I’m saying that every PJ chat of which I’m aware, and every chat that has led to a successful prosecution, has followed the protocol of waiting for the target to suggest sexual activity and initiate suggestions about visits first.
The objection raised above was that the PJ volunteers “seduce” the targets. If that’s the objection, it seems very fair to require some evidence of it. You’re saying you object to a tactic that they use, but you have no evidence that it exists.
The first two episodes did not directly involve police. Offenders were permitted to leave without arrest after being interviewed on camera.
The third was in Riverside, California. 51 men were arrested. One died before trial of a heart attack. Two had charges dismissed. 48 pled guilty. The conviction rate for this episode was 94%, or 96% if you don’t count the death as an acquittal or dismissal.
Fourth, in the Greenville, Ohio sting, 18 men were arrested. 16 pled guilty. Two went to trial and were convicted. The conviction rate for that episode was 100%.
Fort Myers, Florida. 24 arrests, 21 guilty pleas and convictions, 88%.
Fortson, Georgia, 21 arrests, 16 guilty pleas and convictions, 2 cases still in progress, 84% (not counting the two).
Petaluma, California. 29 arrests. 26 convictions. 90%
Long Beach, California. 38 arrests, 32 convictions. 84%.
Murphy, Texas. 23 arrests, zero convictions (one charge pending in another county). 0%.
Flager Beach, Florida. 21 arrests. 21 guilty pleas. 100%.
Ocean County, New Jersey. 28 arrests. These took place March 28 through April 1 2007; and Louisville, Kentucky, 29 arrests, October 2007. These cases are still in the system and do not have conviction rates yet.
Or, conversely, that Collins County found the case unwinnable and Harris County’s motive is something other than legal sufficiency of the facts. What’s your motive? You seem awfully passionate about Perverted Justice.
Sure – and it might be a toss-up, or even tilt towards Collin County’s view… if they were the only numbers to be considered. But when you add in the 48 prosecutions in Riverside, the 18 in Greenville, Ohio, the 21 in Ft. Myers, Florida, the 16 in Fortson, Georgia, the 26 in Petaluma, California, the 32 in Long Beach, California, and the 21 in Flager Beach, Florida, then I’d say that as a general principle, the legal sufficiency of the PJ tactics is proven adequately.
I am passionate about the accuracy of information. The attacks on PJ here have been grounded in misinformation, misapprehensions about the law, and ungrounded speculation. That irritates me no end. Other than that, I have no particular axe to grind. I am not associated with PJ in any way. Nor with NBC. I am a former criminal defense attorney, but if anything, that should leave me more inclined to sympathize with the various accused here.
Considering the vast majority of those seemed to be plea bargains–by people stupid enough to think that a real 14-year-old girl wants their middle-aged cocks, no less–I’m not convinced.
Fair enough, I suppose.
While it’s true that the accused are not likely to be mental giants, each one of them would have been represented by counsel, who WOULD be savvy about the strength of the cases against their clients.
Moreover, not all of the cases have been pleas. And every single case that HAS gone to trial has resulted in a conviction. 100%. There have been no acquittals.
Why do you believe there is a lack of legal sufficiency, given that record?
What if when questioned, the caught man said, “Hell yes I emailed her, but I figured no 14-year-old girl would have anything to do with a 50-year-old man so I figured she was at least 25 or 30 pretending to be younger like I was pretending to be 30-40. I came over here to have consential sex with an adult who lied about her age.”
Would he have a defense?