DATELINE: Has Catching Perverts Gone too far? [ed. title]

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Shamozzle

Is that entrapment?

I don’t know enough about this practice to give it a blanket endorsement or not to, but it doesn’t sound objectionable to me, because the popularly stolen models are also popular cars in general. In San Diego, Hondas are probably the most popular for car thieves and car owners alike. If there are seven Hondas parked on a city block, and the thief happens upon the one that was planted there, there’s nothing wrong with that, assuming the car didn’t call out “Hey! Steal me! I’m here for you, for free! You can do whatever you want with me? Doesn’t that sound awesome?”

@Shamozzle

But even if it was entrapment, I don’t care. I mean, if I walked down the street and came across a Ferrari with its motor running, the door open, and nobody around, would I jump in and race away with it? No. Why? Because I’m not a car thief. I don’t take things that don’t belong to me. Whether or not I take things has nothing to do with how easy it would be, who might know, or how I might be punished. I don’t do it because its wrong.

So who cares if they are trapping people.

The point is that it’s not that black-and-white. You may not jump into that Ferrari, but it’s easy for someone in a bad situation to make a slight compromise on their moral system and do something that they would never do otherwise. It might very well be conceivable that someone who just had his car repossessed, stands to lose his job if he can’t find another means of transportation, doesn’t have enough cash around for a trolley pass and is struggling to make the rent, maybe, just maybe, that guy will struggle with it. At that point, it is a legitimate moral dilemma for that person in that situation, and that person might do something they would regret, or that they wouldn’t do otherwise.

When that thing they’re lured into means they have to jump on a sex offender list and face hardship and discrimination in every single endeavor in the rest of their lives, that’s a big deal. Especially when it distracts (money, time, attention, publicity, etc.) away from the efforts to snap up the people who actually commit sex crimes.

[Der_Trihs]

@Shamozzle

Does it work as an analogy because it is a crime?

No, since the question of the OP and much of this thread is essentially a moral one, not a legal one.

[Zoe]

Miller: I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you arguing that, under the law, there should be no difference between rape as violent assault, and rape as sex between two consenting parties where one party is not legally capable of consent?

No. I think that in sentencing, violent assault should always be considered. And so should the age of the younger person in statutory rape. And, for that matter, the age difference should be considered too.

But it is statutory rape. It is not rape lite. Take it to mean: Like it or not, you must assume that this person cannot consent to sex.

In this discussion Czarcasm wanted the distinction drawn. Someone even mentioned statutory rate as opposed to “real rape.” It’s that attitude that encourages some guys to think of fourteen year old girls as fair game especially when the girls are enticing them into sex. Well, they aren’t fair game even then. I feel sorry for teenage guys in those situations. But I don’t feel sorry for the men who show up on Dateline who know better and should have more self control.

Miller: Has anyone in this thread argued differently? Has anyone expressed sympathy for these slimey bastards? I don’t think so. I know I sure haven’t.

You are correct; you have not. One or two others have portrayed them as victims. I agree that when there is actual entrapment, they are victims of that alone. But in situations where they think the girl is fourteen and they allow themselves to think with their crotches as Der Trihs put it, the male is responsible for his own actions. (DT was not one of those I was thinking of.)

Der Trihs: …even a fourteen year old can manipulate a man who’s letting his crotch do his thinking for him.

There’s the answer. He shouldn’t be thinking with his crotch. Seriously, some men will blame the female with, “I saw the way you were looking at me. I knew you wanted it.” Or he will claim that the girl manipulated him by wearing a dress that shows cleavage. His crotch’s idea of manipulation may be her idea of a cool new outfit that has nothing to do with a desire to attract a guy for sex.

fetus: I bet most of these guys–considering that they’re stupid enough to actually believe that a 14-year-old girl is begging them for sex on the Internet–probably don’t know that they could plead not guilty and walk.

You may be right about that. And I notice that there are some people that may be new to our culture and unfamiliar with our legal system. I know you well enough, I think, to know that your concern is for fairness.

I can’t help but wonder about those men who are already in treatment for sexual addictions. If they have never been arrested before and have sought help on their own for their impulses, wouldn’t that stand in their favor? Getting help would have to be one of the most important factors.

[Shamozzle]

@Hostile Dialect

I don’t know enough about this practice to give it a blanket endorsement or not to, but it doesn’t sound objectionable to me, because the popularly stolen models are also popular cars in general. In San Diego, Hondas are probably the most popular for car thieves and car owners alike. If there are seven Hondas parked on a city block, and the thief happens upon the one that was planted there, there’s nothing wrong with that, assuming the car didn’t call out “Hey! Steal me! I’m here for you, for free! You can do whatever you want with me? Doesn’t that sound awesome?”

The point is that it’s not that black-and-white. You may not jump into that Ferrari, but it’s easy for someone in a bad situation to make a slight compromise on their moral system and do something that they would never do otherwise. It might very well be conceivable that someone who just had his car repossessed, stands to lose his job if he can’t find another means of transportation, doesn’t have enough cash around for a trolley pass and is struggling to make the rent, maybe, just maybe, that guy will struggle with it. At that point, it is a legitimate moral dilemma for that person in that situation, and that person might do something they would regret, or that they wouldn’t do otherwise.

When that thing they’re lured into means they have to jump on a sex offender list and face hardship and discrimination in every single endeavor in the rest of their lives, that’s a big deal. Especially when it distracts (money, time, attention, publicity, etc.) away from the efforts to snap up the people who actually commit sex crimes.

Interesting.

Ok, so then is it fair to say that the guys who show up at the door of the entrapment house are at the least people who, for whatever reason, are in a bad place mentally and/or emotionally (and at the worst grievous sexual predators) and therefore it’s a good thing that they are being identified to the authorities so that they might at least get some help? Not that they are getting help (I don’t know), but would entrapment be a bad idea if they subsequently got some help? Would the end justify the means in this case?

As to the point you made regarding the displacement of limited resources, I can see what you are saying. I wonder what portion of those entrapped are people who have actually committed or will commit sex crimes.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Shamozzle

Ok, so then is it fair to say that the guys who show up at the door of the entrapment house are at the least people who, for whatever reason, are in a bad place mentally and/or emotionally (and at the worst grievous sexual predators) and therefore it’s a good thing that they are being identified to the authorities so that they might at least get some help? Not that they are getting help (I don’t know), but would entrapment be a bad idea if they subsequently got some help? Would the end justify the means in this case?

I think that would be fair.

@Shamozzle

As to the point you made regarding the displacement of limited resources, I can see what you are saying. I wonder what portion of those entrapped are people who have actually committed or will commit sex crimes.

I’ve certainly made my point, then. I’m glad you’re open-minded enough to acknowledge this, and I apologize for implying that you were intentionally playing dirty pool.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Hostile Dialect

Hanson and crew are just as evil as most of the men they snag.

I KNEW Hanson snagged men. I don’t know about evil, but M’Bop was certainly awful.

[Ocean_Annie]

@Hostile Dialect

to encourage people to steal it when they may not have set out to steal a car in the first place?

If not, that’s not entrapment.

This is the crux of entrapment.

I did not see the Frontline episode dealing with the NBC investigation nor have I read the techniques used to catch the men. I can say the focus on shaming the men reminded me of a Hawthorn story and the Puritans. I don’t condone mature men seeking sex with young teens, but I don’t understand what was gained by humiliating those men and ruining their lives before a crime was even committed.

[Der_Trihs]

@Zoe

But it is statutory rape. It is not rape lite. Take it to mean: Like it or not, you must assume that this person cannot consent to sex.

No. It is not rape in any but the legal sense, and calling it such trivializes the real thing. They are perfectly capable of consenting to sex; the fact that their judgement in doing so probably isn’t good doesn’t mean that they haven’t. Claiming otherwise is grossly insulting to them, and leads to a complete distortion how people react to such situations. And often to trauma to the “kids” we are “protecting”, not that most people seem to actually care about them.

@Zoe

In this discussion Czarcasm wanted the distinction drawn. Someone even mentioned statutory rate as opposed to “real rape.” It’s that attitude that encourages some guys to think of fourteen year old girls as fair game especially when the girls are enticing them into sex. Well, they aren’t fair game even then. I feel sorry for teenage guys in those situations.

Complete sexism. Unless you are recommending that both boyfriend and girlfriend be thrown in jail, which you don’t appear to be doing.

@Zoe

There’s the answer. He shouldn’t be thinking with his crotch. Seriously, some men will blame the female with, “I saw the way you were looking at me. I knew you wanted it.” Or he will claim that the girl manipulated him by wearing a dress that shows cleavage. His crotch’s idea of manipulation may be her idea of a cool new outfit that has nothing to do with a desire to attract a guy for sex.

Or maybe she really is manipulating him. Or perhaps she really does want sex with an older man; not exactly a rare tendency among females. Girls are not passive lumps. And saying that men should be thinking with their crotch is true but irrelevant, since some will no matter what you do.

[cookeze]

Watching this show, I got the impression that Dateline found out that there are a number of men who hang out on teenage chat sites who get off by chatting up young girls. These men are emotionally and sexually damaged, immature, developmentally stunted, whatever. They are ineffectual and pathetic and tend to stick in the shadows.

So Dateline has devised a scheme whereby they attempt to entice some of these men out of the shadows and into camera range. When they catch some they will be able to pretend they are actual crime fighters exposing a serious problem. There is no danger to real live teenage girls here but lots of profit. And who is going to step up to the defense of these men? Hopefully, the men will plead out and therefore we can avoid courtroom time deciding just what the hell this is about, anyways.

So Dateline, along with Perverted Justice, have devised scripts to lure the men to a bait house. The person typing the scripts is an adult pretending to be a 14 year old girl who is interested in an older guy. The guy is invited over for a good time “while the parents are out” and then after being confronted by Chris Hanson, is knocked down and arrested by a cop in a tree suit. (Remember him?)

I saw one court scene where the judge said the charge was attempting to have sex with a 14 year old minor.

Problem is, we are expected to not draw a line between fiction and reality. There never were any 14 year old girls. There weren’t any parents to not be home. That was all just made up shit.

The show wants you to believe there is no difference between an actual 14 year old girl and an adult pretending to be one.

I am a male in my mid 50s. If I sent my nude photo to a young girl, the most likely response would be “You nasty old man! You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just barfed all over mine.” Every single time. It is not a pretty sight.

If I sent it to an undercover cop pretending to be a young girl, the answer would be “Wow! That makes me hot! Come over and see me, you sexy Teddy bear!” Every single time, also.

I think that it would be a good idea if these men who were caught were followed up with some kind of evaluation or treatment.
But criminal proceedings are not the answer.

But it is despicable that Dateline is using these men for their own ratings and profit.

And all the cops involved in this should
be evaluated as to their fitness for duty. Tree guy? That means you.

[dropzone]

@Hostile Dialect

As for child porn, there may well be 80,000 websites (I don’t know anything about that, so I’m going off a previous poster’s numbers), but any consumer of adult porn on the Internet knows that the same online porn clips are generally on hundreds if not thousands of different websites.

There aren’t anywhere near 80,000 kiddie porn websites and the ones I found used the same pics, the same design, the same everything. The real guys use email and Usenet, and then they are STILL usually baits that link you to legit sites full of 30-year-old “teens” wearing pigtails and school uniforms. The real teens are nearly all 18 or 19. I only managed to dig through the crosslinks and dead ends to find preteens a few times. It’s easier to find beastiality sites and almost all porn sites, for whatever taste, seem to exist as vehicles for viruses and spyware. Okay, it’s TOO easy to find beastiality sites, but does Chris Hanson give a moment’s thought to the victimized horses and Dobermans?

[Shamozzle]

@Hostile Dialect

I’ve certainly made my point, then. I’m glad you’re open-minded enough to acknowledge this, and I apologize for implying that you were intentionally playing dirty pool.

Not a problem

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Queen Bruin

it places a lot of emphasis on “people on the outside are out to hurt my kid!” and the legislation that results from that sort of mindset. There is no attention paid at all to familial child abuse.
[…]
In other words, it’s more about doing things that the public can feel all good about rather than a real solution.

What the media model does is pull a classic American trifecta. It satisfies moral outrage, prurient interest, and the market at the same time. As a society, we like things and people that do this. They gratify deep cultural urges.

[joechip236]

@5-4-Fighting

I think much of what Dateline does is entrapment. If these guys’ urges are so uncontrollable, let them set the grooming in motion and let the chips fall where they may (and should). I don’t think these men should be having this type of interaction with teenagers, but they’re closing being lured in.

I was watching an episode last night and, as they always do, they were revealing the chat log for one guy. At one point, the guy writes something to the effect of, “I don’t think I want to have sex.” The decoy writes back, "Don’t you want to have sex with me (or something similar). When asked about this, the response, since teenagers can’t consent, this wasn’t entrapment. What does one have to do with the other, especially if an of-age PO is writing it.

That’s one thing that has always bugged me about the Dateline show; they quote liberally from the guy’s side of the chat log, but reveal very little of what the decoy says. Some of the men who arrested have protested that the “girl” begged for an in-person meeting. We never see that on the show.

Dateline also never reveals how long some of these chats have been going on; it always sounds as if the meeting is the result of one chat session. If you read news reports of similar, non-televised “internet predator” stings, they often mention that the “investigation” of the evil interweb pedophile has been going on for MONTHS. That’s months of grooming the potential predator and wearing down his resistance.

It’s obvious to me that what the show does is entrapment. I think the people caught in their stings have problems and need treatment, but ruining people’s lives for the amusement of a television audience isn’t treatment.

[aruvqan]

@Shamozzle

Rape is rape, is it not? The decision to rape someone comes from within and I don’t think a rapist can pass the responsibility buck by externalizing a portion of the motivation.

Speaking as someone who had juvenile consensual sex with a man older than 21, AND as someone who was held down as an adult an forcibly raped
FUCK NO IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

I wanted to have sex with the person I chose. I certainly did NOT want to be held down and fucked by a total stranger. There is a whole world of difference.

[Dangerosa]

@aruvqan

Speaking as someone who had juvenile consensual sex with a man older than 21, AND as someone who was held down as an adult an forcibly raped

I wrote something similar three times yesterday. I’ve been the “victim” of both “crimes.” In one case I have fond memories of a choice I made with a guy I cared about who cared about me. And probably would have married me eventually if I wouldn’t have dumped him to date several guys who weren’t half as decent as he was - but who were my age (and therefore it was legal to screw around with) - I just wasn’t ready to settle down and he was.

In the other case I was violated. Fifteen years + later it still backs up on me on occation. I was abused, treated like less than human.

Not remotely similar from the victims point of view.

[Muffin]

@Shamozzle

Ok, just so we are on the same page, what are the definitions for those terms?

Rape is no longer an offence in Canada. For what is an offence, have a boo at Part V, s. 150 and following, and s.271-273 of the Criminal Code: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-46?noCookie

Below 12 is no go; above 12 may be OK if you are only a couple of years older, and if you are not in a position of authority or of trust, and there is not a dependancy or exploitive relationship; above 14 may be OK if you are not in a position of authority or of trust, and there is not a dependancy or exploitive relationship.

Note that these laws deal with sexual involvement, not just intercourse. In particular, have a look at how exploitation is set out:

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

When you put it all in context, the law here does a pretty good job of separating kids going at it like rabbits, which is not something that should be criminalized, from predation by the likes of the shitstains on the TV show in the OP. Given how the court is empowered to look at the the above four factors, the odds are that a predator will be convicted, despite the law leaving open the possiblity of there being a proper relationship between a 14 year old an adult. The key is the type of relationship (e.g. mutually loving v. predatory/exploitive).

(BTW, s. 159 was struck down about a dozen years ago. Three cheers for Bufu the Bear.)

[Muffin]

@unconventional

Adolescent development is not synchronous and physical development/maturation does not happen simultaneously with social-emotional development. I am sure there are sixteen and seventeen year old young women with more maturity than many adult men, but we have a social responsibility to provide a safe environment for all adolescents. They need a safe place to develop physically and gain social maturity and sophistication. The line has to be drawn somewhere and eighteen is the legal age in the United States.

I think that drawing the line at a single age, rather than looking at all the circumstances, is folly. Hypothetical: a couple start dating when one is 14 and the other is 15. They continue their relationship throughout high-school, such that they are dating (and enjoying a sexual relationship as is normal between kids dating in high-school) at 14/15, 15/16, 16/17, and 17/18, at which time they are engaged to be married, but the senior of the couple gets convicted for rape and labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

[Cat_Fight]

@joechip236

That’s one thing that has always bugged me about the Dateline show; they quote liberally from the guy’s side of the chat log, but reveal very little of what the decoy says. Some of the men who arrested have protested that the “girl” begged for an in-person meeting. We never see that on the show.

I’m curious about this, too (though I suspect transcripts would be wank bank fodder for many a lonely soul), and I wish these shows would mention the scores of abused kids who know their victims. I’m also a fan of Romeo and Juliet-type laws that allow for teenage boyfriends and girlfriends to not be arrested for raping one another. That being said, there is no good reason for a normal man to drive three hours in hopes of fucking a 14-year-old. No reason. If the only thing keeping most men from doing this is opportunity, and all the men featured on the show are otherwise great guys (even the one who had his kid in the car, or the ones who bring booze), then Og have mercy on our souls.

[Shamozzle]

@aruvqan

Speaking as someone who had juvenile consensual sex with a man older than 21, AND as someone who was held down as an adult an forcibly raped
FUCK NO IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

I wanted to have sex with the person I chose. I certainly did NOT want to be held down and fucked by a total stranger. There is a whole world of difference.

It’s massively horrible that that happened to you. I know that talk is cheap and I don’t expect my sentiments to mean anything to you, but, nonetheless, they’re there.

Obviously I was very unclear in making the statement “Rape is rape, isn’t it?”. I attribute my lack of clarity to brain-keyboard-message board hastiness and to my failure to account for what is lost in the printed medium with regard to voice tone, inflection, sarcasm, etc…

What I was thinking when I typed that was “Rape is a crime, whether it be statutory or forcible, and while one is tremendously more damaging than the other, both forms are crimes. I personally hold all sexual crimes as automatically grievous. They’re just a sore spot with me. So, when I’m comparing a case of forcible rape to a case of statutory rape involving, say, a 13 year-old girl, I feel that the punishments for those crime both need to be severe. Do you agree?”

That is what I was thinking at the time. No, I’m not back pedalling. That is what I thought before I asked my question and that is how I feel now.

I’m sorry if my haste and lack of clarity caused you offense.

[Dangerosa]

@Shamozzle

What I was thinking when I typed that was “Rape is a crime, whether it be statutory or forcible, and while one is tremendously more damaging than the other, both forms are crimes. I personally hold all sexual crimes as automatically grievous. They’re just a sore spot with me. So, when I’m comparing a case of forcible rape to a case of statutory rape involving, say, a 13 year-old girl, I feel that the punishments for those crime both need to be severe. Do you agree?”

That is what I was thinking at the time. No, I’m not back pedalling. That is what I thought before I asked my question and that is how I feel now.

All sex crimes? Exposing yourself in a park? Having oral sex with my husband (I think that’s still a criminal offense where I live). Purchasing a dildo in Texas? Selling Playboy to a sixteen year old boy? All these should be treated severely?