tomndebb already instructed you to stop making comments like this.
Wow. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You clearly have your own issues to deal with.
At no point did I say that it had a bearing on whether or not someone was a criminal. I am sick of you and Troppus ignoring the fact that I have consistently said that any mental illness does not excuse them of their crimes.
My only concern is that jail does not reform these people.
There seems to be an irrational belief that a person with mental illness would somehow receive LESS punishment, but it is a fact they would likely spend more time in jail because they would have to prove they were mentally well:
It seems to me that you would all prefer shorter sentences where the offender never receives the proper treatment or proper evaluation upon release. Calling it mental illness does not make their actions any more sympathetic in my opinion.
As I said earlier, if one crosses the line I lose all sympathy for them, but I don’t think we should ignore any issues they may have, release them, and have them potentially re-offend.
If your own interpretation of ‘mentally ill’ is an entirely sympathetic person, with absolutely no control over their actions, then you are extremely naive.
Apparently, neither does anything else.
This is utter ignorance.
Read:
I mentioned this earlier, but it seems most people who are commenting on this thread have only read the last few pages.
Personal comments like this are not allowed in this forum. This is the last time I’m going to remind anybody of this. In the future I’m skipping ahead to warnings.
You are, as far as I can tell, making this up out of whole cloth. As far as I can tell, most everyone who’s expressed an opinion wants to see them punished for their crimes AND treated.
Everyone on TCAP crossed the line, by taking physical actions that were beyond a reasonable doubt intended to end with sex with an underaged person.
Tee point I am trying to make, is by refusing to look at this issue as one of mental health and not simple criminality, we are not doing society any favors.
If the belief of Troppus and miss elizabeth are that mental illness would make the perp more sympathetic or less likely to receive punishment, I needed to frame it in that way/
If their argument is that these people need to be punished, my argument is that they need to be punished AND treated.
My opinion has been: Yes they committed a crime - but the police may have induced the crime. Definitely 100% of them are guilty of wanting to harass a child, but would they have committed attempted rape had the decoy not been their target? I am not sure you could say that they would have beyond a reasonable doubt.
Put them in jail for harassment and get them the help they need before you release them.
But other than that, I question how many actual event of child rape/molestation have been thwarted by such practices.
I apologize if you had to decipher this.
That depends on how often chat room pedos actually learn addresses from their victims. I’d think it’d be vanishingly rare. Yet there they are, trolling for 12 year olds home alone. If they got an address from an actual 12 year old do you think they wouldn’t drive there?
Pitch this to a television exec. There’s gold in dem thar hills.
I feel like whether pedos are mentally ill or not could be a whole other thread. I don’t see what knowing right from wrong or having a successful career has anything to do with it. Sociopaths and serial killers can do that, are they not mentally ill? I’d hope (and I’m a very cynical man hater but maybe even I’m being naive?) a man wanting to have sex with a 12 year old is incredibly abnormal, falling well outside the bounds the vast majority of men’s sexual fantasies. Are there any good data on this? Maybe a penile plethysmograph study?
Yeah… I wouldn’t be so sure that all of them were lasses.
I’m not, but given it was text-based, it hardly matters.
OK, I created these by cloing my eyes and spinning the mouse scroll wheel over a list of convicted names, then taking the name closest to the top of the screen.
[ul]
[li]Raleigh, North Carolina[/li]Christopher Lord
Brings up coming for a “date,” then kissing, french kissing, fondling, wanting the 14 year old to wear a “sexy bra and panties,” and then sex – all first.
[li]Pasedena, California[/li]Gregory John Karnos
Brings up meeting, then sex – all first.
[li]Trenton, New Jersey[/li]Chris Raynor
Brings up fondling and then sex – all first.
[li]North Carolina[/li]David Wayne Forsyth
Brings up taking pictures of the 14 year old, buying her clothes, having fantasies about her, wanting to “well like kissing other parts, other then the mouth
,” all first.
[li]Mercer, Pennsylvania[/li]Alan Persch
Brings up body lubing itself for sex, and then sex itself – all first.
[li]Michigan[/li]Dennis Ray Frick
Brings up sex first, and right away.
[li]Chatham Township, New Jersey[/li]Michael D’Onofrio
Compliments the breasts of the 13 year old picture on the chatter’s profile, tells her he’s got a erection looking at it, describes himself masturbating, brings up oral sex – all first.
[li]Ohio[/li]Stephen Holt
Asks if she’s ever kissed a guy, how far she’s gone with guys, says he’d feel bad if they had sex and he hurt her but he wouldn’t mind being her first – all first.
[/ul]
This is the part that has some of us scratching our heads. You don’t seem to get that the guys went to the chatrooms to troll for victims. They were not lured. They instigated.
**Bricker **just took the challenge of looking at 8 chats at random. All of them were trolling for victims. They were not led there, they thought they were leading an underage girl there.
I looked at some of the transcripts linked to in the earlier part of the thread. It’s not that their intent is obvious, it’s that it is so obvious that anyone who denies it seems naive or disingenous.
[sub]bolding mine[/sub]
Apparently, some of the people in this thread attended the Sideshow Bob School of Law: “Attempted murder? Now, honsestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?”
I finished 4 more chats, and I didn’t record everything like Bricker did, although I should have. I’m not doing it again though; it was awful. In every one of mine the disgusting pervert brought up sex before the decoy, and I was actually surprised at how much the decoy didn’t engage or encourage anything. Most of the replies were “lol,” or “idk, lol”. It was disgusting. The stuff these guys said…
This, this, a thousand times this.
I have yet to see ANY link to ANY transcript of this kind of conversation (with a P-J or police bait) from ANY site, PJs or not, that showed the bait leading with sex instead of waiting for the perp. Never seen it. Not even once.
Thus, I feel the onus is on the people claiming entrapment to provide an example of the bait entrapping someone, instead of being passive bait.
Two people have done the research YOU should have done. Where is that admission?
Okay give me a minute, I thought it would take less time to go through these chats.
It is somewhat time-consuming, but not that bad. Just read each chat until you see that sex has been mentioned, and then see who mentioned it first. Since you presumably don’t need to take notes (as I did) to provide a reference for the chat, it should go relatively quickly.
How many chats have you looked at so far?
I went through a few for sure and partly through others.
lol @ the length of this one: http://perverted-justice.com/?archive=gjk1352 The man works fast. 
The general theme seems to be that they don’t mention it first, you are right. However I wouldn’t rule out there being at least one case of the decoy arguably bringing it up first. This could be what led the anchor to make the comment, he could vaguely be aware of that trial. Perhaps an email to perverted-justice would help, just try to get someone other than that crazy guy Xavier Von Erick who heads perverted justice (he genuinely has problems and even attacks his own people, if you do a search for him like 95% of the results are negative).
Yes, in every instance I’ve viewed recently the alleged perpetrator bring it up first.