Fascinating! The more you read Perverted Justice chat logs that don’t support your opinion, the less you trust Perverted Justice? I think you should trust your own opinion less because the evidence for your views ranges from weak to non-existent.
Isn’t it my goal as a defendant to provide reasonable doubt? Why not attack the evidence?
I would have of course fact checked prior. I would have an independent party talk to the admins of the IRC server, see if they have any connection to the group. Request access to the PJ servers to find out what they were saying in restricted parts of their message board. I would have made the case that although they were amateur investigators, they were talented with computers and possibly cite any programming background they have or any affiliation with hacking they may have (attending hacker conferences, software on their computers, etc).
So yes, I would very much focus on that and I would make sure to have evidence to back me up. Unfortunately, I think the ‘soliciting sex to a minor’ makes any convincing arguments fall flat.
They have you for harassment. Didn’t you explain to me that even if they hadn’t shown up at the houses, they are still guilty of harassing the child? Isn’t that enough to ruin one’s career?
IAmError403, if you will look over some of the transcripts from the show, you will find that Hanson often reads the chat transcript to the perpetrator on the spot, and the predators admit they wrote the words and sent the graphic photos. Not only did most of the predators bring alcohol and condoms, a couple predators disrobed upon entering the house.
Are you implying that each of these men were framed, even those who admitted they propositioned the girls, those who admitted knowing they were breaking the law, and those who admit intent to make sexual contact with the girls? How can you claim the chats were altered if the perpetrators admit on camera they typed the words?
I pulled just 3 admissions at random from this page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12503802/ns/dateline_nbc/t/parade-potential-predators-small-town/ but there are many, many more predators who admit to Chris Hanson, on camera that they typed the words in the chat log, and/or intended to have sexual contact with an underage girl.
Hansen: So maybe you would have had sex with this girl?
Wade: Maybe.
Hansen: What should happen to you Alonzo?
Wade: I should be put in jail.
Detective: Never? so you have a box of condoms with you, you’ve never had sex before, the whole plan was to have sex with this 13-year old when you got here correct?
Downhour: That was the original plan.
Detective: What did you and Kat discuss or plan specifically to do once you met, or known she was 13 years old?
Jason Schoeppner: Hang out.
Detective: Hang out, nothing else.
Schoeppner: I guess sexual stuff—kiss, rub her feet, stuff like that.
Rutherford: I never ever crossed a line like that with a person that was a student, I never even thought about it. I guess maybe online it was like they weren’t real.
Hansen: I guess the question that some people might ask is this, if you eventually evolve to the point to meet a 13-year-old girl after this…
Rutherford: It would have gotten worse.
You are behaving as though the chat logs are the only evidence which convicts the predators, when there is often an admission of bad intent, an on the spot corrberation of the chat logs, condoms/alcohol/gifts and twice: nudity.
yes, the chat logs of them blatantly encouraging harassment? They do not even consider that this harassment might not only affect the offender?
They post personal information such as addresses and phone numbers, etc. How is to say some nutjob won’t go over their and harm more than just the offender when they get there. Or possibly even someone they mistake for the offender.
I don’t actually believe that you support this, but you are taking that quote of mine WAY out of context, considering you are ascribing it to something else entirely.
I am arguing that it might not be so cut and dry in all cases. I am also making the case that giving these people so much clout is dangerous if they start abusing it to target others maliciously.
I do not like the thought of a vigilante group with no oversight deciding the fate of ANY person.
But there isn’t *just *oversight by local police, witnesses, and defense attorneys; there is a lengthy redundancy of evidence. In each of these cases you have a combination if not all of these:
The appearance of the accused at the address of what he believes to be an underage girl
-
Admission of guilt or ill intent by the accused
-
Condoms/sexual aids/alcohol on the accused’s person
-
A corroboration of chat log details by the accused
4)Pornographic photographs of the accused’s body
-
Cooperation and parallel investigation by local police
-
Attempts to plea for leniency due to mitigating factors (divorce/risk of hurting family or career/substance abuse problems, etc)
-
Nudity
-
And finally: legal defense procedure
ETA the forgot the most obvious one: videotaped evidence of most of the above as witnessed by camera crews, police, members of PJ, and every single viewer of the program which apparently has worldwide exposure.
Outside of the obviously guilty, you don’t think there are those who don’t show up without paraphernalia and claim to have expected an older female (as is the case with Roisman)? had more of these people went to trial, I think we’d have a much more disparate conviction rate.
In these cases, I am questioning the validity of the chat logs. It’s one thing for the convict to admit those were his words, but these people have the right to stay silent and I am positive that some do. I remember a specific episode I caught where the perp refused to talk, and that was the right decision IMO if you want to plead innocent, but even then you have the cards stacked against you.
If one were to go to trial, point out all the flaws of allowing a vigilante group to conduct an investigation without oversight and claim that at no point did the suspect actually believe the girl was underage based on their voice (they don’t often use real minors) and the way they conducted themselves in the conversation, I believe you would have a really strong case. But again: it’s the words ‘soliciting sex from a minor’ that will get you convicted regardless. So I guess I can’t blame them for taking plea deals to prevent a much longer jail sentence.
Right, because people are hysterical and the police entrapped the perps etc. etc. … this is still lacking in evidence.
The logs didn’t contain the stuff you said they did, so of course you’re questioning their validity. It’s the only way you can continue making your arguments in spite of the facts.
In such cases where this crosses the threshold of illegality, the “victim” is perfectly capable of filing a harassment complaint. The police are, in general, take a dim view of some of the actions that you’ve alleged that PJ is encouraging, if those actions are in fact happening.
Please provide a study showing that conviction rates are markedly higher for this type of offender compared to other offenders. A study showing a higher exoneration rate will also be acceptable.
Try to remember: Sometimes you take a plea deal because you’re afraid you’ll get wrongly convicted and the book thrown at you, and sometimes you take a plea deal because you know you’re guilty as hell.
Legally, yes, it’s a crime to offer to engage in sex with the minor, even if you don’t show up at the house. However, so far as I’m aware, no one has been convicted without that additional element of proof, because of the concerns you raise: much easier to deny that it was you on the other end of the chat line if you never show up at the house. Also much easier to claim that you thought it was all a fantasy.
Can you give me an example of anyone whose career was ruined on the basis of insufficient proof?
And please note that we’ve gone rather far afield now from the original premise of the thread, which was the persons appearing on “To Catch a Predator,” received inappropriately harsh sentences. I notice you haven’t actuallt conceded the falsity of this claim, even though you have shifted gears and are now attacking theoretical cases in which the predator doesn’t show up – something that is simply not true for the TCAP defendants.
Because “reasonable” doubt must arise from reason.
It cannot be doubt based upon inchoate, unformed suspicion. You cannot simply speculate that chat logs might have been altered, because the trier of fact will weigh that unformed speculation against the sworn testimony of the custodian of the chat logs that they are unchanged from when they were made, and in almost all cases resolve the conflict against you.
This has little to do with the heinous nature of the crime and more to do with how any rational trier of fact approaches conflicts in evidence.
In cases where the issue has gone to trial, of course the defense lawyers would have used their discovery rights to ask all those questions before trial.
But again: no trial occurs with just the chat logs as evidence. Alone, you could argue the awesome haxxor skilz of the PJ volunteers as a reason for why the accused appears to have offered to come over to the decoy’s house with condoms and wine.
But then how do you also explain that the accused actually showed up at the house with condoms and wine, and admitted on camera that he was there to have sex?
You believe that would be a really strong case?
Again let me ask what experience you have in the world of criminal law that you rely upon to judge the strength and weakness of a particular criminal case?
It isn’t “without oversight”. Local police are involved in the stings. A court of law including judge, jury and defense attorneys are there to aid the defendent in a defense.The accused often admits knowledge of the crime he is committing.
If the defendent plea bargains instead, he has no one to blame but himself, as a “jury of one’s peers” might include a jury member who feels that PJ’s tactic’s constitute entrapment, or one who feels age of consent laws are arbitrary, or one who feels an affinity for 13 year old girls, etc. Hell, you might serve on such a jury, and if you do, more power to you to exercise critical thinking and total lack of bias if that is how you perceive your personal views on sexual predation. If you are particularly concerned that the court system might be predjudiced against sexual predators: tough. The court system is predjudiced against crime in general; the system exists to enforce law and enact justice if law is broken. The court system offers mercy to those proven to be mentally ill during the commission of a crime and occasionally to first time offenders. Every other criminal is given the same chances to admit guilt or prove innocence, and I see no reason that sex offenders should be shown extra mercy. Do you?
As far as feeling sorry for those who waive Miranda rights, if the same man who has the resources to pay for access to the internet, condoms, and alcohol, the intellect to track down underage girls online and on the map, and the forethought to attempt to break the law without getting caught chooses to further incriminate himself: tough shit. He is already displaying intellect equal to or greater than the general public.
Just skim through the page I linked: admissions of guilt or ill intent are the norm. If they admit the words are their own and admit guilt of the crime, who are you to claim otherwise?
I am sorry to have sidetracked the conversation, but I was extremely upset by someone of the things I learned about this group.
Again, if you want to do these stings, make the police conduct it from beginning to end. Enforce laws preventing people from taking the law into their own hands because it’s dangerous to allow that type of behavior.
I think TCAP has elevated PJ to a level they do not deserve to be at based on some of their members’ conduct.
Do the people deserve 2 years?(To get back on subject - and you are right: it’s not something I have directly addressed. I apologize again.)
Like some of you have said, there are predators on TCAP that admit to it and some who make it very obvious they had ill intentions. There are others I am not so sure about, and as I’ve said, I think a case could be made against TCAP and PJ on many levels (how the operation is conducted, the validity of the evidence, the supposed intentions of the suspect).
The ones who admitted to wanting to have sex with a minor should be put away for however long it takes for them to be rehabilitated. I have cited studies showing that aversion techniques are effective on those with such fixations. I am also someone who does not like the concept of prisons and I do not think they are effective (statistics show that people are just as likely to re-offend after having been in prison - especially when prisoners become so accustomed to that lifestyle they purposefully commit crimes to get back into the system). Perhaps longer sentences do act as a deterrent to some crimes, but I think therapy would work better.
I don’t know that a 2 year sentence would cause an impulsive child molester to stop, but aversion therapy might. The problem is we look at simply jailing a suspect as the cheaper alternative, even though it’s less effective.
I am all for incarcerating someone if it servers a purpose: getting psychopathic murderers off the street for good; getting serial rapists off the street for good; getting impulsive child molesters/rapists off the streets for good. But I still believe they deserve any available treatments which may aid in recovery, even if it is minor or temporary.
I do not think we should necessarily release them in these cases, but it definitely worth monitoring and studying to see how we can reform the system later. Possibly we could completely cure these illnesses/abnormalities at some point. And that is what I prefer to simply jailing someone.
I will look for such a study, but I am not sure I will find one so specific.
In general though, I feel this sums up the my feelings on how people view the issue:
it’s completely irrational to think that completely taking someone’s life is equivalent to traumatizing them. While certainly victims will have to deal with it for the rest of their life, they still have their life in the very least.
Perhaps this person is a religious nut and thinks that some people who die deserve it or go to heaven. I am not sure, but I would hate to defend anyone against child molestation if jurors had similar views (which I don’t find it hard to believe that many people DO share this view).
And this is an article about how difficult it is to defend someone accused of child molestation, even if they are wrongly accused:
It’s a long read, but here are my highlights:
IAmError403, vigilante justice in varying degrees serves a purpose in society. We cannot claim that police are 100% above corruption as officers of the law commit crimes, too, sometimes using the guise of office to cover those crimes. Persons have been falsely accused by police as well as private citizens, sometimes in error, sometimes maliciously. We cannot make the claim that police forces have sufficient resources to investigate and prevent every crime. The internet is a relatively new technology, and has thus far proven difficult to thoroughly and effectively police (note the spam in your own email from other countries, for instance).
Even if some of PJ’s tactics seem sketchy to you, isn’t it better to stop sexual predators before they offend rather than after the damage is done to a child? Even if some of PJ’s tactics seem sketchy to you, isn’t the guilt of the men nabbed in the stings is indisputable once they admit guilt? Weren’t each of the accused was given the same chance to defend their actions that every other person in this country is given, with access to the same resources and process?
OK, let’s look at the evidence. Which ones are you not so sure about?
Give me a specific case that you feel was wobbly in some way. Perhaps by going over the evidence I can come to understand what troubles you about it.
Even your cite admitted that aversion therapies worked only up to about the two year mark, and did not work well for longer periods.
I think you are drifting further from the field here. Or are you just trying to move the goalposts? Because none of US are talking about what you seem to be talking about.
They didn’t do it. They were framed by PJ. They were entrapped by the cops. Even they fought the case they would lose becasue they were framed and entrapped and jurors are just so hysterical about anything to do with molestation. AND jurors want them DEAD now!! Does that about cover it?
Hold on there a second Bricker.
We/you DO have reason to believe it exists, because the anchor said it. Why would the anchor just make that up out of thin air? The anchor sat down and wrote that. I still believe that at least one case does exist like that that he was aware of and that is why he said it. Maybe you still believe it doesn’t exist, however the fact that the anchor man said it at least gives us REASON to believe that it exists.
This is completely false. In the phone calls they clearly beg, they clearly lure. Listen to the phone calls. There is a lot of persuasion for them to come over, they are vastly different to the chats. They REALLY want them to come over. Anyone who has seen the show a number of times can attest to this. Once on the phone their goal is to try to get them to come over.
What do you not understand about the phone calls? I even linked to an example of the begging that took place over the phone. They called them multiple times at their home begging them to come over.
You made me reassess some things I originally said, now maybe you need to do a u-turn and admit that YOU were wrong in this post. And it’s really a shame you had to ruin your satisfaction of being right in your very next post after the research you did taking up the challenge, just for the sake of arguing with me again. I’m not bringing up the link I already posted again, it’s already in the thread. It was a youtube link, search for that and it should be easy to find it. There are also instances of it in every episode, they don’t try to hide it.