Thanks drachillix and Bricker. The only difference that I can see between the 13yo and the cocaine analogy (and I admit that it’s pretty weak) is that it is reasonable (although unlikely) that the perv could have thought that he was chatting with someone pretending to be something that they were not. And in fact, he was. He could get his rocks off on the role play. The cocaine analogy is a little different in that it would not be reasonable to think that someone was willing to buy a kilo of baking soda for a million dollars (or whatever coke is going for).
Bollocks. They are carefully executed so that they do not meet the level of luring that meets legal standards for entrapment. That does not mean there is not some level of “luring” is some cases.
I think everyone concedes that TCAP generally keeps their Ps and Qs crossed on the letter of the law. People are objecting to the spirit of the enterprise, which does not comport with the way we would like law enforcement to act.
Oh, “we” are, huh?
OK. What specific instance of behavior on TCAP’s part are you and you cohorts arguing is not consistent with how your crowd wishes law enforcement should act?
Anybody dumb enough to go to a chat room for kids and act like a pedophile assuming the person he is talking to is an adult pretending to be a kid is so stupid he belong in jail for general stupidity.
According to Wikipedia, Virginia’s age of consent laws make it a class one misdemeanor for someone who is 18 or older to have sex with a child between the ages of 15 to 17.
If that’s indeed true, it seems odd to me that an 18 year old sending an email to his/her main squeeze that they should meet up when their parents are out of town is a crime that is potentially ten times more serious than the actual fornication that may follow.
By the same token, the sexual intercourse would be a Class 1 misdemeanor but the oral foreplay would still be a felony.
I imagine that prosecutorial discretion would prevent prosecutions in the scenario you describe.
Frylock, this happens all the time in all aspects of life not just predatory and not just sexual, though sexually usually is very much more evident. Take this except:
This could be a email or chat between ‘friends’ or a boss/worker communication. The meaning is the same, as well as the warning.
Not capitalizing one’s name is to strike at their importance as a person, I had one ‘friend’ who would capitalize her name (all letters) and it was a attempt to have her placed as prominently as possible, many returned her emails with her name fully capitalized again reinforcing it.
Also not commented on in the link is the capitalized ‘DO’, in other words DO worry, a confusing message subconsciously. Confusing the victim is part of SOP.
Also notice his user name, denotes a level of command over others.
This type of stuff is far more common then most people realize, it is so blatant and normal that it goes most of the time undetected, and when pointed out is usually blown off with the victim told they are being too sensitive or some such tactic. (such as asking why they didn’t capitalize their name, usually answered with just a typo - bowing off the dimishing of their person hood as a irrelevant mistake that should not have even been brought up, which further diminishes them)
This is want I refer to as spiritual warfare, or the battle for control over one’s soul and destiny. If she submits to it she has lost control of a part of her self. In the example it is very evident she accepts his attention and she becomes a slave. Though very similar things happen in all types of relationships, with words and acts of submission having vast consequence.
Does this change my mind from my above statement? Not really, or not a immediate change except more consideration is needed on it which I do thank you for.
Combining what you’ve just said with your previous post, do I understand correctly that you’re saying the attempt to mentally dominate an abused 13 year old girl in order to make her a bdsm slave (such as is exhibited in the transcript) is the kind of “human weakness” any of us might find ourselves doing if we’re not carefully watching ourselves?
And that for this reason we should be disappointed when a guy like the one in the transcript has to deal with the problem of being imprisoned? (Since that could easily have been us in his place?)
The Perverted Justice FAQ has some good explanations.
Regarding entrapment:
Frylock I am much more saddened by the victim’s position, too much so to really consider his part and what needs to be done. Even if this is a undercover sting and she is a actor, her position is not unheard of - so is a very real situation. I am so taken back from her position I’m not able to really comment on his.
Someone so lonely that they are willing to give up themselves just to have someone in their life. It denotes a much greater problem with modern day society. That problem is where I wish to focus on to. If that can be somehow solved then this situation can’t happen. Yes it may seem idealistic, but it is how I view this.
As long as she doesn’t receive the Love that is missing in her life she will always be a slave, though it may not be as explicit. So locking him up does not help her, nor other people in her situation.
Note that, in general, prison sentences in the U.S. are unusually long compared to other nations. For instance, according to Wikipedia, “the average burglary sentence in the United States is 16 months, compared to 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England”.
I dislike people using the word “child” for people between the age of 13 and 17 for effect. Child usually refers to people under 12. In many western nations it’s perfectly legal to have sex with what you call a “child” and it’s perfectly legal for them to drive and drink alcohol.
Interesting. So logically America should have less of a crime rate one would assume…
Also there is the issue of being punished by To Catch A Predator by using their image. People say: “they were caught trying to do a bad thing, filming them is okay”.
However isn’t that at a minimum getting punished twice for the same crime?
There are protections against people being put on trial twice for the same crime. There is no rule or law I’ve ever heard of against people being punished twice for the same crime. If a guy goes to jail for robbing a bank and his wife divorces him when he gets out because she doesn’t want to be married a bank robber, is that somehow wrong because he’s being punished twice for the same crime? There’s only an issue if he’s being punished twice by the legal system, which isn’t the case in the hypothetical or with guys on the show.
Only if the fact that he robbed a bank is what legally allowed his wife to get a divorce would he be getting punished for the same crime twice.
Domestic affairs are a totally different thing. His wife can divorce him if he gets a cold-sore on his face. However a random stranger like Chris Hanson cannot lure you somewhere under false pretences and make attempts to humiliate you on national tv because of something like that. Saying you don’t like someone is not the same type of punishment, this is from a complete stranger.
In a way I see where your frankly bizarre analogy is coming from, since Chris Hanson is a private citizen and not acting on behalf of the state and shouldn’t be able to punish people anyway.
That’s exactly what I was saying, so maybe my analogy wasn’t that bizarre. The legal system punishes these people once, by putting them in jail. Whatever else happens - being on TV, being shunned, being fired, or whatever else - is not done by the justice system and isn’t a second punishment from the legal system, so there’s no legal or Constitutional issue.
Interesting point.
I think the acid test would be if we asked if would what Chris Hanson and NBC do be legal if there were no indication of any sort of crime being committed and they were just doing it for pure entertainment purposes. (is that grammar okay?!) Would it be legal to do it then?
Certainly reporters do go out and make impromptu interviews of people and broadcast them (but this is almost always to do with a state body). Also that is in a public area and not a private residence they have invited them to. Then there is the luring individuals under false pretences… people may scoff and say the false pretences was something they shouldn’t have been doing anyway, however these people aren’t law enforcement. Someone that was used in Borat actually sued the makers even though he had already signed something to say that he wouldn’t. And you often see blurred out images of people.
Sometimes legal technicalities can seem outlandish or paradoxical, however there is very often a very good reason for them.
Read some of the transcripts on PervertedJustice.com. You’ll wonder why they went to jail for only two years.
Three words you don’t have to say if you have a serious argument. I note in passing that To Catch a Predator is dead. There hasn’t been a new episode in almost four years.
I started reading Frylock’s link and it seemed so far over the top that I had to wonder about its authenticity. It would also ping many company’s NSFW filters.