I acknowledged this in saying that this person actor represents many real people in such a situation. So yes this is pretend but representative of a real issue and a real problem. And note that even though it was a act, it still went into the root issue, family issues.
I did address that as well, I feel too much for the victim here to comment too much on the predator, except he was using very manipulative and very common tactics used in many aspects of life including work and social activities to reduce a person to the status of a slave and diminish their personhood.
Following up to the mention of “wonderland” above, I read this news story from 2001. One of the perpetrators was nicknamed “Caesar.” He was in prison til about 2005.
We had a guy named “Caesar” here who used to defend pedophilic practices, didn’t we?
Maybe the OP means the actual house? I’ve only seen one or two episodes of this (wasn’t aware it’s still on), but once they see what’s up the default reaction seems to be, when they’ve driven three hours to the house, plus a stop for condoms and vodka, ‘Oh me? I was just bored and in the neighborhood, thought I’d found a partner for bridge.’ They’re not hideous freaks, many are surprisingly young and fit, so maybe’re they’re regular Joes and they just fell into a nasty trap.
Do you doubt for a moment that if the evening had progressed as planned, they would have had sex with an underage girl?
Grown men do not visit unknown young teenagers. Ever. There are 0.000 cases where an adult man has any business going to a unknown teenager (or pre-teens!) house when their parents are not home unless they have some very, very specific business (like the house is burning down and they are a fireman, or something.) No adult man has any business “hanging out” alone in a private space with a young girl he has no other connection to without their parent’s knowledge and consent.
If you have some “parental instinct” that makes you think a child is in danger, you talk to their parents or the police. You don’t specifically try to meet them when their parent’s aren’t home!
I’ve thought up of an example that may sound farcical but hear it out:
Suppose I followed a religion where I believed that every girl I ever slept with was under 17 years of age. So suppose I slept with a 24 year old girl, but I believed she was under 17 years of age. Suppose I slept with twenty such girls.
Would this mean I should go to jail for over 20 years for having sex with all these girls “who I believed to be underage”?
Chris is always talking about what would happen if he wasn’t there. Well, I think that there can be little doubt that at least half of this would never have happened if he wasn’t there. Actual 13 or 14 year old girls don’t beg people to come to their homes like that. It’s entrapment in its purest form. It’s like leaving money outside your house and then penalizing people who take it “what would have happened if we weren’t there and someone actually left their money outside the house?”
I believe some of them yes are repulsive and deserve to be locked up for some length of time.
I believe some males would chicken out, wouldn’t feel like it or whatever. A lot of them said they wanted to “see how things went”, I think that’s how it would have gone, without the intention of trying hard to do anything. Why is that so hard to believe?
I don’t mean that they think the child is in danger, I just mean that they don’t have any children of their own and yet their paternal instinct can be there. Maybe they even just wanted a friend. Of course this doesn’t go for all the predators they caught.
Are these suggestions potential loopholes for getting out of trouble? Or have you or someone you know actually felt/expressed such benevolent intent towards young girls behaving in a vulnerable or naive manner in chatrooms?
Since the topic of the thread involves men who think they’re going to have sex with someone 13 or under, let’s change the age in your example to make it more applicable.
And having made that change–so now, in the scenario, you only have sex with people who you think are 13 or under, but luckily they were all over 18? Then I do think both morally and legally you’ve done something wrong.
With the 17 year old scenario, I think you have broken laws, and I think it’s more plausible to argue against the appropriateness of those laws. But the 17 year old scenario isn’t really relevant to the topic of the thread.
Unless you can show evidence in the future that you’re actually reading the thread, I’d say people should basically stop responding to you. The Perverted Justice people DO NOT have decoys who pretend to beg men into their homes. Read the transcripts. The men initiate every bit of the interaction.
Ah… here you go with your cynacism and paranoia again. It couldn’t be a parental desire to care for someone, it must be a dirty sex thing.
As for entrapment, this is an issue that’s very clear and dealt with on the To Catch a Predator Wikipedia page.
*Entrapment claims
Montopoli also suggests that To Catch a Predator may not be as immune from the defense of entrapment as the show claims. Although Perverted-Justice volunteers wait for the suspect to initiate contact, former Dateline anchor Stone Phillips concedes that “… in many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex.” Phillips defends this, saying that “… once the hook is baited, the fish jump and run with it like you wouldn’t believe.”[27] Montopoli contends that this alone may render Predator-related cases vulnerable to the defense of entrapment. This situation, however, may fail the “reasonable person” test of entrapment, as there is no persuasion or coercion involved.[28] The March 2007 issue of Law Enforcement magazine, a publication of Officer.com, addressed the entrapment issue from a law enforcement perspective. “Though defendants raised the entrapment issue in Riverside, a judge’s ruling later threw it out. The judge ruled it differs from a police officer presenting a handful of drugs to a subject and asking if he wants to buy some. In this scenario, the person’s being invited to make a snap decision. In contrast, driving to a meeting location afforded these Internet offenders plenty of time to change their minds.”[29] *
Eh…?? The decoy brings up the sex first, the decoy engages in sexual coversation, the decoy begs them to come along.
I have long noticed that whenever someone says: “I think you don’t understand the word x” online usually they are completely wrong and think they know something extra which they don’t.
Actually, this is false. The youngest they will have the decoy is 13 and the oldest I believe is 15. Chris Hanson specifically states that 13 is the lowest they go.
But these guys were put in jail for about two years in a lot of cases when they not only just believed the girl to be under 18, but they never even had sex with her. We are not talking about morally here, we’re talking legally.
How could I have done anything legally wrong when I legally had sex with people over the age? Is it illegal for me to believe they are under the age?
They don’t “pretend to beg”, they actually beg. You don’t even have to read the transcripts, you can hear the girls openly begging on the phone to come to the house, clearly trying to get them to come. Have you even actually seen this show on more than one occasion?
So basically you believe the guy was entrapped because he “looked like a nice guy” and your only evidence that the decoy initiated the chat is that the guy claimed she did.
Perhaps you haven’t met many criminals but lots of them “look like nice guys”. Ted Bundy for example.
Moreover virtually all convicted rapists claim that they actually had consensual sex and the women lied.
Sorry, but you don’t have a leg to stand on.
If those men were entrapped you should be able to produce transcripts proving that.
If you can’t we’ll have to assume that you’re wrong.
You’re going to have to walk me through this, unfortunately; I honestly do not know what you think I’m supposed to take away from that video.
Don’t know what you’re referring to here.
AFAIK everyone on To Catch a Predator is there because they chatted previously with a decoy from Perverted Justice and asked to have sex with someone they thought was 13 years old or younger. (ETA: Correction noted. 13 to 15.) Why do you believe this individual when he says otherwise?
I watched it a couple of times long long ago, and never watched it again because it’s such a crass concept.
But having the decoy beg the man to come seems completely contrary to the purpose of the show and the organization it works with, so I really doubt your statement is accurate. Again: We need to see examples.
The only thing I agree with the OP about is the ridiculous take down outside the house. Just walk up to the door and put the guy in cuffs. No need for the theatrics of wrestling him to the ground.
You just said the oldest is 15. They believed themselves to be asking a 15 year old to have sex with them. Yeah–I’d say I approve of a law that makes this prima facie illegal.
You performed the following act: Having sex with someone you believed to be underage. That’s an actual act–an actual physical thing you can do in the actual real physical world. There’s nothing puzzling about this.
Huh? I’m new to this discussion, and I asked an honest, non-leading question. Also, consensual, uncoerced sex isn’t dirty, and implying that dissenters are prudes is a dishonest argument tactic. Take that one off the table.
I was also a hormonal teenaged girl whose sense of social mores developed gradually, with age and experience. I and each of my attractive, impulsive girlfriends had a naive tendency to tease boys we liked without much thought as to negative repercussions. (Boys, for the sake of this discussion, generally meant acquaintences our age and maybe 3 or 4 years older. ) We were certainly fascinated by sex and all topics sexual, and very interested in male acquaintances within a few years of our age but were *not *emotionally or mentally prepared for sexual attention from experienced, older men.
Luckily for us, no men over the age of 25 or so appeared at our houses while parents were away, but if that had happened, I guarantee we would have been disgusted by the idea of interacting physically with a strange man far older than we were, disturbed by the unsupervised intrusion, or simply afraid. Even a naive kid such as myself found the attention of teachers, friends of parents or older siblings unsavory, shady, or creepy. Erring on the side of the safety of the vulnerable party is the ethical decision. In this case, anyone significantly younger, less experienced, naive, or home alone is the person in need of protection.
Good one, Marley.