BF2S Forums Watching "date lines to catch a preditor"

I think if you willing to drive to some underage girl's (boys in some case) house based on a chat ... then I think its a sign of strong intent and should be punishable.

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-03-06 17:49:21)

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I totally agree with you, but legally do you think thy can they make it stick? The girl isn't really 14 or 13 they are all over age models, and people lie on the internet. .

Very true, I see both sides to this though. If you had a above age hot chick who wants to do the no pants dance, your going to do it. We all would. I didnt find girls on the internet when I was younger because Al Gore still hadnt made it a house hold thing yet. Im married now but if I was single I would still go out to bars and wake up somewhere strange. If these freaks know they are underage upon going there I say we lock em up. Entrapment angle or not its plain fucking sick and wrong to want to finger kids.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I totally agree with you, but legally do you think thy can they make it stick? The girl isn't really 14 or 13 they are all over age models, and people lie on the internet. .

legally most states have now put into law that if the victim has made it clear that they are underage and the purp has made it clear they are intending sex, they then have broken the law

some ppl see it has bait and trap (amazed that ACLU hasn't shut them down) but the purp has the free will and the choice to NOT solicit sex to a minor

everyone knows the law and police actual encourage to have the media tape them doing this so to get the word out to try to discourage anyone from trying to solicit sex from a minor


its kinda like the female U.C. cop that portrays a prostitute and catch " Johns" --- some would say thats bait and trap

I could care less about the morality, legality of it... as a show it is typical American fodder.

It is easy to sit back - and say "lock em up" - they broke the damn law(!)

But not to long ago it was not even abnormal for girls to be married-off by age 13 or 14.
Also the girl is actually 19 and semi-attractive. To me all men are sexual predators to some degree. It isn't called sexual-predation when you're good-enough looking and possess a fairly normal attractive personality / persona. Then, when you have actual sexual choices, when you can pursue sexual interest / desire in a manner that conforms, more or less, to a social-norm, you can even be something to be admired by other men.

What this show demonstrates is Americas' Love for seeing others fail in life... and then enjoy the judging of them. It is a TV-Show, it is first and foremost a disturbing form of American entertainment.

What I see is pathetic losers, existing outside the choices and opportunities (sexually speaking), that I had / have. They seem utterly desperate for female companionship and are often thrilled at the idea of finally getting laid. In one show a man (an immigrant, either from India or Pakistan) takes a bus to a train station, then the train, then a cab, something like a 3 or 4 hour commute on the pretext of finally getting laid for once...

Only to find himself, a setup for a TV-show (with actual legal ramifications), all to willing to expose his absurd-pathetic desire / need - to a judging ignorant equally pathetic public. This guy (this new-immigrant) then in a confused state says, "I deed not know dat dis was someting dat was illegal?"

Elamdri wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

I honestly have never even seen "To Catch A Predator."

I believe it is a type of fear mongering. However, in that specific case, it is the man's fault for not learning American laws, ESPECIALLY one so universally known. One of the FIRST things you should do when moving to a new country is to learn the laws of that country and especially, the big ones.

Any law even a small one - can get you in serious trouble. You must know this... also consider just how much research goes into a defense (defending a client). That's like saying basically everyone should know the complete extent of the law (which is a massive mountain! beyond any humans mind; or ability; to hold in absolute-complete-form); in essence every man / woman / child / immigrant / etc should have a law degree - to understand the full context & nuances of law.

If this immigrant simply understood just one nuance of law, he could have avoided legalized-entrapment, he could have "said to the girl, you're not 14, you're lying." All things being considered - this is true.

Yes, but child molestation is not a nuance. And it is beyond preposterous that this man came to America not understanding the notion of the legality of sex with a child. To suggest that this man had never once in his long life heard of child molestation laws in western countries is beyond ignorance.

"Ignoratia Legis Non Excusat" "Ignorance of The Law is Not an Excuse"

this is a legal ultimate. You cannot claim that simply because you were not aware of the law, you shouldn't be held to it.

Now, this is taken under the context that the laws are appropriately published and reasonably accessible, which, in the case of child molestation, they are. You don't have to have a law degree to take a general look at society and see what laws are important.

It is one thing to suggest that you didn't know it wasn't legal to do a U-turn in Illinois because you live in Florida where it is legal.

Its another thing Entirely to suggest that you didn't know it wasn't ok to rape and murder because it's legal in your country.

Like I said I don't really care about the legality of it, nor the morality of it...

Laws change over time.
Morality is not a constant.

The show is parade of the pathetic so that the other pathetics can sit back in judgment and enjoy the train-wreck. The show draws the pathetic out of people using the invention of the Internet.

Also:

... Yes, but child molestation is not a nuance.... Now, this is taken under the context that the laws are appropriately published and reasonably accessible, which, in the case of child molestation ...

It is not molestation, that is a physical sexual-act, this is solicitation... something different.

Its another thing Entirely to suggest that you didn't know it wasn't ok to rape...

One could easily make an argument that statutory rape - is hardly a moral question in many individual circumstances - yet it is always illegal. And, then there is the obvious - that 18 years old is an arbitrary line / limit. It is a best attempt effort to try and consider maturity when contemplating the issue (the law).

Statutory Rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, it is a crime for an adult to have sexual intercourse with a person under the legal age of consent, which is 18 years of age. California's statutory rape law is found in Penal Code Section 261.5. California has begun a concerted effort to use its statutory rape laws as a means of reducing pregnancies and births among minors. The attempt was prompted by recent research indicating that two-thirds of babies born to school-aged mothers in the state were fathered by adult men, who, on average, were more than four years older than their adolescent partners.

    * The severity of the punishment depends on the relative ages of the two people, either of whom may be male or female.
    * It is a misdemeanor for a person who is at least 18 years old to have sexual intercourse with a minor who is three years younger than that person.
    * If the victim is more than three years younger than the perpetrator, the crime can be either a misdemeanor or a felony.
    * If the victim is under the age of 16 and the perpetrator is 21 years of age or older, and they engage in sexual intercourse, the crime can be either a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail or imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years.
    * In addition to criminal penalties, there may be civil penalties as well. The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil penalties.
    * An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty up to $2,000.
    * An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty up to $5,000.
    * An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty up to $10,000.
    * An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty up to $25,000.

These laws [above]; and the application thereof; appear partly to be in response to the statistics gather by sociological studies. They are in sense a response to a trend; not in response to an absolute morality of 18 being a sign of passage into maturity.

Sometimes the pathetic:
http://www.gawker.com/news/dateline/to- … 200594.php
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/1088406 … p;psp=news
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0627-24.htm

& Then the rare, the actually dangerous:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/

To catch a predator (satire):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OdjMaGCr7k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns2ohrlLhTk (conebone69)

Criticism:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/28 … 5230.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/04/10 … 3718.shtml
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar … -1/CITIZEN
http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2006/0 … o-gin.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13529278/site/newsweek/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-weg … 1.html?p=2

Pubic wrote:

The girl was 14 & made that clear?  Then the guy should be arrested.  Granted they shouldn't have misrepresented her like that, and they were trying to entrap him but...a pedo is a pedo is a pedo...

Nope the girl was 19 and lied about it.

And, I am fairly certain that a pedophile has a specific pathology. I am currently trying to find out if this series actually catches the pathological or draws-out an Internet voyeur into committing a pathetic crime (that they are not actual pathological-pedo.s). I am curious if there is actual statistics available on such; or what % are pathological and what % are not. (I am only interested in the numbers; the mathematical percentage).

http://www.gazettes.com/predator09142006.html

These men were not the “classic pedophile” profile, Cannan said. Rather, these tended to be men who spent most of their time in front of a computer and were sucked into a fantasy world that they then tried to make real, he said.

While this type of Internet solicitation of minors is growing, it is still a small amount of the sexual crimes against children.

According to the Department of Justice’s 2002 statistics, strangers (such as what happened with these online crimes) accounted for just 7% of the sexual crimes against children. Family members, immediate or more distant, still commit the majority of these crimes, Cannan said. Family friends and acquaintances also account for a large percentage of the crimes

Diss-info-tainment:
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/C062706.htm

No wonder the networks’ news divisions are indistinguishable from their entertainment function. One running example stands out as an illustration of the networks’ degradation — and irresponsibility.

... The most glaring thing about Dateline’s “Predator” series isn’t the overkill, the ethically compromised nature of the show’s relationship with police and Perverted-Justice, or even the tawdriness of Chris Hanson playing a pathetic game of gotcha with pathetic individuals. It’s the fact that the whole premise of the series is based on a lie: That there’s “an epidemic of sexual predators in our country,” and that based on “a recent study,” according to NBC, “one in five children online is approached by a sexual predator, a predator who may try to set up a face-to-face meeting.”

Not quite. Dateline, like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, like other news reports citing the same myth, are relying on a study by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice that found that 19 percent of Internet users age 10-17 “received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year,” but three-quarters of those were from fellow-children or juveniles. Just 3 percent of youth Internet users “received an aggressive solicitation involving offline contact,” and “none of the solicitations led to an actual sexual contact or sexual assault.” An “epidemic” of predators? Hardly. Twenty percent of children online “approached by a sexual predator”? Ridiculous. There’s no question that Internet predators are a reality, and that children and parents need to be aware of the right precautions.

Reality check(!)
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/06 … panic.html

Recidivism revisited

Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from prison.

The high recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender rate.

In the largest and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are unlikely to re-offend.

If sex offenders are no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers, there seems little justification for the public's fear, or for the monitoring laws tracking them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those living elsewhere.)

... One tragic result of these myths is that the panic over sex offenders distracts the public from a far greater threat to children: parental abuse and neglect.

Elamdri wrote:

Well, I'll agree with you topal, the show is really rather dull.

Ooh.. to true, and actually I was just riffing on some ideas lingering around in my noggin...

You know how little details change things dramatically like:
1.) Her lying and saying she is 17, when she is actually 19, it seems so much more outrageous and criminal when she lies and says "I am only 13."

Does the age of consent mean anything. For example, if it was a 16 year old, which is illegal in the USA, that show would be ridiculous in England, since that's the age of consent there.

2.) Mandatory sentencing - removing judgment - out of the role of being a judge.
3.) Lumping all things into an absolute moral stance; when all things are not that way.
4.) Knowing the actual truth...
5.) Etc.

Things like that... know what I mean?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-07 23:50:13)

I am just glad i don't deal with this side of the legal system. They walk a fine line, but I am sure they have a very good legal department and whatever they end up sending to the person and telling him has to be run through one of their lawyers.

Elamdri wrote:

topal63 wrote:

This guy (this new-immigrant) then in confused state says, "I deed not know dat dis was someting dat was illegal?"

"Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat"

... "I could care less about the morality, legality of it... as a show it is typical American fodder."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-07 10:28:56)

I mean I love the show, it is great entertainment... But I always think back to when I was 18 and still a virgin, that I might have easily gone to a girls house over the internet with the oppurtunity of sex. Especially if she was asking me to do it. Now there is no way in hell that would happen, I guess it's the whole risk/reward thing.

Back then the reward would have probably been worth the risk now that I"m no longer a virgin and alot older it would be totally different. I see 19/20 year old kids on that show all the time and feel totally bad for them. When you're 19/20 and still a virgin and a girl is sending you messages about sex and inviting you over what would you do?

The decoys do not initiate the convesations concerning sex. Plus, these are not all desparate virgins. Many are grown men that are married - some with children the same age as the intended "victims".

Whatever the laws and customs used to be is of no consequence. If you don't agree with a law fight to get it changed. But, no one that lives in America (new immigrants I will give *some* lattitude to) can believe that it is legal for some middle-aged man to have sex (consensual or not) with a 13-15 year old girl. As long as there is a Romeo & Juliet clause I agree with those laws. It's your right to disagree with them, but that does not give you the right to break them.

EDIT: topal63, are you sure you meant "atypical", or "typical"?

Last edited by Psycho (2007-03-07 10:01:56)

topal63 wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

I honestly have never even seen "To Catch A Predator."

I believe it is a type of fear mongering. However, in that specific case, it is the man's fault for not learning American laws, ESPECIALLY one so universally known. One of the FIRST things you should do when moving to a new country is to learn the laws of that country and especially, the big ones.

Any law even a small one - can get you in serious trouble. You must know this... also consider just how much research goes into a defense (defending a client). That's like saying basically everyone should know the complete extent of the law (which is a massive mountain! beyond any humans mind; or ability; to hold in absolute-complete-form); in essence every man / woman / child / immigrant / etc should have a law degree - to understand the full context & nuances of law.

If this immigrant simply understood just one nuance of law, he could have avoided legalized-entrapment, he could have "said to the girl, you're not 14, you're lying." All things being considered - this is true.

Yes, but child molestation is not a nuance. And it is beyond preposterous that this man came to America not understanding the notion of the legality of sex with a child. To suggest that this man had never once in his long life heard of child molestation laws in western countries is beyond ignorance.

"Ignoratia Legis Non Excusat" "Ignorance of The Law is Not an Excuse"

this is a legal ultimate. You cannot claim that simply because you were not aware of the law, you shouldn't be held to it.

Now, this is taken under the context that the laws are appropriately published and reasonably accessible, which, in the case of child molestation, they are. You don't have to have a law degree to take a general look at society and see what laws are important.

It is one thing to suggest that you didn't know it wasn't legal to do a U-turn in Illinois because you live in Florida where it is legal.

Its another thing Entirely to suggest that you didn't know it wasn't ok to rape and murder because it's legal in your country.

any sick bastard who knows that the girl is under age and still shows up at the girls house to have sex, needs to be put into a holding room and let the girls father whoop his ass, then be arrested.

Here in Texas this has become a really big issue.  Our LT Governor is pushing to get the following bill thru:

With your help we can pass Jessica's Law in Texas which includes:
- Mandatory 25 year to life sentences for a first-time violent sexual offense against a child under age 14
- Lifetime GPS monitoring for child sex offenders
- Death penalty sentence for a second sexually violent offense against a child under age 14
- Doubling the statute of limitations on sex crimes against children from 10 to 20 years
- Tougher penalties for those who harbor a sex offender who is in violation of registration requirements

Or as he put it, "First offense is an automatic 25 year sentence.  God forbid you should ever do it again!"  The LT Gov wants Texas to lead the way and have the harshest punishment available for child predators.

Here's the story the bill is named after:
Jessica was abducted on February 23, 2005. She was brutally and repeatedly raped and buried alive by a previously convicted sex offender. The three week search for Jessica ended when she was found in a shallow grave only 150 yards from where she was abducted.

Personally, being the father of two daughters, I hope this gets passed and other states follow.

topal63 wrote:

And, I am fairly certain that a pedophile has a specific pathology. I am currently trying to find out if this series actually catches the pathological or draws an Internet voyeur into committing a pathetic crime (that they are not actual pathological-pedo.s). I am curious if there is actual statistics available on such; or what % are pathological and what % is not.

Usually it's an issue of power, the need to dominate. Same as in rape or molestation.