Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.

[Johnwesleyharding]

Well if I may

Although it does seem morally questionable, but if the guy gives in then well I find it kinda hard to feel sorry for them. Idk for me, it's like a bait car.

Oh well I'm not on to start an open discussion.

Stick that image on OP on a 4chan thread. Pick a board that works.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is, is that this show isn't unbiased. It's incredibly biased. They edit footage left right and centre, only show snippets of chat logs and do their best to make sure the audience thinks all these men are psycho child rapers. In fact, every time something is shown that makes the audience feel sympathy of the "paedophile" the camera will cut to Chris Hansen one on one explaining why you shouldn't feel sympathy. That's why I don't like what they do.

That's modern media for you anymore, though. It's nigh on impossible to get the real truth anymore, so I usually just look at the two extremes on the story and figure the truth is a combination of the two.

 

[Phoenixlight]

I can see it both ways. Some of those guys might be perverted bastards, others might have good intentions.

Good intentions? having sex with a child isn't exactly a good intention. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing this but they'd do 95% better if they tried the same thing in Japan. The guys there are a lot more perverted and more likely to be interested in things like that, you can tell due to the amount of perverted magazines sold featuring kids.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Gehhhhhh yeah ... It's hard to say it's right or not. I mean do these people have a chance of being that which they are vilified for? Possibly.

But at the same time, would it then be okay to 'bait' a murderer. liek lets say if there was a person who was 'susp[ected' of murdering someone, but the charge was deemed 'without being beyond reasonable doubt as to whether the implicated party actually committed the act or not'.

Would it then be okay to bait them by making their life a living hell, to the point where one day they just snap and decide to confront the individual making their life a burden with murderous intent?

Whilst this might seem extreme, but is it right?

The point is that if we apply this to other types of crime such as suspected theft or murder, could it noit be said that all humans have the ability to commit either under suitable duress?

Whilst not all humans are capable of being sex offenders, all humans are capable of being criminal. To bait an individual into committing a criminal offence is nothing short of being an associate to that very crime.

That being said ... if it is the police that are involved ... then I guess you could say that it's no different from being an undercover cop. Of which is questionable on iot's own merits as well. It's a tough discussion ....

At the very least it shouldn't be televised.

 

[tofulove]

my thoughts, if there a teenager, there not technically a child so there not technically pedophiles, but still way to young for any men there age to pursue, way i see it, under 14 and your not with in 4-5 years of that age, death penalty, 16 or over legal, 15 im in the Grey on that depends on the person.

it mainly depends on the maturity of the people, highly mature 14 year old with a 20 year old, age gap is a little large and far into the Grey in my moral compass, but i don't think criminal charges should be press if its consensual, but if the 20 year old was lets say 32 instead, bring out the firing squad.

 

[NotSoNimble]

When the guy lies about his age, shows up with alcohol and condoms, yeah, he should be arrested.

 

[satsujinka]

I feel that it's entrapment. I also feel like it's a wasted effort. The fact is online molesters are a minority. The vast majority of molestation occurs by family members or friends of the family (ie. people that the child is told is an authority by their family.) So poking at people online to try to "catch them in the act" seems to me to be a horrible waste of time.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of whether or not such solicited sex is even harmful to the minor in question. After all, the minor did agree to it, but this touches on whether or not you think minors should be allowed to make their own decisions. I think minors should be allowed to make decisions, even bad ones. In my mind, family is there for exactly the purpose of supporting a minor when they make a bad decision.

In the end what I need is evidence. Evidence that time wouldn't be better spent on trying to stop the molestation that is perpetrated by family members and other trusted individuals (which I am very much aware of the damage such causes) as opposed to luring people into revealing that they like children.

 

[zombiesinc]

Enticing the users, and pressuring them into agreeing to do something illegal could be morally questionable, but even so, these users agree. They ignore the "hey im a 12/f/florida" and continue on with sex talk. They eventually agree and meet at a designated location.

I think for me, that's enough to feel like they were right to get charged.

 

[Jeronus]

I see it as doing the right thing. I don't want some old dirty perv tricking my young niece into sex. I manage to steer clear of sexually naive teenagers looking for sex. These guys made a decision when they went online and started talking to kids about sex. As for the D.A., his end was the product of his own actions. He made a choice when he opened his browser and it led to his final choice.

 

[Jeronus]

So this show doesn't deal with female sexual predators? Because they are cool and all?

Female predators are usually smarter and will cut off contact before saying anything incriminating. Women don't think with their sexual organs like men do.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

It doesn't matter if they're falling for bait, because they essentially have broken the law. Let's say I give you a gun, and the option to walk away or kill someone. I tell you there will be no consequences to you if you pull the trigger, but that the gun is loaded, and obviously deadly to the person. I do not tell you that I am an actor working for the police. The gun is actually empty. If you pull the trigger, you are a murderer because you committed an act with intent to kill someone by your own free will, even if you were baited to attempt to kill someone, but never ended up killing them.

This has probably been said already, but I'm pretty sure that would count that as attempted murder. I get your point though.


OT...hmmm. It's questionable but then I suppose as long as the show doesn't suggest the meeting etc and it really is all the guys doing apart from the fact that he's taling to a cop instead of an underage child. Televising it though is rather off I feel.

 

[Jeronus]

Furthermore, I'm not aware of whether or not such solicited sex is even harmful to the minor in question. After all, the minor did agree to it, but this touches on whether or not you think minors should be allowed to make their own decisions. I think minors should be allowed to make decisions, even bad ones. In my mind, family is there for exactly the purpose of supporting a minor when they make a bad decision.

A family should also prevent kids from making stupid decisions. A minor's bad decisions affect the whole family. Minors are not allowed to do things because they aren't able to think of the consequences. They are still in that phase of life where they pursue pleasure without thinking of what happens afterward. Also adults can easily take advantage of minors who are too naive to see through the lies they give them. Minors should be protected from bad decisions, not allowed to ruin their lives just to learn a lesson.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Maybe it's staged, like the majority of television programs.

 

[satsujinka]

Furthermore, I'm not aware of whether or not such solicited sex is even harmful to the minor in question. After all, the minor did agree to it, but this touches on whether or not you think minors should be allowed to make their own decisions. I think minors should be allowed to make decisions, even bad ones. In my mind, family is there for exactly the purpose of supporting a minor when they make a bad decision.

A family should also prevent kids from making stupid decisions. A minor's bad decisions affect the whole family. Minors are not allowed to do things because they aren't able to think of the consequences. They are still in that phase of life where they pursue pleasure without thinking of what happens afterward. Also adults can easily take advantage of minors who are too naive to see through the lies they give them. Minors should be protected from bad decisions, not allowed to ruin their lives just to learn a lesson.

My point is that how is someone supposed to learn what a bad decision is if they aren't allowed to make bad decisions. I doubt a single decision could ruin anyone's life so long as their family is there for them. There to put things in perspective, to give a home, food, and acceptance. Besides, I would argue that many adults are no better when it comes to pleasure and thinking of consequences.

Just because a decision will affect the family doesn't mean the family has the right to take away a minor's choice. A family can deal with just about any consequence an individual can inflict on themselves, if the family has the main goal of sticking together and supporting one another. Furthermore, I would argue that a family following such a principal wouldn't encounter much in the way of horrible consequences. As it's members learned from a young age how to make decisions.

Lies are something that most children understand by the time they are 7. I see no reason why you couldn't incorporate a cynicism of age based authority into the development of a child, which would vastly undercut any adults attempting to take advantage of them. But of course, this goes back to my main point. It isn't strangers on the web that do the most damage, it's family members and friends of the family that do the most damage. And they do what they do vastly because it was done to them. It's a vicious cycle that I'm not sure how to break, but before we go hunting down internet creeps we need to break the cycle (as I'm willing to bet that the internet creeps are created by similar circumstances as any other molester.)

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Enticing that man to commit a crime is immoral. Putting it on television is immoral.

I'd say that. Of course they're bad people anyway, but you're actually encouraging them to commit a crime. I've never really watched the show, just clips on youtube, so I don't know how aggressively they try to convince these guys to show up.

 

[quiet_samurai]

But nobody in their right minds wakes up and says, "hey you know, I think might just try... this once... taking sexual advantage of a minor."

...

Never said they did.

The show prays on people who aren't in the right mind set. Look at the video I posted earlier down the bottom of the last page.

Just because the people on the show are sick, confused, retarded or just plain not normal doesn't mean you get to trick them and put it on the television.

And I... never said that you said that they said that.

The fact remains, these people went to these houses with full intention of raping a child. Attempting to commit a crime or having the intent to commit a crime is still a crime in itself, hence attempted murder, attempted robbery, posession with the intent to distribute. None of these people are charged with the actual crime of rape or molestation, just the intent to do so. And in all honesty, I would rather have them booked and charged, in this very manner, then waiting for them to actually commit the crime. And besides these people are just being charged, not found guilty or sentanced in a court yet. Maybe some of them are actually mentally ill, and if that is the case then they will most likely get some sort of rehibilitation. But do you really think all of them are? I think not.

Like I said before, people who would never ever even consider the act of child rape could never be talked into doing it...ever. It woulld be the equivalent of being talked into switching your sexual orientation.

 

[RobCoxxy]

It's entrapment, but it's also <color=red>hilariously entertaining.

 

[sdMario]

I can see it both ways.

On the one hand, it seems like entrapment, dangling the bait in front of possibly mentally unstable members of society, to record a programme that is primarily for entertainment.

However, the majority of these men come across as if they would be very likely to commit these crimes when not being coerced by a decoy, so "To Catch a Predator" could also be protecting innocent victims that could otherwise have been targeted.

 

[JoJo]

I don't think it would be immoral for the police to carry out this kind of trap... but putting it on a TV program is just insensitive and wrong. Justice should be private.

 

[sheogoraththemad]

I know doing things with child's is wrong but what are under aged kids doing on those sites