Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.

[ShaqLevick]

Seriously, I mean lets put it into context. To catch a predator is specifically aimed at catching adults attempting to have sexual encounters with minors, whether they were provoked or not is completely irrelevant! It's not like these conversations enticed said adult into changing sexual preferences... Although I haven't seen many episodes, so it's hard to say what the true intent of certain visits were, but preying on minors is simply wrong! You know what's really a moral gray area? Undercover cops posing as prostitutes, because what occurs between two consenting adults is nobodies business, and there's no moral ambiguity there! If anybody was to have certain urges (pedophilia) it would be wrong for me to judge them for their illness, that is as long as they see the harm and evil that certain actions would result in. To resist and rise above said urges is commendable, but to those without the strength of character to resist doing harm, well lets just say that represents a segment of the population that we don't need on the streets (And if I had my say 6 feet under).

So I salute you Chris Hansen, for getting criminally sick predators off the streets.

 

[quiet_samurai]

Note: This thread is a discussion of the NBC program "To Catch a Predator". For those of you who aren't familiar with it, it involves police posing as young girls online and enticing men to come to a house. Once the person arrives at the house, he is greeted by cameras and eventually arrested by police.

I was recently watching To Catch a Predator on the internet out of curiosity when something stuck me.

Is this show morally right?

Now, for the most part - I believe that the show does arrest and weed out dangerous individuals. But sometimes I get the sense that they have been conned into doing it.

Take a look at the gentlemen in this video:


Would they of done this if it wasn't for the show enticing them to do so?

Discussion: Is the act of enticing people to commit a crime morally wrong?

Doing so in order to find out if a person would commit a crime doesn't seem that bad. After all, while criminality isnt a disease that can be easily cured (Edit: Criminality in that of itself isn't actually a disease), this process can be used to at least inform the person being enticed of the dangers that come with actually going through with a real crime. Furthermore, in context with "To Catch a Predator", it is important to note that some of these caes were people who have done something similar before (some people have been on the show more than once, in different episodes no less) so the argument that they wouldn't have done it if they weren't enticed isn't always the best defence.

That said, entcing a person to commit a crime and then aressting them for it seems a little morally questionable to me, especially when the authorities have to contantly badger them and pressure the person into doing the deed. It's like the person is being arrested more for even considering commiting a crime rather than actually trying to. And that just seems silly to me.

I disagree with both of you. It's not like there is a real peer pressure element online, especially in an anonymous chat room. And it's also nothing like a lot of other crimes where police use deception, like an undercover prostitute or drug dealer. Usually these are the types of crimes involving trickery by police and it involves an adult making a poor choice on their part. Key word adult. When you have people using deception to catch POSSIBLE CHILD MOLESTERS then you are dealing with an entirely different thing altogether. People may try drugs once, or pay for sex once, and that can be considered....sort of, normal. 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." People that do these types of things are going to do them no matter the medium they use to do so, whether it be the internet or a van with tinted windows and promises of candy or a trip to Cambodia. A normal sane human being would not even tempt on the idea of even being coerced into doing so,no matter how good and deceptive the people on this program are.

This is the third time I have said it, but... if you can give me the pro-side to the argument of child rape (even falsely promised and even consented), then I will further discuss the matter with you.

 

[Kortney]

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.

 

[Mr Godfrey]

It's entrapment. I'm all for catching predators, and this method works sometimes; however, It can also lead to the wrong people being put behind bars and having a little red mark on their record for the rest of their lives.

 

[Winfrid]

If you know they're underage, you know it's illegal

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

It's entirely moral, people who end up getting caught deserve it because they went in with clear intentions. It doesn't matter whether they would've done that without the TV show - they made their choice.

And it's entirely correct that this is a TV show - then sick people like the ones in the show will think twice before meeting an underage online.

 

[Motiv_]

I find it somewhat immoral and distasteful is that they broadcast it on TV. Now, I'm perfectly fine with the concept of the story, because honestly. If you say a few words in a chatroom, you could just be frustrated, or even joking tastelessly.

But if you solicit for pictures and then drive to the kid's house, especially when the decoy mentions that his/her parents are out of town, you're obviously not there to play cards.

I'll repeat.

At any point before they actually show up at the house of the decoy, they can easily cut off all contact with the decoy or just say they're not interested, and the police won't do anything. So if you're just "Joking Around" or "Visiting a friend" like many people use as an excuse, then don't go in the house, in fact, don't joke around in the first place.

 

[DestinyCall]

It is morally wrong to encourage or entice someone into committing an illegal act. By providing incentive, you are accepting partial responsibility for the action, if it is taken. The majority of the blame clearly rests with the individual who made the choice to commit the crime, but that choice was influenced by whatever encouragement or enticement was provided to help push the person toward the illegal act. The more "help" you provide, the more responsibility you would incur, both morally and legally. That's why people can be charged with being an "accessory" to a crime, even though they did not commit it themselves. And it is why you should feel bad if you dare your friend to stick his hand into a blender and he ends up losing part of his finger. He really should have known better ... but then, so should you.

As far as the "To Catch a Predator" show goes, it sounds like a lot of people think it is fine because it helps catch sexual predators and pedophiles. The thing is, that doesn't make it right ... it just means that sometimes "the ends justify the means." So catching really bad people makes it easier to over-look the morally questionable nature of the show.

And of course, it makes for some great trash TV. *sigh*

 

[Tiss]

No their is no problem with this, that guy in the first thought "oh shit Im going to jail for doing something I shouldnt have how can I get out of this" guys like that are opportunistic predators they wont go out looking for kids, but if they find one they will be just as bad as the rest. So a show like TCAP is well within their moral grounds to send these Pervs, who might I remind are trying to have sex with CHILDREN, to jail (which is the least I would do to them.

 

[evilartist]

I don't think it's morally wrong, since predators have the free will to resist the bait. It seems cheap and unfair, but the fault still lies on the pedophile(s) for falling for the sting.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Look, to an extent, I'm fine with them tricking and catching sexual predators, 1) here are much, much better ways to go about catching them, and 2) Televising it is definitely just morally wrong.

I agree but let me rephrase that a bit.
Triking and catching predators Is right !If they have broken the law! But making entertainment out of it is purely morally wrong, and in my opinion it lowers the quality of Television programs.

 

[Blunderman]

Discussion: Is the act of enticing people to commit a crime morally wrong?

... But making entertainment out of it is purely morally wrong, and in my opinion it lowers the quality of Television programs.

What's with all these "right or wrong"-questions? The answer is always neither. Morality is based on opinions and is hence entirely subjective.

You're simply stating that you don't agree, but that in no way makes it "wrong". It can be illegal and you may personally dislike it for various reasons. If you want to hate it then more power to you, but that's of no relevance to anyone but yourself.

 

[Kortney]

Discussion: Is the act of enticing people to commit a crime morally wrong?

... But making entertainment out of it is purely morally wrong, and in my opinion it lowers the quality of Television programs.

What's with all these "right or wrong"-questions? The answer is always neither. Morality is based on opinions and is hence entirely subjective.

You're simply stating that you don't agree, but that in no way makes it "wrong". It can be illegal and you may personally dislike it for various reasons. If you want to hate it then more power to you, but that's of no relevance to anyone but yourself.

Eugh god.

Yeah we get it. Everyone knows morality is completely subjective.

I'm asking you if you think it is morally right or not. Is it that difficult?

 

[BonsaiK]

This article neatly encapsulates my feelings on the matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/may/31/features16.theguide6

 

[theSovietConnection]

It is morally wrong to encourage or entice someone into committing an illegal act. By providing incentive, you are accepting partial responsibility for the action, if it is taken. The majority of the blame clearly rests with the individual who made the choice to commit the crime, but that choice was influenced by whatever encouragement or enticement was provided to help push the person toward the illegal act. The more "help" you provide, the more responsibility you would incur, both morally and legally. That's why people can be charged with being an "accessory" to a crime, even though they did not commit it themselves. And it is why you should feel bad if you dare your friend to stick his hand into a blender and he ends up losing part of his finger. He really should have known better ... but then, so should you.

As far as the "To Catch a Predator" show goes, it sounds like a lot of people think it is fine because it helps catch sexual predators and pedophiles. The thing is, that doesn't make it right ... it just means that sometimes "the ends justify the means." So catching really bad people makes it easier to over-look the morally questionable nature of the show.

And of course, it makes for some great trash TV. *sigh*

The suspect is the one left to initiate the sexual invitation. Otherwise it might just go on as a normal conversation might. At any point before the meeting, that suspect has the free will to just not show up. By showing up, it shows that they were willing to commit this crime.

 

[Kortney]

At any point before the meeting, that suspect has the free will to just not show up.

Actually no. In Texas (which is where a lot of the episodes are set) you have committed the crime once you start talking online. They don't have to show up. That's how they make that man kill himself. They try to arrest him at his house after he decided not to go through with the meeting. They cornered him and he said "I don't want to harm any of you" and shot himself in the head.

By showing up, it shows that they were willing to commit this crime.

No, it doesn't. There is a lot of evidence to suggest they were going to, but for all we know they could be showing up to simply talk to the girl. Yeah it sounds like a really bad excuse (and it probably is 99% of the time) but it could be true.

 

[Blunderman]

Eugh god.

Yeah we get it. Everyone knows morality is completely subjective.

I'm asking you if you think it is morally right or not. Is it that difficult?

I can't answer that question since I don't subscribe to any "right or wrong"-morality. An objective answer isn't what you want and my own personal opinion would stem from a rational look at the effects it has on society rather than some vague concept like all-encompassing moral authority that has no practical relevance to anything.

I get that, to you, "it's morally wrong" means "I don't agree". Do I agree with what they're doing in the show? Simple answer, yes, I do. Once any person is willingly planning to commit a crime then they forfeit many of their legal rights.

 

[Kortney]

I get that, to you, "it's morally wrong" means "I don't agree".

Actually no it doesn't. It means it does something that breaches my moral code. I find it wrong on a moral and ethical level, not on a practical.

Anyway, if you want to discuss it further please PM me instead. This thread isn't a discussion on morality - it's about the ethics of a television program. Thanks man.