Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.
- Thread starter Kortney
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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*
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.
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.
I agree but let me rephrase that a bit.Dango said:
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.
Kortney said:
What's with all these "right or wrong"-questions? The answer is always neither. Morality is based on opinions and is hence entirely subjective.SinisterGehe said:
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.
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.DestinyCall said:
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.theSovietConnection said:
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.theSovietConnection said:
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.Kortney said: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 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.
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.Chatney said:
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.
Hmm, that Texas one is new on me.Kortney said:
But you take it into context with the conversations had online. Suppose the suspect invites the alleged child to meet somewhere for sex, then shows up expecting the child to be there. I don't think you'd have too hard of a time convincing even Canadian judges that a criminal offense was going to take place. Mind you, in Canada we'd send them to what may as well be an all-inclusive resort.
Sure the context makes it seem fishy, but it still could be true. We all have said things online we don't mean and have done stupid stuff. A good barrister could very well get you off with a slap on the wrist - especially if you arrived at the house with no condoms or anything that suggests malicious intent was about to take place (like many have).theSovietConnection said:
I've seen quite a lot of the episodes and most cases I agree with you. But there are a few where that "You were being naughty online so you were going to rape her!" doesn't apply and is extremely unfair.
The whole thing is really a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. Times like this I wish we had a computer program or something that could unbiasedly view all presented evidence from both sides and make a truely unbiased judgement.Kortney said:
EDIT:
It's all dependent on who makes the initial invitation. If the police/volunteer make the invitation, then yes, it is entrapment. If the suspect makes the invitation, then they are no longer protected by entrapment laws.Kaymish said:
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.theSovietConnection said:
All right. I'm curious, why does it breach your moral code? Actually, I think you've said it already:Kortney said:
In other words, regardless of why these people do it, it's still morally wrong to trick them for the purposes of entertainment while making it known to the entire country what they've done. Do you oppose the trickery part, the televising part, or both?Kortney said:
Tell me, what's your stance on Megan's Law? In practice, it means that if you commit a sexual crime (of certain kinds) then that fact will be available to anyone who wants to know. It cancels the person's privacy on that point. Society values the safety of children higher than the privacy of sexual predators. Does this go against your moral code?
Also, What's your take on the below statement from my previous post?
"Once any person is willingly planning to commit a crime then they forfeit many of their legal rights."