Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.
- Thread starter Kortney
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't even question the morality of the Chris Hanson show anymore. It's like arguing religion.
I'd say it's actually the SUBJECT of the show that we should be questioning the morality of - specifically, the jump to ruin anyone that so much as looks at a child with a quirked eyebrow. Yes, people that prey on children are bad, but at what point does it stop being reasonable?
I'd say it's actually the SUBJECT of the show that we should be questioning the morality of - specifically, the jump to ruin anyone that so much as looks at a child with a quirked eyebrow. Yes, people that prey on children are bad, but at what point does it stop being reasonable?
This show might ride the line of entrapment, but they take careful steps to avoid it. I would urge those of you to actually read up what I provided below. Because they do not initiate the coercion nor is there a snap decision required in leaving your house and driving somewhere, you don't see these cases thrown out for entrapment like say if an undercover police officer offered to sell you some drugs on the street.
My only question how they get these people to agree to letting them air the footage or if they are somehow allowed to run it without their consent?
My only question how they get these people to agree to letting them air the footage or if they are somehow allowed to run it without their consent?
ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
I don't see anything wrong with this show to be honest. If someone is caught by this show it means that they had, in some way, the idea of going after younger people online. In fact it's lucky that these people act on the impulse and end up getting caught by this show instead of going on to molest some child.
These guys were on the interwebs looking for kids to meet and have sex with. If the PJ decoys weren't there, they would have found a real kid. To meet. And have sex with. This is not entrapment. The decoys don't go looking for people to somehow trick into wanting to have sex with kids, they just make a profile claiming to be a kid, and wait for someone to hit on them.
For everyone who is categorizing this as a form of entarpment, sorry, but no its not.
Entrapment is when you are forced to commit a crime under some form of duress and have no other choice but to do so, or put into an impossible circumstance by law enforcement with the only way out being criminal activity.
These people were not entrapt into doing anything, they made the choice, they were given the promise of sexual contact with a child and they CHOSE to capitalize on the situation. They could of just stayed home, or never entertained the notion in the first place, but sadly they didn't. They are the architects of their own demise.
Know what you are talking about before you post.
Entrapment is when you are forced to commit a crime under some form of duress and have no other choice but to do so, or put into an impossible circumstance by law enforcement with the only way out being criminal activity.
These people were not entrapt into doing anything, they made the choice, they were given the promise of sexual contact with a child and they CHOSE to capitalize on the situation. They could of just stayed home, or never entertained the notion in the first place, but sadly they didn't. They are the architects of their own demise.
Know what you are talking about before you post.
Definitely morally wrong. People are entitled to a certain degree of privacy, and this show brands people as pedophiles before they ever set foot in court.
Employers will never hire them. They'll never have jobs. It'll be a giant stamp on their foreheads for the rest of their lives. "Pedophile." Before they ever even set foot in court.
If they *are* guilty, let them be charged with the crime, found guilty, and be punished accordingly in a proper court of law. If it should turn out that they're not guilty, then all you're doing is humiliating an innocent man on television, and turning the producers and editors of the show into the real jury.
Another victory for mainstream media. Whoop-de-doo.
As for using deception to capture criminals and its moral implications, it depends. If the suspect is clearly the more aggressive one and is being a hound, then I'm all for the undercover thing. If the undercover cop is the aggressive one and basically initiates everything, then I'm pretty sure that's entrapment.
Employers will never hire them. They'll never have jobs. It'll be a giant stamp on their foreheads for the rest of their lives. "Pedophile." Before they ever even set foot in court.
If they *are* guilty, let them be charged with the crime, found guilty, and be punished accordingly in a proper court of law. If it should turn out that they're not guilty, then all you're doing is humiliating an innocent man on television, and turning the producers and editors of the show into the real jury.
Another victory for mainstream media. Whoop-de-doo.
As for using deception to capture criminals and its moral implications, it depends. If the suspect is clearly the more aggressive one and is being a hound, then I'm all for the undercover thing. If the undercover cop is the aggressive one and basically initiates everything, then I'm pretty sure that's entrapment.
This is just like the Jerry springer show
They hype up all of the people before they get onto the stage in order to instigate stage fights and get ratings.
I'm not saying these guys are angels, most likely they really do mess with little kids and thus should be castrated, but what I'm saying is that the show seems to find these guys AWEFULLY easily don't they?
They hype up all of the people before they get onto the stage in order to instigate stage fights and get ratings.
I'm not saying these guys are angels, most likely they really do mess with little kids and thus should be castrated, but what I'm saying is that the show seems to find these guys AWEFULLY easily don't they?
quiet_samurai:
"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."
(Edit: Sorry, for some reason it wouldn't let me actually quote the post)
Perhaps I should clear this up. When I was referring to the peer presure element, I was referring to all crimes, not just child molestation. The OP's question was whether or not it is wrong to entice people to commit a crime, not is it wrong to entice people to molest, and as such I responded in kind. The peer presure thing was more for when authorities have to badger someone in order to commit the crime, such as paying for sex, paying for drugs, or selling drugs.
I don't disagree with you statement, in fact I agree with some parts. A person is likely to be pressured (rather then thinking a long time on the matter) into paying for sex or buying drugs at least once, but a pedophile is more likely to think alot about molesting a kid rather then suddenly thinking it would be a good idea.
I just thought I'd clear up what I was getting at, sorry if I confused anyone.
"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."
(Edit: Sorry, for some reason it wouldn't let me actually quote the post)
Perhaps I should clear this up. When I was referring to the peer presure element, I was referring to all crimes, not just child molestation. The OP's question was whether or not it is wrong to entice people to commit a crime, not is it wrong to entice people to molest, and as such I responded in kind. The peer presure thing was more for when authorities have to badger someone in order to commit the crime, such as paying for sex, paying for drugs, or selling drugs.
I don't disagree with you statement, in fact I agree with some parts. A person is likely to be pressured (rather then thinking a long time on the matter) into paying for sex or buying drugs at least once, but a pedophile is more likely to think alot about molesting a kid rather then suddenly thinking it would be a good idea.
I just thought I'd clear up what I was getting at, sorry if I confused anyone.
It's because criminal records and proceedings are considered public, at least in the USA. A person being charged on on trial does not have the right to privacy in the matter. Not for humiliation reasons, but to ensure fair due process.Slycne said:
i dont watch the show, because i find it evil, there was a big case in denmark a few years ago when a newspaper copied the show, they managed to do that twice before getting sued, the people went free, and rightly so, they did use more questionable than this show, i think it was around 12 people who got fired, and a few of them got arrested.
there are many American laws and morals i will never get, this show embodies both.
there are many American laws and morals i will never get, this show embodies both.
...okay, disregarding Shrodinger's Morals here for just a second, the laws thing confuses me.Swaki said:
Could you go into a little further detail as to what laws the show is embodying (I mean beyond the obvious "don't ally with a certain internet bear")?
I believe it's commonly referred to as "Entrapment". It also aggravates a sub-group of society willing to use any means to bring theseEternal_Lament said:
@Slycne: I do agree with your points about Entrapment, but I'd be unwilling to say they go to great lengths to avoid
as that would apply to agents going for a specific person. To Catch a Predator places its "honeypot" to get film, not to serve justice.
well there's the obvious gun law, then there's the big trial about video games being protected by freedom of speech, and many others, but trust me i dont hate Americans, that would be incredibly america...erhh, i mean, narrow minded of me.Micah Weil said:
No problem, and I didn't even think of the private property thing. It could actually be both reasons. NBC could have rented the house for a month making it a temporary residence, which you can film in and around all you want.Slycne said:
So, if your 14 year old son met a 40 year old on the internet, then said he was going to go meet him you wouldn't refute it? And if he ended up getting ass raped by said 40 year old, would you just make him a cup of hot cocoa, pat his shoulder and ask him what it is he learned here?satsujinka said:
Yeah, totally resonable. That's some pretty tough love.