Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.

[Starke]

The DA expressed to what he thought was a minor that he wanted to watch the minor masturbate, then they could hold each other and touch each other. I'm pretty sure this expresses intent. And it falls into the category of soliciting sex from a minor. Watch the video again.

Well, strictly speaking it can't be again since I hadn't watched it the first time around.

Now, it may be my own innate paranoia and familiarity with editing techniques but the case they're presenting is anything but iron clad. And it certainly doesn't prove in any way shape or form that he wasn't entrapped.

In more detail you're presented with what appears to be a persuasive case, but by necessity you will not and cannot get the whole picture. Given the objective of a show like this, that starts to cast everything in a suspicious light.

This is not someone following him around and proposing him. He caught on that he was getting nailed, which is why he was trying to back away. Otherwise, why would he not answer his door? I really don't think he was taking a shower.

Legally that's honestly irrelevant. We literally do not know. So, all we can do is speculate.

Sorry, it still doesn't hold water. He was hunting children. He just caught the sent of the police before he visited the supposed minor's house.

I think you mean scent. And, again, from a five minute TV piece there's literally no evidence you can use to argue against the supposition that he was a victim of gross entrapment.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Hmmmm...could that do with a little chilli powder as well, or would that spoil it?

Actually, great idea! A touch of cayenne or some sriracha would make it nice and spicy.

If you're going to make it spicy though, I'd change the lemon juice for lime juice to give it a nice piquant taste.

Excellent. Now, which beer to accompany it?

Depends on the crudités. If you're going for vegetables, then I'd suggest a good white wine; however, if it's breadsticks, take red - and if it's meat, match the beer to the spice, you'll want something with a mild taste not to take away from the spices.

Possibly a good lager like Kingfisher or Cobra? Sol could work, but you'd need a good spice to go with it.

 

[Starke]

sorry to poke a hole but this isnt entrapment, this is a sting. If they go on and start flirting with guys first, making the first push, it is, if they go on pretending to be a 13 year old cheerleader, and the guy starts something, its a sting.

The limited format of what we see makes me really suspicious of this though. Particularly in light of the ADA who backed out. This, to me, suggests a pattern of behavior where they lure people into these situations through repeated trawling and potentially harassment. Where they've just lucked out so far because they haven't gone after anyone smart enough to beat them over the head for that.

 

[WittyInfidel]

Watch the video again.

Well, strictly speaking it can't be again since I hadn't watched it the first time around.

This explains much. I was trying to figure out how you were building a case while ignore much of the presented information. Just turns out you have refused to view any of the information, and are simply speculating on what you *think* may have been on the video. I highly suggest watching it. it will help you understand the full argument you are trying to make, versus basing an argument on conjecture and speculation.

The part where he sent pornographic photos of himself to what he thought was a minor can really sway an argument.

*tips his hat*

Good day to you. I am off to do other things.

 

[Iwata]

I love the show, and I enjoy seeing paedophiles squirm.

 

[Starke]

sorry to poke a hole but this isnt entrapment, this is a sting. If they go on and start flirting with guys first, making the first push, it is, if they go on pretending to be a 13 year old cheerleader, and the guy starts something, its a sting.

The limited format of what we see makes me really suspicious of this though. Particularly in light of the ADA who backed out. This, to me, suggests a pattern of behavior where they lure people into these situations through repeated trawling and potentially harassment. Where they've just lucked out so far because they haven't gone after anyone smart enough to beat them over the head for that.

if it was entrapment, none of those people would be going to jail, any lawyer who passed a bar cna not only spring you from anything if entrapment is involved, but get you a big check as well.

Any lawyer with half a brain should be able to get the cases tossed because they were interviewed on national television without an attorney present, unless these idiots were dumb enough to wave Miranda (I skimmed through this section of the video).

 

[Starke]

This explains much. I was trying to figure out how you were building a case while ignore much of the presented information. Just turns out you have refused to view any of the information, and are simply speculating on what you *think* may have been on the video.

Not so much refused as was unable to at the time. Please don't attempt to ascribe motives to me.

I highly suggest watching it.

Too late. I already did. The second post was in light of the video.

it will help you understand the full argument you are trying to make, versus basing an argument on conjecture and speculation.

No, it actually reinforced my suspicion of the material, again, because of the relative lack of information.

The part where he sent pornographic photos of himself to what he thought was a minor can really sway an argument.

Yeah, and I'd be inclined to say that was damning if we knew any of the context that went with it. It looks terrible, but without context, what provoked this? Most people don't start a conversation by sending other people gay porn (unless you're secretly Jack Thompson). So it looks pretty fucking damning, but without context, what the fuck is going on, honestly?

Good day to you. I am off to do other things.

Your inner child called, he's escaped and robbed a liquor store.

 

[faspxina]

Oh.. I was thinking of Predator the alien from the movies and comics...

Then you must also know how it feels to find out that this thread isn't going to answer us if what Arnold did to that creature was morally right or wrong.

OT:
Does end justify the means? Well sometimes it does, and I think this is one of those times.

And the guy who shot himself didn't die because of the TV show, the show only proved the guy that, eventually, he would get caught.

 

[Starke]

sorry to poke a hole but this isnt entrapment, this is a sting. If they go on and start flirting with guys first, making the first push, it is, if they go on pretending to be a 13 year old cheerleader, and the guy starts something, its a sting.

The limited format of what we see makes me really suspicious of this though. Particularly in light of the ADA who backed out. This, to me, suggests a pattern of behavior where they lure people into these situations through repeated trawling and potentially harassment. Where they've just lucked out so far because they haven't gone after anyone smart enough to beat them over the head for that.

if it was entrapment, none of those people would be going to jail, any lawyer who passed a bar cna not only spring you from anything if entrapment is involved, but get you a big check as well.

Any lawyer with half a brain should be able to get the cases tossed because they were interviewed on national television without an attorney present, unless these idiots were dumb enough to wave Miranda.

on what ground? dude you know that miranda just means it cant be used on court, so the intervie you see on tv cnat be used in court all the rest is dandy. I dont mean to be rude and hopefully didnt, but the law isnt that easy to weasle out of. being interviewed just means that interview cnat be used, the rest of the evidence cna be, also HE ISNT A COP, so actually the interview is still gold, only cops have to give you miranda right, you want to tell national tv your a pedo, thats gold, they dont need to warn ya.

I'm not talking about the twat and his ambush interviewing style, I'm talking about the interview sequences that appear to be police interrogations in the video. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if they are signing wavers off screen and this just isn't an element of "good TV". But, if they aren't?

EDIT: And yes, I am aware that Miranda is limited to using police interviews in court.

 

[WittyInfidel]

WittyInfidel:
Good day to you. I am off to do other things.

Your inner child called, he's escaped and robbed a liquor store.

Insults? Really? Now I'm disappointed in you. You seemed better than that. Pity.

 

[Starke]

Your inner child called, he's escaped and robbed a liquor store.

Insults? Really? Now I'm disappointed in you. You seemed better than that. Pity.

Nope, (apparently obscure) pop culture references.

 

[lockeslylcrit]

Is it immoral to have a public sex offender registry that everyone can search, one that has the person's full address, photo, name, and offense?
I certainly don't think so, and I certainly don't think To Catch A Predator is immoral either. It's no entrapping, since both the online and offline bait do not specifically ask the perpetrator to do things. They are simply going along with the suggestions made by the perpetrator, whom is the sole instigator.

 

[Marowit]

pedophiles are pedophiles. why is it immoral to catch them? I understand that entrapment is wrong, but these people aren't being persuaded to do something. they are choosing to meet a child to abuse them; it's wrong, and they deserve to be caught.

 

[Starke]

sorry to poke a hole but this isnt entrapment, this is a sting. If they go on and start flirting with guys first, making the first push, it is, if they go on pretending to be a 13 year old cheerleader, and the guy starts something, its a sting.

The limited format of what we see makes me really suspicious of this though. Particularly in light of the ADA who backed out. This, to me, suggests a pattern of behavior where they lure people into these situations through repeated trawling and potentially harassment. Where they've just lucked out so far because they haven't gone after anyone smart enough to beat them over the head for that.

if it was entrapment, none of those people would be going to jail, any lawyer who passed a bar cna not only spring you from anything if entrapment is involved, but get you a big check as well.

Any lawyer with half a brain should be able to get the cases tossed because they were interviewed on national television without an attorney present, unless these idiots were dumb enough to wave Miranda.

on what ground? dude you know that miranda just means it cant be used on court, so the intervie you see on tv cnat be used in court all the rest is dandy. I dont mean to be rude and hopefully didnt, but the law isnt that easy to weasle out of. being interviewed just means that interview cnat be used, the rest of the evidence cna be, also HE ISNT A COP, so actually the interview is still gold, only cops have to give you miranda right, you want to tell national tv your a pedo, thats gold, they dont need to warn ya.

I'm not talking about the twat and his ambush interviewing style, I'm talking about the interview sequences that appear to be police interrogations in the video. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if they are signing wavers off screen and this just isn't an element of "good TV". But, if they aren't?

well once tehy read you miranda, they can start asking question right away, if oyu answer, thats your own fault, if you dont wait for your lawyer, and most people dont bother waiting, or hate lawyers to much to get one.

Well, and at least off of this video I'm getting a definite hick vibe. So it would be predisposed towards people who wouldn't call a lawyer. Without digging into the show's back catalog, it wouldn't surprise me if they actually bias towards these demographics to avoid legal snarls, or because they can't reliably get usable footage off of cases where the accused is smart enough to get a lawyer and not sign off on any NBC wavers.

It's possible that this is legal in the same way street smarts type programs are, but my understanding was that legal wavers were required there as well.

The only time we see someone accused who's legally competent here, it's all posthumous, and even then the b-reel shots of the stretcher are probably far enough away to not require any sort of consent under Texas Law.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Airing it on tv is morally wrong, this is not entertainment it is fear mongering

 

[Starke]

also if they are conviceted they cna show more things

Hadn't thought of that. Thought that would mean... what, nearly a year between primary photography and air?

needless to say, if its up its not doing much illegal to teh people being busted or it would of been taken down by now. and i dont think its targeting "hicks" just hicks are more likely to trust some cheerleader on the internet wants o sleep with them more.

This actually raises a statistical question. How well have cases they've instigated held up?

 

[Valksy]

Article on entrapment: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

 

[bpm195]

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?

EDIT: I'm editing this post to include the fact that a man was killed because of the show. He was a well known district attorney who was talking to a minor online and arranged a meeting. The district attorney decided not to go through with the meeting, so the police went to his house to arrest him anyway (Texas law enabled them to do so - even without him physically doing anything). They knocked at his door and got no response, they broke in and encountered him in the hallway where he shot himself in head. He is dead. Because of the show.

In general I have no problem with the way the show operates. They make a point of not entrapping the suspect. They aren't creating a situation where a reasonable person wouldn't be able to say no and they all they're doing is creating an opportunity.

However it's a pretty terrible law that allows the police to arrest the man for agreeing to go have sex with the minor even though he cancelled on them and didn't show up. I'm presuming that he knew the law and knew that his life was when the police showed up at his door so I think killing himself was probably a good call, but most importantly his own call. He finally got caught for his crimes and chose not to go prison.

This does bring me to one problem I have with media outlets, slandering the name of a person who isn't found guilty. I don't know if they wait for all the legal proceedings to finish before they air an episode, but at the moment your face is aired on the show you're lynched in the court of public opinion. I can imagine that some of these guys do get off for being complete idiots rather than predators.

Anybody who is being publicly humiliated before they're found guilty is being done a tragic disservice by the media.

 

[Kanlic]

Is this show morally right?


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

EDIT: I'm editing this post to include the fact that a man was killed because of the show. He was a well known district attorney who was talking to a minor online and arranged a meeting. The district attorney decided not to go through with the meeting, so the police went to his house to arrest him anyway (Texas law enabled them to do so - even without him physically doing anything). They knocked at his door and got no response, they broke in and encountered him in the hallway where he shot himself in head. He is dead. Because of the show.

Anybody who is on To Catch a Predator signs a release allowing them to be put on the television show, they personally allow their image to be used by the show; those criminals agreed to be on. The District Attorney is a public figure, we can use his image however we like, so in that sense, he knew the conditions that his job brought to him, and it was his choice to do something as stupid as trying to have sex with minors through the internet.

The fact that the guy killed himself is a good thing too. That means that he won't live on to physically and emotionally abuse someone who is barely starting puberty. We don't need guys like that in our society period. He is broken, and so is everyone else they hunt down in that show, the less of them there are the better. So yes, the show is morally right in my opinion.

 

[Agayek]

I can see the argument in support of the show, but I'm against the whole idea of pedophilia laws anyway. It's really kinda stupid. As long as both parties are consenting, regardless of age, nobody (except maybe the minor's parents) has the right to interfere. If the child is willing, and maybe even happy about it, I don't really get why people get up in arms over it.

That said, anyone that forces an unwilling participant (again, regardless of age) needs to be shot with a nail gun a few dozen times then thrown in a vat of sulfuric acid.