Predator Traps

[ANARCHit3cht]

What are your views on authorities setting "traps" for presidents? That is, on shows like Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator."

I think it is wrong, and unlawful. But, on the other hand, prevents it from happening to an actual little girl/boy.

So... what are your opinions on this?

 

[SIN1488]

I think it is wrong, because honestly, I don't think they would have done the same in real life. Basically, they are given a fake opportunity and are arrested for it, when they probably wouldn't have sought out for that opportunity in the first place.

I think they only would do that with such an easy opportunity that Dateline baits them with, because if they are really so desperate why were they looking for a girl on the internet when almost everyone knows 12/F/_ and 15/F/_ are really Chris Hanson in disguise.

And good job if they really are catching predators that were going to really do something bad someday, but they just baited people and exploited them through a TV show. Also, another stupid side-effect that they obviously didn't see, when predators catch on to the fact that all chances of meeting a real girl and not a cop on the internet are non-existent, won't they just decide to do exactly what they were trying to stop, which is them preying on a real child?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Predator or President traps? (I'd like us to have President traps)

These (mostly) men should be able to use the entrapment defense.
This defense applies when a law enforcement officer or anyone else who has legal authority persuades someone to commit a crime.

Notice that these people are usually charged with conspiracy, attempt, solicitation, etc and never for an actual completed act. This is because it is a legal impossibilty to commit a lewd act on a minor when there is no minor to commit a lewd act on.

And these people aren't the real predators. The so-called "minors" they are soliciting are consenting to the sexual acts. I'm not saying that it's right, but I'm saying that the show hypes up the seriousness of the offenses. Real predators are violently raping, molesting, kidnapping, and murdering children, not having consensual sex.

 

[Yusshin]

Well, a lot of those people get fooled and have a nature brought out of them that otherwise wouldn't be there.

In real life, there is next to nil chance a 13-year-old will walk up to a 25-year-old and start talking sexually with them. Now, if a 13-year-old is in front of a computer, the screen barrier gives them a confidence that yes, they might start doing that for jokes, but they're doing it intentionally. 13-year-olds shouldn't be in those chatrooms anyway, and parents should be teaching their 13-year-old etiquette and a little self-respect (since I'm sure, if they're talking about sexual stuff, she's not thinking highly of her body at that moment.)

The 18-year-olds who pose as 15 or 13 or w/e-year-old girls are baiting a nature that might not even exist. They're encouraging it, and they're the ones who generally start the inappropriate sexual slander with the people online. They provoke it. It should be them who's charged with provokation.

I'm sure some of the people who they caught for wanting to have sex with a child weren't actually going to do anything, and if they were, they were under the impression the kid was mature enough because of the way they were talking. No child should be talking about oral sex or w/e, but the people at Dateline NBC were doing so to bait people. If a child is talking seriously about these things on line, you can fool adults into thinking it's safe. They bring a condom because they have been fooled by these television shows into thinking that they were talking to an aware girl/boy.

After all, from what most PC members here think (so I've understood), 13-year-olds are well mature for their age and knowing about sex, condoms, etc. is normal for that age. Adults would be fooled into thinking that it's appropriate then.

I don't agree with their manner of doing this, no. The men who come without a condom should be charged for recklessness, not pedophilia. They weren't going to have sex, which was proven when they didn't bring a condom. The men who bring condoms should be charged with both "reus" in the law (actus and whatever the other thing is - mea or something) for attempting to do so - but having not done so protects them from the charge of attempted sex with a minor.

The men and women with families who mess around online should be slapped in the head. Wtf are you doing? lol These are the real retards.

I do not approve of any adult visiting a child of 13 years they spoke to online. Just to clarify. This is wrong, irresponsible, and reckless. A 19-year-old who visits a 15-year-old, though, shouldn't be counted as wrong since, sure, he's technically an adult, but their ages are so close together :| A 22/23-year-old who visits a 16-year-old isn't an issue either.

The main thing is that they visit without the parents around, which instantly lands a charge for recklessness. They had some intention and knowledge, but didn't commit an act, so the charge can't be labeled further. Or shouldn't, at least.

I can see what Dateline NBC and similar shows are trying to show that their doing (namely, saving tweens who are "mature" by PC standards anyway from adults), but they just want to exploit humans and get good ratings in the end :| I've seen 19-year-olds cuffed for visiting 15-year-old baits without condoms (who were really 18, meh). That's just wrong. The only time they should be cuffing is if the age difference is extreme and if they actually brought a condom with them. No condom? No actus reus. You can't charge further than recklessness without it.

That was kinda long. Anyway, as long as the age difference isn't gigantic (more than nine years), they don't bring a condom, and their parents are around, I don't see an issue. These shows specifically bait for when their parents aren't there, though. They also encourage these people to bring them things - condoms, sex toys, candy, chocolate, flowers, McDonald's. They're ****ing around with them and trying to turn non-pedophiles into pedophiles to plaster them on television.

If that makes sense.

Again, an adult over over 24 shouldn't be visiting anyone under 18, regardless parental supervision. Under 24? Then parent supervision, yeah. No issues with that.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Wow, that is a whole hell of a lot, Yusshin.

Also, the fact that they say their parents aren't around, and act very sexual just speeds up the process. Children still meet with adults they met online, it is just that it takes longer and is much harder. Yes, they wouldn't pounce on the opportunity, but I don't think it would be above them to do it all. (The more I write, the more confusing it sounds to me.) That is, they will gradually work to it. Wait til they actually have a chance where the child will be in a spot of limited adult supervision.

 

[Yusshin]

Yeah :| I kinda abused. I was talking to my sister the other day about this rofl that's why

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well, a lot of those people get fooled and have a nature brought out of them that otherwise wouldn't be there.

In real life, there is next to nil chance a 13-year-old will walk up to a 25-year-old and start talking sexually with them. Now, if a 13-year-old is in front of a computer, the screen barrier gives them a confidence that yes, they might start doing that for jokes, but they're doing it intentionally. 13-year-olds shouldn't be in those chatrooms anyway, and parents should be teaching their 13-year-old etiquette and a little self-respect (since I'm sure, if they're talking about sexual stuff, she's not thinking highly of her body at that moment.)

The 18-year-olds who pose as 15 or 13 or w/e-year-old girls are baiting a nature that might not even exist. They're encouraging it, and they're the ones who generally start the inappropriate sexual slander with the people online. They provoke it. It should be them who's charged with provokation.

I'm sure some of the people who they caught for wanting to have sex with a child weren't actually going to do anything, and if they were, they were under the impression the kid was mature enough because of the way they were talking. No child should be talking about oral sex or w/e, but the people at Dateline NBC were doing so to bait people. If a child is talking seriously about these things on line, you can fool adults into thinking it's safe. They bring a condom because they have been fooled by these television shows into thinking that they were talking to an aware girl/boy.

After all, from what most PC members here think (so I've understood), 13-year-olds are well mature for their age and knowing about sex, condoms, etc. is normal for that age. Adults would be fooled into thinking that it's appropriate then.

I don't agree with their manner of doing this, no. The men who come without a condom should be charged for recklessness, not pedophilia. They weren't going to have sex, which was proven when they didn't bring a condom. The men who bring condoms should be charged with both "reus" in the law (actus and whatever the other thing is - mea or something) for attempting to do so - but having not done so protects them from the charge of attempted sex with a minor.

The men and women with families who mess around online should be slapped in the head. Wtf are you doing? lol These are the real retards.

I do not approve of any adult visiting a child of 13 years they spoke to online. Just to clarify. This is wrong, irresponsible, and reckless. A 19-year-old who visits a 15-year-old, though, shouldn't be counted as wrong since, sure, he's technically an adult, but their ages are so close together :| A 22/23-year-old who visits a 16-year-old isn't an issue either.

The main thing is that they visit without the parents around, which instantly lands a charge for recklessness. They had some intention and knowledge, but didn't commit an act, so the charge can't be labeled further. Or shouldn't, at least.

I can see what Dateline NBC and similar shows are trying to show that their doing (namely, saving tweens who are "mature" by PC standards anyway from adults), but they just want to exploit humans and get good ratings in the end :| I've seen 19-year-olds cuffed for visiting 15-year-old baits without condoms (who were really 18, meh). That's just wrong. The only time they should be cuffing is if the age difference is extreme and if they actually brought a condom with them. No condom? No actus reus. You can't charge further than recklessness without it.

That was kinda long. Anyway, as long as the age difference isn't gigantic (more than nine years), they don't bring a condom, and their parents are around, I don't see an issue. These shows specifically bait for when their parents aren't there, though. They also encourage these people to bring them things - condoms, sex toys, candy, chocolate, flowers, McDonald's. They're ****ing around with them and trying to turn non-pedophiles into pedophiles to plaster them on television.

If that makes sense.

Again, an adult over over 24 shouldn't be visiting anyone under 18, regardless parental supervision. Under 24? Then parent supervision, yeah. No issues with that.

I agree about the close-in-age exceptions with you. Technically a parent can and should have the right to allow whoever they wish to visit their child. If its for sexual reasons, then no but not they can't visit at all.

Here in California, if two people under the age of 18 have sex, even if they are the same age, they've both raped eachother by default due to our statutory rape laws. These are rarely prosecuted but they can be.

 

[Yusshin]

In Canada, at 13, sex with anyone is illegal. At 14, it's sex til 17 but not younger. At 16, you can dhave sex with 14-20-year-olds by law. If your parents approve of it, then at 16 you can have sex with anyone of any age. 18 is the legal age of adulthood and of consent for any age, regardless your parents' opinions on it.

So a 15-year-old+16-year-old in Canada is legal. A 13-13 isn't. 16-20 is. 17-24 is with parental consent.

 

[SIN1488]

The thing is, they avoid getting charged with entrapment because they train the people posing as underage people in chats to wait for them to initiate the conversation about sexual stuff.

But with the kind of chat-rooms those would-be predators hang out in, I guarantee there would almost never be someone under 15 that would admit it if you removed the baiters.

Speaking of those freakin pedobaiters, I know a group of people that makes money off of these "chat predators". They pose as underage girls and get them to send stuff through mail, and then blackmail them for more money if the "chat predator" said anything stupid that could be used against them.

Here in California, if two people under the age of 18 have sex, even if they are the same age, they've both raped eachother by default due to our statutory rape laws. These are rarely prosecuted but they can be.

Yep, all it takes is 2 minors and one angry parent to prosecute though.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Just in case people didn't see my edit:

Yes, they wouldn't pounce on the opportunity, but I don't think it would be above them to do it all. (The more I write, the more confusing it sounds to me.) That is, they will gradually work to it. Wait til they actually have a chance where the child will be in a spot of limited adult supervision.

And to add more:

The age-gap thing is perfectly fine by me. I don't understand it really. I mean a 19 year old and a 15 year old sounds weird to a lot, but something like 40 year old and 30 year old doesn't sound as weird.

Also:

This seems to be driven a little off-topic from what I have originally intended.

 

[Yusshin]

Speaking of those freakin pedobaiters, I know a group of people that makes money off of these "chat predators". They pose as underage girls and get them to send stuff through mail, and then blackmail them for more money if the "chat predator" said anything stupid that could be used against them.

That's disgusting. Blackmail is really, really low, especially in this kind of situation :|

I had a male friend blackmailed by his ex-girlfriend constantly, saying "buy me this or I'll say you raped me and that you're a drug dealer." He had money, yeah, because he is a drug dealer, but that lady consented to it and she was 17 when he was 21. Nothing wrong with that, but she's got him twisted 'round her little finger now.

I got a finger for her lol but it's not the little one :P

 

[Timbjerr]

These (mostly) men should be able to use the entrapment defense.
This defense applies when a law enforcement officer or anyone else who has legal authority persuades someone to commit a crime.

Notice that these people are usually charged with conspiracy, attempt, solicitation, etc and never for an actual completed act. This is because it is a legal impossibilty to commit a lewd act on a minor when there is no minor to commit a lewd act on.

And these people aren't the real predators. The so-called "minors" they are soliciting are consenting to the sexual acts. I'm not saying that it's right, but I'm saying that the show hypes up the seriousness of the offenses. Real predators are violently raping, molesting, kidnapping, and murdering children, not having consensual sex.

I've been noticing that you're very knowledgeable and wise when it comes to the law. There's nothing you've posted on legal topics that I can't agree with. :P

The relative I mentioned in the "are sentences to strict" thread that got five years for solicitation was arrested as part of one of these traps. They're even worse when they're televised. The media is over sensationalizing the crime of people who haven't particularly done anything illegal. Sure, there's all kinds of things wrong with a 45-year-old man going to meet a 17-year-old girl from a chatroom, but if it was consentual, there was nothing illegal done...especially if the 17-year-old girl turns out to be fake and there was no secks to be had.

I know the ultraconservatives of the country ( I live in Texas, lol) see it as a preventative measure. "Oh, if he's got the right mind to have consentual sex with a 17-year-old girl, we should definitely brand him as a sex offender so that he can't live anywhere near a school and raep our 7-year-old son!!"...but there are several degrees difference between the mentality of someone who fits the legal definition of a pedophile and someone who fits the true psychological definition of a pedophile (Here's a hint: one of them doesn't necessarily find small children sexually attractive).

 

[Yusshin]

Reminds me of the Lovely Bones.

"He only wanted to touch her, but she screamed [so he killed her]. She was the youngest - six."

Some 40-year-old 'tard who wants to touch and murder 6-year-olds is the people Dateline should be targetting. Of course, no 6-year-olds would go online and talk about oral sex and bringing liquid chocolate to do God knows what with, so it'd be a bit hard to find these guys + you couldn't make a show out of it, which means no monies and no ratings.

I seriously doubt the people who do the show realize how stupid they are. Really:

- Provoke men with sexual enticements
- Demand that they bring sexual items
- Encourage them to come when their parents aren't around
- Arrest them for pedophilia (when the "minor" consented and was well-aware)

Uh? Logic gap.

Again, doubt these people would have done anything if they hadn't been provoked, or if it was a 13-year-old in front of 'em.

My sister likes to fck around online and get older men off with it. I told her: "Watch out, Kenzie. If they show up at our door one day prepared for sex, you asked for it."

She still thinks it's hilarious.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I've been noticing that you're very knowledgeable and wise when it comes to the law. There's nothing you've posted on legal topics that I can't agree with. :P

The relative I mentioned in the "are sentences to strict" thread that got five years for solicitation was arrested as part of one of these traps. They're even worse when they're televised. The media is over sensationalizing the crime of people who haven't particularly done anything illegal. Sure, there's all kinds of things wrong with a 45-year-old man going to meet a 17-year-old girl from a chatroom, but if it was consentual, there was nothing illegal done...especially if the 17-year-old girl turns out to be fake and there was no secks to be had.

I know the ultraconservatives of the country ( I live in Texas, lol) see it as a preventative measure. "Oh, if he's got the right mind to have consentual sex with a 17-year-old girl, we should definitely brand him as a sex offender so that he can't live anywhere near a school and raep our 7-year-old son!!"...but there are several degrees difference between the mentality of someone who fits the legal definition of a pedophile and someone who fits the true psychological definition of a pedophile (Here's a hint: one of them doesn't necessarily find small children sexually attractive).

Thanks. I'm an undergrad law major studying to become an attorney.

I agree. It may seems strange that a 45-year old is visting a 17-year old but if no sex or nothing else illegal happens who are we to judge? Everyone has their expectation of privacy.

 

[Esper]

What are your views on authorities setting "traps" for presidents?

I think it would have been a good idea a few years ago.

Seriously though, I think these traps are somewhat murky. There's been no crime committed. I understand the need to protect kids from predators, but when you go on a witch hunt you're bound to round up some people who are innocent.

If you live where I do and you're under 18 legally speaking you're not allowed sexy time, but not very far away you only have to be 17. Why is a state line making the difference? Age of consent laws vary a lot by where you live so there's no overall standard as to when someone is old enough/mature enough to consent to sexy time.

When you're young you're considered somewhat at the mercy of someone older because he (it's almost always a he) has money or something that makes it dangerously uneven to the point of possible coercion. That's the reasoning behind age of consent laws and they make sense, but why does everything change, in my area for instance, when you're 18? An 18 year old and a 40 year old isn't really different from a 17 year old and a 40 year old. There's still that unevenness and the possibility that it could be something less than consensual.

tl;dr Won't somebody please think of the children?

 

[Dawn]

I'd say it's pretty fair and right. It's not different because of what the predator can't see. The predator already did something he believed to be completely illegal by the time he figures out what is happening.

And yeah...

 

[Yusshin]

He might believe it's all right to go as a friend if it's consentual, which wouldn't make it illegal.

Those people are still cuffed and thrown to the ground, though.

Some people are fooled completely, though. Ever heard of being gullible? If they know it's illegal, but think it's all right because this person is consenting it, they may be naive enough to wave off the idea of it still being "wrong."

Unless the girl's 15 and the visitor's 30. That's just wrong on all levels.

 

[Dawn]

He might believe it's all right to go as a friend if it's consentual, which wouldn't make it illegal.

Those people are still cuffed and thrown to the ground, though.

Some people are fooled completely, though. Ever heard of being gullible? If they know it's illegal, but think it's all right because this person is consenting it, they may be naive enough to wave off the idea of it still being "wrong."

Unless the girl's 15 and the visitor's 30. That's just wrong on all levels.

The law on pedophilia requires a 5 year age difference for it to be considered pedophilic.

This does not effect the law which says adults cannot have sex with minors because minors CANNOT consent. It's automatically rape, essentially, no matter what the minor says.

Last time I checked that show did not ask people to come 'as friends'. I'd like an example of when that happens.

And if they know it's illegal and do it anyway, well, they're wrong. Pretty simple really. No taking the law into one's own hands.

 

[Yusshin]

Some come but don't bring any sexual material with them, showing that they weren't interested in sex but rather just came as a friendly thing.

In Canada, though, as said before, consent can be given if you're 14-17 for others aged 14-17. 13-year-olds cannot legally have sex with anyone. 16-year-olds can choose 14-20-year-olds or older with parental permission. 18-year-olds don't need permission.

It's different in America, eh? Maybe that's why my view is a bit different than yours. The show is American-based after all, and I guess you can't give consent AT ALL in America if you're not 18. I see, I see. Very different.

Some giant age brackets are sick, though. 30-year-olds who don't bring condoms shouldn't want to be friends with 13-year-olds anyway.

 

[Melody]

Well, a lot of those people get fooled and have a nature brought out of them that otherwise wouldn't be there.

In real life, there is next to nil chance a 13-year-old will walk up to a 25-year-old and start talking sexually with them. Now, if a 13-year-old is in front of a computer, the screen barrier gives them a confidence that yes, they might start doing that for jokes, but they're doing it intentionally. 13-year-olds shouldn't be in those chatrooms anyway, and parents should be teaching their 13-year-old etiquette and a little self-respect (since I'm sure, if they're talking about sexual stuff, she's not thinking highly of her body at that moment.)

The 18-year-olds who pose as 15 or 13 or w/e-year-old girls are baiting a nature that might not even exist. They're encouraging it, and they're the ones who generally start the inappropriate sexual slander with the people online. They provoke it. It should be them who's charged with provocation.

I'm sure some of the people who they caught for wanting to have sex with a child weren't actually going to do anything, and if they were, they were under the impression the kid was mature enough because of the way they were talking. No child should be talking about oral sex or w/e, but the people at Dateline NBC were doing so to bait people. If a child is talking seriously about these things on line, you can fool adults into thinking it's safe. They bring a condom because they have been fooled by these television shows into thinking that they were talking to an aware girl/boy.

After all, from what most PC members here think (so I've understood), 13-year-olds are well mature for their age and knowing about sex, condoms, etc. is normal for that age. Adults would be fooled into thinking that it's appropriate then.

I don't agree with their manner of doing this, no. The men who come without a condom should be charged for recklessness, not pedophilia. They weren't going to have sex, which was proven when they didn't bring a condom. The men who bring condoms should be charged with both "reus" in the law (actus and whatever the other thing is - mea or something) for attempting to do so - but having not done so protects them from the charge of attempted sex with a minor.

The men and women with families who mess around online should be slapped in the head. Wtf are you doing? lol These are the real retards.

I do not approve of any adult visiting a child of 13 years they spoke to online. Just to clarify. This is wrong, irresponsible, and reckless. A 19-year-old who visits a 15-year-old, though, shouldn't be counted as wrong since, sure, he's technically an adult, but their ages are so close together :| A 22/23-year-old who visits a 16-year-old isn't an issue either.

The main thing is that they visit without the parents around, which instantly lands a charge for recklessness. They had some intention and knowledge, but didn't commit an act, so the charge can't be labeled further. Or shouldn't, at least.

I can see what Dateline NBC and similar shows are trying to show that their doing (namely, saving tweens who are "mature" by PC standards anyway from adults), but they just want to exploit humans and get good ratings in the end :| I've seen 19-year-olds cuffed for visiting 15-year-old baits without condoms (who were really 18, meh). That's just wrong. The only time they should be cuffing is if the age difference is extreme and if they actually brought a condom with them. No condom? No actus reus. You can't charge further than recklessness without it.

That was kinda long. Anyway, as long as the age difference isn't gigantic (more than nine years), they don't bring a condom, and their parents are around, I don't see an issue. These shows specifically bait for when their parents aren't there, though. They also encourage these people to bring them things - condoms, sex toys, candy, chocolate, flowers, McDonald's. They're ****ing around with them and trying to turn non-pedophiles into pedophiles to plaster them on television.

If that makes sense.

Again, an adult over over 24 shouldn't be visiting anyone under 18, regardless parental supervision. Under 24? Then parent supervision, yeah. No issues with that.

I agree, there needs to be more publicizing of the true definition of pedophilia, which is like a 30 year old visiting a tween (12-14 years old). That being said, It's wrong to bait people into doing something wrong.

That's disgusting. Blackmail is really, really low, especially in this kind of situation :|

I had a male friend blackmailed by his ex-girlfriend constantly, saying "buy me this or I'll say you raped me and that you're a drug dealer." He had money, yeah, because he is a drug dealer, but that lady consented to it and she was 17 when he was 21. Nothing wrong with that, but she's got him twisted 'round her little finger now.

I got a finger for her lol but it's not the little one :P

Blackmail is wrong, and is actually illegal in some situations, but it's hard to prove unless they confess it.

Reminds me of the Lovely Bones.

"He only wanted to touch her, but she screamed [so he killed her]. She was the youngest - six."

Some 40-year-old 'tard who wants to touch and murder 6-year-olds are the people Dateline should be targeting. Of course, no 6-year-olds would go online and talk about oral sex and bringing liquid chocolate to do God knows what with, so it'd be a bit hard to find these guys + you couldn't make a show out of it, which means no monies and no ratings.

I seriously doubt the people who do the show realize how stupid they are. Really:

- Provoke men with sexual enticements
- Demand that they bring sexual items
- Encourage them to come when their parents aren't around
- Arrest them for pedophilia (when the "minor" consented and was well-aware)

Uh? Logic gap.

Again, doubt these people would have done anything if they hadn't been provoked, or if it was a 13-year-old in front of 'em.

My sister likes to fck around online and get older men off with it. I told her: "Watch out, Kenzie. If they show up at our door one day prepared for sex, you asked for it."

She still thinks it's hilarious.

If anything the folks over at Dateline ought to face charges for aiding and abetting a crime when they bait 'predators'. As for cases where a real kid has baited a real adult into thinking that there is consent for sex, there should be a stiff punishment on BOTH ends...Jail both the adult and child for conspiring to have sex illegally.

As for your sister, she simply may enjoy that kind of attention, but I hope she doesn't give out any information such as her address or anything like that. Unless she's stupid enough to let the people she's interacting with online actually meet her in real life, it's not as dangerous as you might think. But tell your mom what she is doing, and put a stop to it if it really concerns you that greatly. It is dangerous irregardless of what I am saying, and you're not wrong in worrying about her.

The law on pedophilia requires a 5 year age difference for it to be considered pedophilic.

This does not effect the law which says adults cannot have sex with minors because minors CANNOT consent. It's automatically rape, essentially, no matter what the minor says.

Last time I checked that show did not ask people to come 'as friends'. I'd like an example of when that happens.

And if they know it's illegal and do it anyway, well, they're wrong. Pretty simple really. No taking the law into one's own hands.

No, you are wrong. If no crime is committed then why arrest them and charge them because they planned to do it? Especially if they were BAITED. That is entrapment, no matter how you look at it.