• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Predator Traps

Obviously I haven't seen the show as I'm in a different country, but I'm just going off what others have said.

I think that enticing men to act paedophilic is just wrong. Just because someone who was provoked acted on it, doesn't mean they would under normal conditions.
Yusshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here in England (and throughout the UK (Eire excluded)) the age consent is 16. There's no law (that I know of) that gives the parent control over the child's (bad choice of words, I know) sexual activities under any age.

I'm pretty sure if someone over 16 has sex with a minor it's classed as rape, if they're both minors I'm not so sure.

There's also a law governing sex between a person and someone with a position of authority over the person (eg teachet/student), though I'm unsure what the exact rules are though.
 
She has her cellphone number on her MyYearBook page (800 friends she doesn't even know in r/l). She texts them all of the time and gives her number by default to any friend on MYB since it's on her profile page. She's stupid. Really.

Glad you agree with my views, Pachy :P

Rich Boy Rob: We have the authority figure law, too. I just didn't want to go into too much detail lol
 
I have to kind of pay devil's advocate here: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The perp not knowing their actions are wrong or illegal is not a valid defense.

Aside from an entrapment defense (which unfortunately doesn't work in most states) a defendant can attack the requisite mens rea. This would mean they show that the purpose of their visit was not criminal so they didn't have the mens rea (mens rea is just a fancy word for criminal intent).

The jury decides who to believe. If by reviewing transcripts of the online conversations between the undercover officer and the defendant, and any other evidence the defense provides to disprove criminal intent, the jury can decide that the defendant paid a visit for non-criminal purposes if they wish and find them not guilty.
 
In Canada, ignorance of the law or misjudging a situation (to some degrees) is classified as recklessness. It depends on how serious the situation is and how obvious the crime itself is. In this case, the person was provoked and convinced it was fine. They were blinded. Recklessness is really all there is here.

Also, mens reas and actus reas goes hand-in-hand. You need both to prove a crime. In Canada at least :s *just took Grade 11 University Canadian Law*

I got 87% :D Yay! Only took me 20h xD rofl
 
Yusshin said:
In Canada, ignorance of the law or misjudging a situation (to some degrees) is classified as recklessness. It depends on how serious the situation is and how obvious the crime itself is. In this case, the person was provoked and convinced it was fine. They were blinded. Recklessness is really all there is here.

Also, mens reas and actus reas goes hand-in-hand. You need both to prove a crime. In Canada at least :s *just took Grade 11 University Canadian Law*

I got 87% :D Yay! Only took me 20h xD rofl
Click to expand...

In California, there are some crimes where the prosecution does not have to prove mens rea, just actus reus. These are called strict liabilty crimes. They are usually minor traffic offenses but we do have on biggie strict liabilty crime: stautory rape.

This means that the prosecution does not have to prove you knew the victim was underage or that you intended to commit the unlaw sexual act on a minor, only that you had the sex in question.
 
Kinda like Akon with that 15-year-old who said she was 18?

I think it was Akon >>

Anyway, not sure about our views on that in Canada. If the parents scream "rape", you're in trouble if it can be proven you did have sex with a minor. If you didn't know, it might be a reduced offence, but I think you still get in crap.

With all the make-up and adult clothing 15-year-olds wear nowadays, it's getting hard to tell their age :| + they get permitted into 18+ clubs - wtf? They're ASKING for it.
 
Yusshin said:
Kinda like Akon with that 15-year-old who said she was 18?

I think it was Akon >>

Anyway, not sure about our views on that in Canada. If the parents scream "rape", you're in trouble if it can be proven you did have sex with a minor. If you didn't know, it might be a reduced offence, but I think you still get in crap.

With all the make-up and adult clothing 15-year-olds wear nowadays, it's getting hard to tell their age :| + they get permitted into 18+ clubs - wtf? They're ASKING for it.
Click to expand...

I mispoke a bit in my last post. We actually have seen lots of petty statutory rape cases be prosecuted where a 17-year old girl is angry at her 18-year old boyfriend (or vice-versa) and she turns him in.

In repsonse we have a close-in-age exception. Other states exonerate you completely for meeting the closeness in age, but not California. For being close in age you just get to be charged with misdemeanor statutory rape instead of felony statutory rape. And if the minor is 16 years of age or older you can make a mistake of age defense.
 
So really, you better trust your partner 100% or (in California, at least) you'll always be at risk of getting your butt handed over for consentual activities and acquire a permanent criminal record because of it.

The people who blackmail and use it against others to instill fear, or really, use it for their own benefits can burn in Hell lol they're terrible people. They KNOW they consented, yet they'll try to fck over someone else's life because they're angry.

I hate these people :|
 
Yusshin said:
So really, you better trust your partner 100% or (in California, at least) you'll always be at risk of getting your butt handed over for consentual activities and acquire a permanent criminal record because of it.

The people who blackmail and use it against others to instill fear, or really, use it for their own benefits can burn in Hell lol they're terrible people. They KNOW they consented, yet they'll try to fck over someone else's life because they're angry.

I hate these people :|
Click to expand...

Oh yes I believe we require felony statutory rapists to register as sex offenders for the remainder of their lives. I don't think you need to for a misdemeanor but I'm not sure so you might
 
Yusshin said:

- Arrest them for pedophilia (when the "minor" consented and was well-aware)

Uh? Logic gap.
Click to expand...

Minors can't consent.
Nor can "minors" pretending to be minors.

I repeat, if a 13 year old did the EXACT same thing the predator would still be under arrest. A 13 year old CAN do the exact same thing, and really it's not different because the predator does not know. The fake is no more alluring than the real thing.

Adults have to control themselves. They can't make excuses, they just have to do it. The law is strict and unforgiving. It might seem unfair, but it's really not.

On a more realistic question of morals, the show could be called out of line for assuming intent. I mean, sooner or later someone's just going to claim: "I knew it was you guys pretty early on. I just came for the lols" and then there's going to be trouble because there's no way to prove the guy wrong.
 
PkMnTrainer Yellow said:
Minors can't consent.
Nor can "minors" pretending to be minors.

I repeat, if a 13 year old did the EXACT same thing the predator would still be under arrest. A 13 year old CAN do the exact same thing, and really it's not different because the predator does not know. The fake is no more alluring than the real thing.

Adults have to control themselves. They can't make excuses, they just have to do it. The law is strict and unforgiving. It might seem unfair, but it's really not.

On a more realistic question of morals, the show could be called out of line for assuming intent. I mean, sooner or later someone's just going to claim: "I knew it was you guys pretty early on. I just came for the lols" and then there's going to be trouble because there's no way to prove the guy wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm just surprised no one has done it yet.... or has not been revealed
 
PkMnTrainer Yellow said:
Minors can't consent.
Nor can "minors" pretending to be minors.

I repeat, if a 13 year old did the EXACT same thing the predator would still be under arrest. A 13 year old CAN do the exact same thing, and really it's not different because the predator does not know. The fake is no more alluring than the real thing.

Adults have to control themselves. They can't make excuses, they just have to do it. The law is strict and unforgiving. It might seem unfair, but it's really not.

On a more realistic question of morals, the show could be called out of line for assuming intent. I mean, sooner or later someone's just going to claim: "I knew it was you guys pretty early on. I just came for the lols" and then there's going to be trouble because there's no way to prove the guy wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm saying, they tricked the people into thinking that it's all right, when it's not. They blinded them with the constant "consenting minor" trick. Sure, the "minor" can't really consent, but the way they pressure it makes the adult feel that it's all right even though the law says otherwise. They ******** them into changing their perception of what's happening.

That's like us knowing that marijuana is illegal in Ontario, but someone telling you over'n over "It's only illegal if you have a large amount. Four grams is legal." Sure, in Quebec four grams is legal, but not in Ontario. The amount of pressure that the person is placing on the other, though, will cause their perception to be twisted. "Hey, maybe he's right. Maybe it's only illegal if you have enough to be called a dealer?" < Fell in trap.

When the "minor" (which is really some old guy behind a screen getting kicks out of this) consents over'n over, saying "It's all right; just come, come come! Bring me this! C'mon, it's all right, I don't mind! I'm'a DO things." fifty million times, a person's perception can twist and they can make a mistake of perception. The only time where this is unacceptable is if the person is over twenty-five and visiting a 13-year-old. That's a problem. If a 22-year-old person is visiting a 16-year-old, though, they should be able to use a defence for mistake of perception - I'm actually pretty sure this defence exists. I'd need to check back to Unit 4 of my Canadian Law book.

And if someone actually went on the show and said that, they wouldn't broadcast that episode. They would censor it out and broadcast a different tape instead.
 
Even if its a setup and there's chance that they would not have otherwise ended up in such a situation, I don't care. I have no sympathy for them. They took the bait. There was nothing preventing them from not heading in the other direction, but instead, somehow they thought what they were doing was alright. Set up or not. So, no. Tough luck sickos.

I see a gap though, in that...there wasn't actually a minor involved. So, no clue what they could be charged with.
 
Last edited:
Jolene said:
I think it is good, because it will make pedophiles scared of going to meet people who they talk to on the internet, in case the person is actually working for Chris Hansem.
Click to expand...

I suppose, but potentially-innocent people are given records because of it. Others are hurt to instill fear in real criminals. That's not right.

Off-topic: My sister goes on chat roulette posing as Chris Hansen. Her first lines are always "Why don't you take a seat right over there?"
 
Yusshin said:


I suppose, but potentially-innocent people are given records because of it. Others are hurt to instill fear in real criminals. That's not right.

Off-topic: My sister goes on chat roulette posing as Chris Hansen. Her first lines are always "Why don't you take a seat right over there?"
Click to expand...
I think they're more like "potentially-guilty". Clearly there's something wrong if they act upon whatever they're being fed.

Wouldn't a good and civil person recognize, at the very least, that its dangerous waters to be treading in?

They might not have been otherwise caught or end up in such a situation, but they are more likely than others to end up in such a position to begin with. And in the process, you've a protected a potential future victim.
 
Innocent until proven guilty, eh? Though, that only works in the cases where the visitor didn't bring a condom.

Otherwise, that's a bit disturbing, especially if they're really old :| they're at fault there, too, but they can still use the defence of mistake of perception. The hosters of that show, though, are just as bad for provoking it.
 
Jolene said:
I think it is effective as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

Right, it is a deterrent, but it can be like pushing water in the wrong direction, it can be disastrous, as I already said earlier: "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?"


Pachy said:
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).
Click to expand...

No, that is not the true definition of pedophilia. The true definition of a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, regardless of whether they do anything about that attraction or not. What's annoying is that they also have a medical definition, and of course the common public definition which makes "pedophile" a synonym for "child molester".

BTW, I haven't read page 2 yet so I need to go back and read after this post. Anyway, I think it would be really fun to find one of those cops in a chat, hint about being a pedophile, and then lead them in circles without ever crossing the legal boundaries. Maybe if I pissed them off enough, they would actually try entrapment. :laugh:

Edit:
Yusshin said:
Off-topic: My sister goes on chat roulette posing as Chris Hansen. Her first lines are always "Why don't you take a seat right over there?"
Click to expand...

lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top