Chissler, my freind.

It has been proven that these monsters do not rehabilitate. They merely reoffend, again and again and again.

How often do you read or hear a story on the news about a child molester on trial and it comes out that he has offended multiple times before, even though he is supposedly "rehabilitated".

These guys, and the preponderence of sex offenders are male, say and do what the councilours tell them to do, and are released back into society to play their sordid little power games.

So I must respectfully disagree with you. Currently there is no rehabilitation that works. Who knows what treatment will come available in the future that may work, I don't know, claiming omniscience isn't for me. The only things that will work are death, and imprisonment forever, nothing else shows any signs of working to any great degree.

Originally posted by chissler
I would love to see Dateline do a segment towards adult females who are attempting to exploit young males. To see if this does exist, and just how prevalent it might be.

I totally agree! You never know... they could possibly be doing the research and then air them only if they have enough of them to show a regular pattern of this behavior with women.

Originally posted by prototism
Perverted Justice is just that; the perversion of justice.

Where is the perversion?

What crime are they charged with, that they are not guilty of? While they are not guilty of actual sexual intercourse with a minor, they are guilty of plenty. What if this was not a sting, and it was an actual 12 year old girl waiting in the home? What would happen?

Every day, that is the case for some unknowing mother and father. What if it was your daughter? How would you feel?

Perversion of justice? I could not disagree more.

This is a group of people dedicated to keeping our children safe. The innocence of a child is being exploited by all aspects of society. The media preys on those with talent, and the next thing we know they are a washed up drug addict, in and out of rehab by the time they have a license. Those that are lucky enough to be "normal", are forced to fight off sexual predators, bullying, etc., and I for one am glad to know that we have organizations fighting for a worthy cause.

How can you possibly defend a pedophile in this fashion?

Grown men, leaving their wife and children at home, to drive 10+ hours, to have sex with a twelve year old child. And you're criticizing the individuals that are working to put these "people" behind bars.

I don't mind putting these guys in jail, because they really are scum, but Perverted Justice is aptly named because they do walk a very fine line between the law and entrapment and NBC's involvement doesn't set well with me, either.

As long as the law is followed and due process is not violated, then all's well, but I have to wonder if the methods are valid.

At any rate, anyone stupid enough to have such conversations on the internet and then to show up somewhere expecting anything but carnage deserves what they get.

They really are lucky it's just a reporter and a few cops there, instead of an armed and very angry father.

Originally posted by chissler
How can you possibly defend a pedophile in this fashion?

Grown men, leaving their wife and children at home, to drive 10+ hours, to have sex with a twelve year old child. And you're criticizing the individuals that are working to put these "people" behind bars.

I am simply of the mindset that the tactics of public humilation and spectacle is absolutely not needed. It really speaks volumes of the people of this country if they consider htis entertainment. "HA HA! YOUR LIFE IS OVER! WE ALL ARE GOING TO LOOK DOWN ON YOU FOR BEING SUB HUMAN!"

I have no problem with men like them being put behind bars. I never said I did. Again, the problem I have is the entrapment, manipulation, and the spectacle.

Then again, this show wouldn't exist if catching these guys was done validly and honorably.

Second, because of the show, no crime was commited. There is no question that is a good thing. The problem is that the man is being charged for a crime he didn't actually commit. Does this not scare anyone else?

WOULD he have done it? Probably. DID he do it? No, thanks to the show. If I were her father, would I want to kill him? Most definitely. But if I were her father, I would probably not be thinking rationally enough to realize people shouldn't be charged with crimes they haven't commited yet.

I mean, ever seen Minority Report? Or read 1984?



Mod Edit: Shortened Quoted Text

[edit on 30-7-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by prototism
I am simply of the mindset that the tactics of public humilation and spectacle is absolutely not needed.

There are several "repeat offenders" being uncovered thanks to Chris Hansen, Dateline NBC, and Perverted Justice. The label of a "sexual predator" did nothing to deter these individuals. There has been one individual uncovered twice by Dateline. On two different stings he had shown up. If Dateline uncovered him twice, how many times did he actually strike the home of an unsuspecting teen?

Tactics of public humiliation?

While I do not watch this show for "entertainment purposes", I do watch it for education purposes and to be informed on a problem that a lot of people choose to deny.

Before Chris Hansen and Dateline initiated this series, there was this misconception that these predators were mutants that we could all see from a mile away. Dateline has shown us all that these predators are our neighbours, they are our school teachers, bus drivers, coaches, etc., that we've all trusted our children with in the past.

Now I do not say this, nor promote this as a scare tactic, but it is imperative that people see this and understand that these predators are no different than you and I.

Almost all of them have children, almost all of them have wives, all of them are insecure in some fashion, but odds are their families have no idea of the inner demons they fight. Thanks to this series, maybe there are a few families out their erring on the side of caution, which could be the difference in a possible rape/murder.

A major hurdle in this is, when there is a success story, none of us ever know. We only hear of this in the headlines when someone is a victim.

Originally posted by prototism
It really speaks volumes of the people of this country if they consider htis entertainment. "HA HA! YOUR LIFE IS OVER! WE ALL ARE GOING TO LOOK DOWN ON YOU FOR BEING SUB HUMAN!"

They are not being handed anything that they do not deserve. Nobody is ever harmed, they are treated with the same respect & dignity, under the law, as any other convicted felon. While society may look down upon these individuals, I do believe it is well deserved. Screaming foul because the average citizen is being made aware of the deviance of these sexual predators that live among us, I hardly see the merit behind it.

I don't think that these individuals should walk around with some sort of patch on their sleeve, to indicate that they are a sexual predator. But I have no problem in airing their face over national television, as they show up at a sting operation, with the expectations of having sex with a twelve year old child.

What about the guy with the KY jelly in his back pocket? Or the rope? Alochol? Drugs? Guns? On more than one occasion, a guy showed up with a truckload of semi-automatic weapons.

What would of happened if the police were not there?

While there tactics can be somewhat sketchy at times, it works and we need it. Any effort to further the stigma on these crimes, is always a-ok in my books.

Originally posted by prototism
Then again, this show wouldn't exist if catching these guys was done validly and honorably.

What is invalid and dishonorable about creating a legitimate sting operation on internet sexual predators?

Perverted Justice does not initiate these online conversations. They are always, 100%, initiated by the predator themselves. The age of the girl is never hidden, and the individual is made aware early that he is talking to a child. Whether it is a twelve year old girl on the other side of the monitor, or an eighteen year old, what does it really matter?

It's all about culpability for me, and if he thinks she's twelve, and still continues to talk in this manner, he's guilty as charged.

Originally posted by prototism
Second, because of the show, no crime was commited. There is no question that is a good thing. The problem is that the man is being charged for a crime he didn't actually commit. Does this not scare anyone else?

Do you watch the show? At all?

When are they ever charged with a crime they did not commit?

They are charged with the discussion they have with them online. The police are given accurate transcripts of the discussion, and nothing is "manipulated". They are not charged with having sexual intercourse with the minor, because they are not guilty of it. They are charged with what they are guilty of, and if you take a moment to look into it, you'll see that they are guilty of several crimes.

These are not innocent men being put away for a crime they did not commit.

Originally posted by prototism
WOULD he have done it? Probably. DID he do it? No, thanks to the show. If I were her father, would I want to kill him? Most definitely. But if I were her father, I would probably not be thinking rationally enough to realize people shouldn't be charged with crimes they haven't commited yet.

Which is why they are not charged with the crimes they have not committed.

I think you've made a mistake on the facts, and you assume that they are charged for crimes that they did not commit. That is not the case, and never has been.


[edit on 30-7-2007 by chissler]

Excellent post, chissler. I agree with everything you said!

In response to prototism, I understand the impression one might have that the public spectacle is somehow wrong, but I personally think criminals (which these guys are - they are Internet predators, repeat offenders and sick individuals) many times have it too easy in this country. The public spectacle and the simple existence of the Dateline show is enough to stop many potential predators AND to educate parents and kids about the ubiquitous threat of the Internet predator...

As regards a sting operation, if you're an adult man and an underage girl offers herself to you... if she stands before you naked, you should run (not walk) as fast as you can in the other direction! My point is, I don't care if it's a sting or not. In the case of the real thing (which also happens every day) there are girls being damaged for life because of these same men who are supposed to know better. If this weren't a sting operation, these men would be going to REAL 12-year-old's houses. They're out there looking for children to molest... If Dateline can intercept them, I'm thrilled!

Should they show it on TV and embarrass these men? You bet your ass they should! They deserve worse, in my opinion. If Dateline wasn't intercepting them, and making it public I shudder to think of the numbers of Internet predators who would be getting away with this!

Originally posted by prototism


I mean, ever seen Minority Report? Or read 1984?

One is a movie, the other a work of literature. Both are fiction. The Dateline series is anything but...

These people in some cases drove 10 hours to commit a sexual act with a child they knew, KNEW, was underage. Anything, and I mean anything, done to expose these monsters as what they are is ok by me. I fully realize that my thinking on this is not of the clearest, that's why I would never take part in a sting such as this. It wouldn't be public exposure and humiliation for the bastard, it would be a public execution.

These guys are knowingly walking into this situation, they've got no beef...

My opinion is that convicted child predators should be put to death, but I still don't like Perverted Justice or the NBC show.

Originally posted by seagull
These people in some cases drove 10 hours to commit a sexual act with a child they knew, KNEW, was underage.

Replace the word "knew" with the word "thought" and you have the truth.

Apparently, it's all legal or the ACLU would be all over this, but it seems to me that NBC is precluding the presumption of innocence by airing these shows.

However distasteful these people are, due process is something we should all be concerned about.

In fact, it is a little weird to be reading this on ATS, where abuse of legal authority is the prime fear.

I would hope that would-be child predators who see these shows would be convinced that stalking children on the internet is the most stupid of acts, but apparently that's not the case, because I've seen at least one individual admit he's watched the show.

As for the guy with the guns and ammo, as far as I know, that's perfectly legal and irrelevant to the case.

I don't do it so much anymore, but I have on many occasions packed up all my guns with a over a thousand rounds of ammo and taken off to my brother-in-law's place to spend a few days at the range shooting every gun we own until we were just tired of shooting.


[edit on 2007/7/31 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
it seems to me that NBC is precluding the presumption of innocence by airing these shows.

They still get their day in court. They are innocent until proven guilty.

I would hope that would-be child predators

These are not "would-be child predators". These are child predators. A person doesn't have to have sex with a child to be a predator. There seems to be some confusion about what these guys are being charged with. They're not being charged with molestation. Just predating.

I've seen at least one individual admit he's watched the show.

MANY have watched the show. Many mention it in their chats. MANY have actually met with young girls before and carried out the more serious crime of molestation or rape and think that getting caught can't happen to them...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would hope that would-be child predators

It would be nice if you would not edit my sentences to suit your argument.


[edit on 2007/7/31 by GradyPhilpott]

What are you talking about? I didn't edit your sentence! You were talking about the "would-be child predators" who watched the show and still showed up on it.

And I don't need to edit anything to support my position. I can do that just fine.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would hope that would-be child predators who see these shows would be convinced that stalking children on the internet is the most stupid of acts, but apparently that's not the case, because I've seen at least one individual admit he's watched the show.

If you look at the compound sentence in its totality, you will see that the first clause speaks of would-be offenders who, one would hope, might be dissuaded from such behavior by watcing the show and the second clause indicates that such is evidently not the case, because some who have seen the show go ahead and show up, anyway.

That's a far cry from what you assert that I meant.

Originally posted by seagull

Originally posted by prototism

I mean, ever seen Minority Report? Or read 1984?

One is a movie, the other a work of literature. Both are fiction. The Dateline series is anything but...

These people in some cases drove 10 hours to commit a sexual act with a child they knew, KNEW, was underage. Anything, and I mean anything, done to expose these monsters as what they are is ok by me. I fully realize that my thinking on this is not of the clearest, that's why I would never take part in a sting such as this. It wouldn't be public exposure and humiliation for the bastard, it would be a public execution.

These guys are knowingly walking into this situation, they've got no beef...

Yes, they are works of fiction, but that doesnt change the fact that theyre a metaphoric social commentary on where ths country's legal system COULD, and WILL go, if these so called "sting" operations continue to grow in popularity. In other words, it's fact based fiction.

I'm discussing this show on another forum, so I'm going to quote what I wrote there in reference to the assumption of guilt issue.

Lets get technical here. First off, I completely understand law enforcement's reasoning RE "intent". [I am playing the Devils Advocate now.] However, just because they have intent, doesn't mean they are absolutely going to act upon that intent. As others have said, they could have second thoughts.

WOULD the suspect have commited the crime if the police didn't stop him? Realistically speaking, probably yes. DID he actually commit the crime? Techincally speaking, no, because the police stopped him before he could.

Law Enforcement is:

1. Basically assuming (for the better, I suppose) that the suspect will commit the crime; and
   
2. Arresting the suspect based entirely on that assumption.
   

Basing anything on assumption is stupid. My father told me how before he was an air-traffic controller on a carrier in Vietnam, his trainer would say something like "Never assume. It makes an 'ASS' out of 'U [you]' and 'ME', and people die". That said, why is it that the legal process works this way? Why, in a country were you are innocent until proven guilty, are people incarcerated based on an assumption?

This isn't about pedophiles so much anymore, as it is about the problem with arrests based on assumpiton.

In short,

Are they guilty of solicitation of sex to a minor?
Yes.

Are they guilty of actual sex with a minor?
Technically, no. Unless of course you charge them with a crime they didn't actually commit yet, which you would only know if you were a valid psychic. Psychics aren't used to prosecute or decide guilt because the future hasn't happened yet, and things could change.

Is the latter of the two charges being appended to the list of charges? If it is, THAT is what I have a probelm with in regards to presumption of guilt (which is TOTALLY indedpendant from my disagreement with the spectale, and entertainment tactics the show uses. I would go as far to compare it to the actual which hunts, as the Rolling Stone article itself does.)

Not only that, but it is almost a logical fallacy. If A is true, it automatically makes B true? Come on.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by prototism]

[edit on 8/2/2007 by prototism]

Prototism.

You are right they, the works you cited, are indeed social commentary, in the case of Minority Report, not a very good movie, but yeah. I apologize for my shortness...

All these arrests come after long internet discussions with what the would be perp knew, or as Grady would say, hoped; would be a minor child. At the very least, they are guilty of criminal solicitation. However, intent does play into it, which means "assuming", assumption doesn't always mean making an ass out of you and me. The intent of these vermin is the determining factor, as much as they'll deny it, that intent was to have sexual relations with the child they had come to meet. You know it, I know it, and, hopefully, the jury and judge will know it.

The authorities can't wait until an act is performed in order to act. That would mean a child has been hurt. Contitutional freedoms are important, but they are not a licence. There are limitations upon every freedom. Mostly as they effect the safety of the public at large.

Originally posted by seagull
The authorities can't wait until an act is performed in order to act. That would mean a child has been hurt. [I]Contitutional freedoms are important, but they are not a licence.[/I] There are limitations upon every freedom. Mostly as they effect the safety of the public at large.

Now that you put it that way, I suppose I understand. At least about the "guilt" issue.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

Originally posted by prototism
Is the latter of the two charges being appended to the list of charges?

No. They are NOT charged with having sex with a minor. They're charged with preying on a minor. That's illegal in its own right.

You can't talk about having sex with a child to a child. You can't send pictures of your naked self to a child. You can't arrange to meet with a child for the purpose of having sex with them. That's preying. And against the law.

The law is as much of a sword as it is a shield. This "double edged" approach is something that makes our way of life so damn impressive. However, when we take the law and use it as a shield against these individuals, I have a serious problem with that.

I believe in upholding the law, and approaching this with the utmost respect for our way of justice.

But when we have grown men soliciting sex with twelve year old girls, then watching others come to their defense because Peverted Justice is doing it in an "unhonorable fashion", I'm sorry but I want to vomit.

The only laws that are being broke, are broke by the grown men soliciting sex. They are not charged with crimes that they are not guilty of, so I see no basis for that argument. The only downfall of this is, we can not put them away for as long as they actually deserve. And we can't do this, because we uphold our way of justice, and offer them the punishment that appropriately reflects their crimes.