Victory For Pedophiles... Network Cancels Show?

reply to post by chissler

Vigilante groups is a little dramatic, in my opinion...Vigilante? No, the predators come to them.

In fact the group Perverted Justice, by definition of the word are indeed a vigilante group.

Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: \ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date: 1856
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
— vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun

(EDIT: Underline & bold by me)

Certainly you can agree that the group Perverted Justice by nature is a vigilante group. (one does not have to in fact roam as a gang or on horseback lynching people in order to commit vigilantism.

The predators initiate the conversation and they initiate the sex talk.

Are you sure about that? I went to www.perverted-justice.com... read one of the Instant Message Chat Logs they have posted on the site, What we don't see is the start of the conversation, the point where the predator gets the username in order to initiate contact with the fraudulently disguised vigilante agent of Perverted Justice.

You are correct that the predator in this situation does initiate the sexually explicit dialogue with the reported "13 year old girl" (I'm not defending these sick bastards,) I am glad they get convicted, and on some occasions they do find evidence to get further convictions or to take repeat offenders of the streets and into jail where they belong. What I am arguing here is the means to the end in my opinion is flawed. It seems to me a bad way to convict people. (even these sickos.)

What we don't see is the chat room or other place where the agent is repeatedly spouting in a public media "13/f/ny IM me" or other common initiatory term often used in chat rooms to convey the want for someone to talk privately with the other.

But yes we certainly do get a clear picture of the IM conversation...

chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:15:33 PM): Hi
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:16:19 PM): hi
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:16:22 PM): ru a bot?
chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:16:41 PM): What do u think?
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:16:49 PM): i gess not
chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:16:56 PM): Maybe
chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:16:58 PM): How r u?
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:17:04 PM): kay u?
chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:17:12 PM): Fine, C2C
chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:18:00 PM): I am in San Jose. and U?
chicago_naperville (08/20/06 4:18:13 PM):
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:18:18 PM): sry
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:18:31 PM): 13/f/bay area
carlykicksbutt93 (08/20/06 4:18:34 PM): u?

So far pretty normal however the agent identifies herself as a 13 year old female carlykicksbutt93.

Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: \ˈfrȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Anglo-French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

The fraud also continues with carlykicksbutt93 posting a fraudulent photograph of some actual 13 year old child. Remember we also must apparently consider intent as motive for a crime and also in its own way a crime itself because that is how they are convicting these guys is through the intent of the crime.

§ 352-c. Prohibited acts constituting misdemeanor; felony. 1. It
shall be illegal and prohibited for any person, partnership,
corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof, to use or employ any of the following acts or practices:
(a) Any fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense or fictitious or pretended purchase or sale;
(b) Any promise or representation as to the future which is beyond reasonable expectation or unwarranted by existing circumstances;

The question therefore is, were they able to commit the crime they intended to commit? Of course not, since no children are present in the house, because the "victim" does not exist, there is an absolutely 0% possibility that the crime could occur. However the arrest is for intent to commit a crime against a person that does not exist.

If we are to take the person that he thought was a 13 year old girl who he is being charged for intending to commit this crime against. The actual agent, the agent is of consenting age and therefore if we are to assume that he was there to have sex with the person that he was talking to going by the username carlykicksbutt93 then it would be consensual sex between to consenting adults. (well carlykicksbutt93 would have to agree of course)

Of course there is the matter of the forgery being committed...

§ 170.15 Forgery in the first degree.
A person is guilty of forgery in the first degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:

Source: Laws of New York (that is assuming a crime is committed in new york, other states have similar laws.)

So now we have two crimes that vigilante Justice could be culpable of. So how far do we bend the rules in order to get justice? How far does it bend before it breaks. Now two crimes in summation.

Intent, yes of course that's important. A person may indeed intend to commit a crime. But do we also see that this is not the way to get that justice done?


[edit on 6/28/2008 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


I'm not sure about USA law, but here in the UK it is not illegal to portray yourself as someone else online, as long as you are not using a real identity. I could set up a website proclaiming i'm a 66 year old willow weaver from devon if i so chose. It would not be illegal unless i was using the identity of a real person, or i gave that false identity to an official source, the police for example.

Fraud is only illegal under certain circumstances and perverted justice don't seem to be breaking the law in portraying themselves as underage girls/boys. If it were illegal to take on the role of a fictional person then roleplaying games and sexual roleplaying sites would be illegal as well.

I will again ask you, if one child is saved from abuse, isn't this acceptable? I rest easier knowing there are people online actively trying to divert paedophiles from using the internet as a grounds to access children. I hope sincerely this show has scared many off of the idea, afterall many of the men had seen the show and whit they chose not to fear it, i'm sure others will have.

There will of course be the underground chat rooms where you are only permitted access if you provide original content of your own, and that is where the law enforcment agencies come in. It's also why people like the FBI have massive databases of child pornography, they use original content frm people they arrest to accesss these forums and round up lots of people at once.

Attacking these sick individuals on many fronts is i think perfectly acceptable and even wanted. We have no way to cure them, so lets just catch as many as possible and lock them up for life. Whether the men are talking to a real child or not is unimportant, they believe they are and so if it were a real child then they would have abused that child. So they are showing their true dries, their true sexual orientation and so it's fine in my view to have them assessed and locked away.

I believe in freedom as much as anyone, i don't believe in sacrificing our rights for safety, however this isn't sacrificing anything, they still get due process, they get to argue their case. At the end of the day though, they went out to abuse what they thought was a child. That t me is enough, that they were trying to abuse a child, actively seeking them out. It's not like someone from perverted justice whispered them with offers of sex directly.

They laid out the predators favorite meal and the predator bit, all that proves is the predator was there.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I will once again state, by no means do I feel that child molesters should go free, in fact I would hope that these sick individuals go to jail for a very long time. I will not defend the sick acts of these individuals. My argument is the means to which "To Catch a Predator" relies to get to that end is not equitable and by fact that no minor in this instance could have been harmed, there is no Habeas Corpus at work here as the intended victim does not exist.

I'm not sure about USA law, but here in the UK it is not illegal to portray yourself as someone else online, as long as you are not using a real identity. I could set up a website proclaiming i'm a 66 year old willow weaver from devon if i so chose. It would not be illegal unless i was using the identity of a real person, or i gave that false identity to an official source, the police for example.

I have stated as an example a law in new york as such a law that could be applied in this instance.

Fraud is only illegal under certain circumstances and perverted justice don't seem to be breaking the law in portraying themselves as underage girls/boys.

one could argue that the chat log itself could be used as a contract of binding consent and show that the person that used the username gave consent to the accused for said act, as the person who gave consent was of legal age, and fraudulently concealed the fact that she was not whom she claimed to be. These chat logs are admissible as evidence. Especially because the other party involved can testify that they were talking to the accused. a written instrument is therefore implied by the fact that the chat log is admissible as evidence.

If it were illegal to take on the role of a fictional person then roleplaying games and sexual roleplaying sites would be illegal as well.

That's incorrect because that is not deceit because all parties involved are assumed to be consensual in these circumstances. It is known that the other party involved is playing a game therefore no deception has occurred.

I will again ask you, if one child is saved from abuse, isn't this acceptable?

As a tool for investigation this kind of tactic I can see as being greatly helpful in finding those that would hurt a child. However the proper authorities should (and in most cases do) conduct further investigation and may uncover other actual acts that have occurred. In this way I do agree with the concept behind "To Catch a Predator" however the crimes these obviously sick individuals are being arrested for on the scene in my opinion is grossly negligent of the authorities and does breach our civil rights.

They laid out the predators favorite meal and the predator bit, all that proves is the predator was there.

Exactly my point, now a real investigation can start, perhaps they will uncover real victims of this person, or perhaps they just scared someone that never committed this crime before straight. Perhaps by the mere embarrassment alone of this exposure a person whom may have gone down a horrible road has the second chance to right themselves. Of course they many times catch repeat offenders, as those that would do these awefull things often do not stop. However in these cases other realistic charges can be found and these sick individuals can go to jail where they deserve to be.

Remember my only real argument against this show is the charges that are leveled against the suspects because of a crime that could not have taken place. No child in this specific instance could have been harmed, no victim no crime, cannot even have intent, because the person that portrays the intended victim is of consenting age. Even though they portrayed falsely and fraudulently themselves as something they are not, they are in fact an adult, If we are to use the chat logs as evidence against the accused the fact that the person that the suspect is talking to online and goes to meet is an adult changes things dramatically.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Yes but in my mind there is just something a bit creepy about a group of adults that spend all their time pretending to be 12 year old kids cruising for sex online. I just can't help but think many of those perverted justice people are more than a bit odd, I have to wonder how many are older men that secretly like to pretend to be little girls/boys. Ugh.

Police can lie to you with impunity and its not against the law. You can choose to believe them or not. They can run a sting and they do not have to identify themselves unless an arrest is in progress. It is not entrapment. The clown that managed to blow his brains out was a local prosecutor with a law degree. He was not a brain dead fool. He knew exactly what he was doing and his sick behavior got him in trouble. For the network to pay off the family was wrong. I understand why they did it, but it was still wrong. I do believe that the show should have been planned better as to the possible legality of what they where doing.

Zindo
Sonya, many of the volunteers that where on AOL had children that have been victimised. They had an impact on stopping a real problem within the system. They where not perverts, they where good people.

[edit on 6/29/2008 by ZindoDoone]

Originally posted by Sonya610
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Yes but in my mind there is just something a bit creepy about a group of adults that spend all their time pretending to be 12 year old kids cruising for sex online. I just can't help but think many of those perverted justice people are more than a bit odd, I have to wonder how many are older men that secretly like to pretend to be little girls/boys. Ugh.

I have to say that's an unfair view, these people are commiting themselves to a cause. They have found something they detest and spend their time trying to stop it, it just so happens stoping it means having to pose as a kid. I doubt they're odd. However you know what, if they have consenting partners (and i mean legally aged ones) and they want to pretend such things in the privacy of their home then all power to them. Not my thing but if they enjoy it and it's legal then fine. Fantasy play and all that.

I enjoyed the show, but as long as the prosecution goes on, I don't care if they broadcast it or not...

Just like Grady said, the end result is the point anyway..

Semper

reply to post by whatukno


I get what you're saying and you make a solid case for your stance, but I still disagree. You can post a million examples and write a book on the topic, and the fact will remain that I genuinely don't believe that perverted justice is the criminal, as you so put it.

In that post of yours, you have shown us how wanna-be pedophiles are the victim of a vigilante group known as perverted justice.

The law is two-pronged. Both a shield and a sword. But the law needs to be used to strike down those that seek to harm and not be used to protect those that are so blatantly guilty.

Every damn person on that show vehemently admits that they know they are wrong, guilty, and performing a despicable act. Yet they are the innocent victim?

Wuk, I know you're not trying to defend them. This isn't the typical knee-jerk reaction that such a position of yours would regularly garner. Like yourself, I have some controversial views on pedophilia. But on this instance, what is wrong is wrong and what is necessary is necessary.

These guys weren't baited into anything they didn't know they were getting themselves into.

Politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, daycare providers, etc., are all the individuals guilty of these acts. This isn't a problem among the drug addicts of America, or the sick and twisted. This is something that is found with Mr and Mrs Jones in Suburbia, America.

A reactionary approach where we mourn the loss of each innocent child and seek to convict those that burden his or her blood is not something I feel shall suffice.

reply to post by chissler


I certainly agree that pedophiles need to be taken off the streets, they need to be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to harsh punishments for the crimes they actually commit.

The main problem and its the point I am trying to show here is the tactics used in the apprehension of these criminals leaves too much room for reasonable doubt in my mind for true justice to prevail. What happens here is that criminals that have the means to adequate defense have the ability to get away with these horrid crimes because of the way that Perverted Justice conducts these "Stings"

Such a case involved 23 people whom the Collin DA had to drop charges against because of the way the investigation by dateline was done. 23 pedophiles are now on the street free to harm other children because of the way perverted justice conducts their stings.

Charges dropped
In June 2007, Perverted-Justice was criticized following a sting operation in Collin County, Texas, that resulted in the charges against 23 suspected online sex predators being dropped. Collin County Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis said the cases were dropped after Perverted-Justice failed to provide enough usable evidence.

Source: Wiki


DA: Murphy sex sting cases may not reach court

But when it came to prosecuting 23 men arrested by Murphy police in a sex sting with NBC news and an internet watchdog group, Roach said 'no.'

"We have questions about whether the arrests were even legal," he said...

...But here are the statistics. Some 286 people have been arrested in Dateline/Perverted Justice stings around the country. Some 103 of them, 36 percent have pleaded guilty. More than 150 have yet to be tried. They're still on the streets.

Now we have 23 people on the loose because of the actions of dateline and perverted justice, 23 people that may harm children instead of serving time behind bars. This is what I have a problem with. The problem of garnering credible evidence for use in a court case to get a conviction that will stick. I want to see these pedophiles go away for a good long time, I don't want to see cases being forced out of court because of the way that this vigilante group goes about their stings makes it impossible to prosecute. This is the point I am trying to make.

The fact is in principal I do agree with the ends that Perverted Justice wants to get to, I agree that these sick pedophiles do need to be taken off the street. What I want, and what Perverted Justice & Dateline fails at is allowing police investigations to properly proceed. Thus allowing the release of people that quite deservedly belong behind bars.

The problem I have is that Perverted Justice gets in the way of law enforcement, gets in the way of due process and may result in the release of people that most deservedly should be put in jail.

The tools that Perverted Justice uses could be modified slightly if observed closely by prosecutors and investigators so that convictions can be rock solid and therefore people like the 23 individuals that were released into the public will instead be put behind bars where they belong.

[edit on 6/29/2008 by whatukno]

You have a point, but it could also be said that we are now aware of 23 would-be predators, that we may have never even considered to be a potential risk. Granted they weren't locked behind bars, but they have been put on the radar.

This group serves a purpose that would be tough to match.

In dealing with such a phenomenon, we need to be proactive and not reactive. And if that pushes the limit a bit, so be it.

I know of several convicted child-molesters that would never miss an episode. In fact, a lot of those caught on the show admit to watching it. So then, wasn't the show actually enflaming the problem? How many people watched with a sick fascination?

EDIT to change "pedophiles" to "child molesters."

[edit on 6/29/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by chissler

You have a point, but it could also be said that we are now aware of 23 would-be predators, that we may have never even considered to be a potential risk. Granted they weren't locked behind bars, but they have been put on the radar.

And damn straight they should be put on the radar, absolutely. This evidence while compromising to a DA investigation into this specific case, may be a useful tool in further investigation and useful in obtaining warrants. Those warrants will more than likely prove fruitful to an investigator in obtaining a conviction. I doubt seriously that someone is going to go out and commit these acts without "previous research into the subject". I.E. looking up compromising and or illegal material on the Internet first.

This group serves a purpose that would be tough to match.

I disagree with this statement. This groups efforts can easily be duplicated and mass produced, creating jobs in the process. Only if certain legislative initiatives are put into place allowing law enforcement officers to record chat room logs. In the instance of overlooking and recording private messages, a suspect may in fact be taped in this manner if the proper warrant is issued. Thus, the conversation tap may prove to be even more useful in court as an officer of the court would be able to "record without prejudice" the conversation allowing all testimony pertaining to the instant message log made available to the defence and as such no violation of disclosure can be amended.

In dealing with such a phenomenon, we need to be proactive and not reactive. And if that pushes the limit a bit, so be it.

Again you are correct. However what I see is also the protection of civil liberties at the same time. The verdicts in these type of cases change lives forever. What I would like to see is the certainty that the truly guilty of these crimes pay the consequences for their actions. At the same time we may even be able to prevent people from committing these crimes against real children by a certain "shock treatment". When we encounter individuals whom may previously have never acted on their impulses for these sick actions we might prevent actual actions against children from occurring. This may in fact be the first time some of these individuals have acted on the impulse to try and do these things. Perhaps in this way with the public embarrassment being punishment enough, certain people could reform quickly, and thus their professional and private lives could be spared. All the while they would know in their own minds, that people are watching what they are doing and they better not mess up.

[edit on 6/29/2008 by whatukno]

Has anyone considered the possibility that this whole "Show has been cancelled" is, for lack of a better term, a trap?

What I mean is, similarly to how celebrities knew that "Punk'd" (Ashton Kutcher's awful show on MTV) was around, they were careful and suspicious of anything "out of the ordinary." Knowing that "To Catch a Predator" was around, perhaps Pedophiles were being extra careful in their methods as well, and this is just a way to get their guards back down.

reply to post by DavidU


I'd disagree.

Most people busted knew of the show and still acted on their urges. On at least one occasion that I can think of, the same individual was busted by the NBC crew. Busted twice? Amazing.

It would seem that the urge is insurmountable, and all of the risks that they run by acting on them are not going to stop them.

Very scary.

Wuk, excellent post.

Cancelling the show is NOT a victory for pedophiles, nor was having the show a victory against them. The show had nothing to do with it. No psychiatrists were consulted to diagnose anyone as a pedophile on it.

Originally posted by Alora Don't want your face on TV while being accused of being a pedophile? Then.... gosh, I don't know... don't touch, fondle, rape, or try to date children. Duh.

People are innocent until proven guilty. The people the terrorist organization behind this go after have not been proven guilty of any of those things you've said. Not to mention dating isn't illegal, sex is (or arranging sex meetings or having sex talks, etc). Dating like just seeing a movie isn't illegal anywhere I know of.

Originally posted by elevatedone See thats just it, it wasn't the television show actually doing the sting. They were teamed up with Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc.

That is incorrect. It was the TV show (in cooperation with police) who did the stings. PJ helped to set them up beforehand. They are also not a good reference, I'd trust NBC and Chris Hansen more than I would PJ.

Originally posted by chissler If I read correctly, a pedophile who was confronted on the show ended up committing suicide? A man who attempted to have sexual intercourse with a minor whom he did not know, then got busted, then decided it was easier to take his own life than face the consequences, has his family sue the network in his memory and bring down the show?

Actually they had not busted the guy previously or had him on the show. The 'Conradt' case they were setting up cameras outside his house which alerted him to what was coming so he killed himself. As opposed to, if the cops had of gone in immediately they could have saved his life. As a prosecutor he was a valuable member of society.

Originally posted by Farzai Imagine being a family member of one of these sicko's. Through no fault of thier own, they will unwittingly be guilty by association. Unfortunate children and other family members also share the stigma of the sex offender. When these sting operations take place by police there is at least an umbrella of privacy for the unfortunate families involved, where as the Dateline show puts it all out there for everyone to see. Dateline is less interested in the good of would be victims than they are with the bottom-line; ratings. Considering the damage it can do to an innocent family, it's best it is off the air.

I don't really think Dateline considered this type of stuff. They don't really publish a lot of information. Most people are not resourceful enough to procure the required information just by the names on a TV exposure.

The organization they consult, however, go much further than this, going after people who they can't even get the police to go after, and publicizing their private documents so that their families can be bombed.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_ Doesn't pedophile mean a man who likes young girls/boys, pre teen??? I thought catch a predator they targeted teenagers? Or am I wrong?

Close. It correlates with 'teen' however the issue is pubescence, a biological process which is not strictly numerically determined (whereas teenage is strictly 13-19). It can mean women as well as men. I am not sure how old one needs to be to be diagnosed with it. Furthermore it is not simply 'like' but rather, having a preferential sexual attraction, meaning you have to like them more than you due pubescents (teenagers mostly) or post-pubescents (adults).

Also doesn't pedophile simply mean a person who likes pre teen boys or girls? Which of course is a sickness which most probably around 95% don't act out on because they know it's wrong, liking young children and abusing is two different things. So shouldn't the title be more like 'victory for predators"

You have a great point. I wouldn't say it's 'victory for predators' though to be honest. I really doubt the more dangerous and manipulative predators were at any risk of ending up on the show.

What/ev.

I'm naked outside a screen door holding 4 wine coolers and think ya'll are silly.

BRB.

I'm sorry to hear that there are lawyers morally bankrupt enough to sue over this. I'm even more sorry to hear that To Catch a Predator is being taken off-air (for now at least). I have no sympathy for these people, they knew what they were getting into. Nobody ever forced them to drive to those houses. They deserved to have their names and faces plastered all over TV. Public shame is a fitting punishment to go along with prison time.