Dateline NBC's how to catch a predator.

Raspberry

Hey. This is my first post here on boards.ie. The aim of this thread is to question the ethics of dateline NBC. I was browsing youtube earlier and I came across an American television show called "How to catch a predator" on Dateline NBC. If you're not familiar with it, they basically lure pedophiles in using internet chat rooms and set up dates with the pedophiles pretending to be little girls and boys. When the person shows up and is in the house they get them all comfortable before the presenter of the show suddenly appears and starts questioning them. Before they know it they are surrounded by cameras and when they try to leave they are confronted by police with guns drawn and some people are tazered.


Anyway, as I was flicking through these videos on youtube I came across this one.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=w_M-Jpz1kO8


The show caused one man such embarrassment that instead of being taken alive, he killed himself. Watching this video, the idea of the show sounded completely disgusting.


Considering that the girl that they used to lure the people in in the first place, either was of legal age and was lying about her age, or was a man, and the fact that they didn't actually commit the crime of having sex with an under age minor, is it justified for this production company to go and plaster their faces all over television?


What are your thoughts on this whole thing? Personally these people should be helped rather than put on display for entertainment purposes.

johnnyskeleton

Raspberry wrote: »

Hey. This is my first post here on boards.ie. The aim of this thread is to question the ethics of dateline NBC. I was browsing youtube earlier and I came across an American television show called "How to catch a predator" on Dateline NBC. If you're not familiar with it, they basically lure pedophiles in using internet chat rooms and set up dates with the pedophiles pretending to be little girls and boys. When the person shows up and is in the house they get them all comfortable before the presenter of the show suddenly appears and starts questioning them. Before they know it they are surrounded by cameras and when they try to leave they are confronted by police with guns drawn and some people are tazered.


Anyway, as I was flicking through these videos on youtube I came across this one.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=w_M-Jpz1kO8


The show caused one man such embarrassment that instead of being taken alive, he killed himself. Watching this video, the idea of the show sounded completely disgusting.


Considering that the girl that they used to lure the people in in the first place, either was of legal age and was lying about her age, or was a man, and the fact that they didn't actually commit the crime of having sex with an under age minor, is it justified for this production company to go and plaster their faces all over television?


What are your thoughts on this whole thing? Personally these people should be helped rather than put on display for entertainment purposes.

As far as vigilante justice goes it's relatively sedate. It basically names and shames people who in all probability solicit young girls for sex on a regular basis. NBC are taking a big risk because if they make mistakes they will be sued for millions for defamation, but they probably make it back from advertising.

It's of them that the show caused someone to kill himself, although I'm sure the people involved feel no guilt about that.

While on the one hand you can say it's disgraceful that a person killed themself because of a tv show, I wonder whether he would not have done the same thing if he was caught in the normal way.

seahorse

NBC did not cause this man to kill himself; the blame for that would lie in his own perverted nature.

Mike...

South Park did a skit on this was fairly funny..
Weird story tho dunno what to say really

seahorse

Have a look at this and watch right through to the end:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BOHjIf0A9z0&feature=related

I'm the mother of a young teenaged boy myself and he, like most kids thesedays, spends a bit of time on the internet. I personally thank God that some news station somewhere is prepared to expose these sort of sickening and repulsive BASTARDS. :mad: It's just a pity that Irish news stations are clearly not of the same calibre.

Raspberry

seahorse wrote: »

Have a look at this and watch right through to the end:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BOHjIf0A9z0&feature=related

I'm the mother of a young teenaged boy myself and he, like most kids thesedays, spends a bit of time on the internet. I personally thank God that some news station somewhere is prepared to expose these sort of sickening and repulsive BASTARDS. :mad: It's just a pity that Irish news stations are clearly not of the same calibre.

What if your father was a sexual predator? What if your best friend was a sexual predator? Sexual predators wouldn't seem like such monsters to you in that case. The truth is that you wouldn't know a sexual predator to see. What they need is help, not humiliation. That helps nobody and justice is not served.

seahorse

Raspberry wrote: »

What if your father was a sexual predator?

The children of sexual predators are often (probably usually) the very first people on the receiving end of these sickos abuse, so had my father been a sexual predator I'd quite likely have an even lower opinion of them.

Raspberry wrote: »

What if your best friend was a sexual predator?

They wouldn't be my best friend for long. The moment I found out about anything like that they'd be out of my life because scum like that are not welcome in it.

Raspberry wrote: »

Sexual predators wouldn't seem like such monsters to you in that case.

Sexual predators ARE monsters, of the very worst variety; they are the real-life bogey man in the closet in the lives of countless defenceless kids, and (unfortunately) nothing you wish or imagine will ever change that.

Raspberry wrote: »

The truth is that you wouldn't know a sexual predator to see.

Indeed; their incognito act is part of the reason they're so dangerous.

Raspberry wrote: »

What they need is help, not humiliation. That helps nobody and justice is not served.

And those men were going for help, were they, when they thought they were heading off to abuse young kids?

Justice was served and children were helped when that animal killed himself and further children were saved from having their whole lives destroyed by his depravity.

Obviously you've never had any personal involvement with the victims of the sort of scum you're defending here, but I have; I've loved several people in my life who've had their lives destroyed in this way, including one beautiful talented young woman who hung herself over it and said so plainly in her suicide note. Your attitude turns my stomach.

togster

I think its great. Why not expose these baztards for what they are? If it prevents 1 paedo from actually going to some kids hose and having there way with them then good. And who cares if some paedo hung himself?

LadyJ

Isn't it entrapment though?

I mean, jesus. I just don't agree with this at all.

togster

LadyJ wrote: »

Isn't it entrapment though?

And? Not trying to be smart but...:p

So what? These guys meet these kids online and go to their houses to rape them. Entrapment vs rape? IMO in this case entrapment is justified.

LadyJ

Tbh, I just think that broadcasting this kind of thing reinforces the idea that sex offenders should be treated a certain way, ie. like inhuman monsters. It creates hysteria. Brasseye anyone?

I dunno, I hate the idea of paedophilia but I still believe that we are dealing with human beings. I have argued on this topic enough on boards so I can't be bothered repeating myself over and over. I just think the show is unethical and disagree with the whole idea of it.

helimachoptor

LadyJ wrote: »

Isn't it entrapment though?

I mean, jesus. I just don't agree with this at all.

No they ask the men to bring something, condoms/lube in once case a guy had a boot fetish when they bring them it shows they intended to have sex.

Bunch of whackjobs the lot of them.

Raspberry

seahorse wrote: »

The children of sexual predators are often (probably usually) the very first people on the receiving end of these sickos abuse, so had my father been a sexual predator I'd quite likely have an even lower opinion of them.

What if out of the blue, one day your father was arrested for having sex with a minor? There are plenty of cases out there where fathers have abused young children, but not their own and when they were caught their family was caught completely by surprise. What would you do in that situation? The point I'm trying to make is that sexual predators are real people and not monsters.

seahorse wrote: »

They wouldn't be my best friend for long. The moment I found out about anything like that they'd be out of my life because scum like that are not welcome in it.

Is that it? You wouldn't acknowledge that your friend has a serious problem and try to help them? Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it.

seahorse wrote: »

Sexual predators ARE monsters, of the very worst variety; they are the real-life bogey man in the closet in the lives of countless defenceless kids, and (unfortunately) nothing you wish or imagine will ever change that.

You are just simply wrong here. They are people just like you or me. The only difference is that they've done a horrible thing and have a problem. Not to drag this off on a tangent, but Hitler was a human being. He did some of the worst things in the history of mankind, but he was still a human being. It's not just as simple as Good and Evil.

seahorse wrote: »

Justice was served and children were helped when that animal killed himself and further children were saved from having their whole lives destroyed by his depravity.

Justice would have been getting everyone involved including the pedophile the help they need in order to try and rehabilitate them so that they can live their lives as normal members of society. Death is never a solution in any situation.

seahorse wrote: »

Obviously you've never had any personal involvement with the victims of the sort of scum you're defending here, but I have; I've loved several people in my life who've had their lives destroyed in this way, including one beautiful talented young woman who hung herself over it and said so plainly in her suicide note. Your attitude turns my stomach.

Nice of you to assume this, you are wrong however. I know victims of child abuse and while they have my complete sympathy so do the people who suffer from the mental condition known as pedophilia. The victims I know take this sympathetic attitude as well. Also, one might say that your relationship with victims of abuse would result in you having an irrational view on the situation due to your feelings getting involved.

BuddhaJoe

LadyJ wrote: »

Isn't it entrapment though?

Nope. The decoys will bring up windows of opportunity for actual meetings, something along the lines of "oh my parents are away for the week on business", but they leave it up the target to suggest a meeting.

Raspberry

What exactly are these people getting arrested for? Conspiracy to have sex with someone pretending to be a minor?

togster

Raspberry wrote: »

What exactly are these people getting arrested for? Conspiracy to have sex with someone pretending to be a minor?

They are getting arrested for being paedos. I think this show has a greater service. It acts as a deterrant.

Raspberry

togster wrote: »

They are getting arrested for being paedos. I think this show has a greater service. It acts as a deterrant.

You do realise that being a pedophile isn't a crime?

togster

Raspberry wrote: »

You do realise that being a pedophile isn't a crime?

Yes but grooming a child on-line and arranging to meet with them for sex is as far as im aware.

JimmyCrackCorn!

Trial by media = injustice. Same reason the death penalty kills the wrong people.

If NBC cared about justice they would hand over there evidence to police then after a trial has finished then publish the facts.

Dades

togster wrote: »

Yes but grooming a child on-line and arranging to meet with them for sex is as far as im aware.

What about grooming a police officer online? I'm pretty sure they didn't use actual children to do the typing. Legally it seems a grey area.

I probably wouldn't have a problem with this if the media vultures weren't behind the whole thing. Once it becomes a media circus all sense of justice becomes a farce.

seahorse

Raspberry wrote: »

What if out of the blue, one day your father was arrested for having sex with a minor?

You can stop talking about my father in those terms, thanks. My father is not alive on this earth and has not been for a very long time, but when he was he was a decent man.

Raspberry wrote: »

Is that it? You wouldn't acknowledge that your friend has a serious problem and try to help them? Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it.

Oh I would acknowledge it all right - before I told them to fukoff out of my life and away from my family, which includes young kids. If you think paedophiles are suitably company for YOUR children, nieces and nephews, then that is your business (and their problem - their BIG problem), but I suspect your view there is very much in the minority. As to ignoring the issue, I would certainly not ignore it. I would take the issue directly to the local Garda station

Raspberry wrote: »

You are just simply wrong here. They are people just like you or me.

YOU are just simply wrong here! "People just like you and me"????? Speak for yourself - they are not people like me.

Raspberry wrote: »

Justice would have been getting everyone involved including the pedophile the help they need in order to try and rehabilitate them so that they can live their lives as normal members of society.

You are ignoring the fact that a paedophile has to actually WANT help before they have the faintest hope of getting it. The men whose depraved intentions were highlighted by NBC certainly did not want help - what they wanted was to molest kids. Do you suppose paedophiles seeking help and reformation normally arrive equipt with a tube of KY jelly? :rolleyes:

Raspberry wrote: »

Nice of you to assume this, you are wrong however. I know victims of child abuse and while they have my complete sympathy so do the people who suffer from the mental condition known as pedophilia. The victims I know take this sympathetic attitude as well.

I believe that that is deliberate bullsh!t spouted to support your argument. As I've said I've had several people close to me who've had their lives destroyed in this way and the 'sympathetic attitude':rolleyes: you are talking about is the FURTHEST THING from their minds.

Raspberry wrote: »

Also, one might say that your relationship with victims of abuse would result in you having an irrational view on the situation due to your feelings getting involved.

Supporting the exposure of child molesters intentions is an 'irrational view'??? Maybe you should take your own advice - "Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it."

seahorse

JimmyCrackCorn! wrote: »

If NBC cared about justice they would hand over there evidence to police then after a trial has finished then publish the facts.

That is exactly what NBC does JimmyCrackCorn, and many perverts are serving prison terms as a direct result of it. That's just one of the positives of this programme. This show provides a great service on several different levels, along with removing them from society it also acts as a deterrent, as togster has already pointed out.

It also exposes the intentions of individual paedophiles, which their friends, acquaintances, workmates and relations etc would have been largely unaware of. In that way it affords parents the opportunity to protect their children; it makes them aware of exactly who they ought to be protecting their children from.

It raises awareness among children and young teens as to the extent of the problem, and their awareness certainly needs to be raised because it is exactly the trusting nature of children that makes them more vulnerable to these sick-minded people.

No matter what way I look at the situation I cannot find a single problem with it. Paedophiles need to know that their actions are intolerable in society and this show certainly reinforces that. I applaud NBC and I only wish to God we had an Irish version.

dr_manhattan

The show is retarded.

And NBC are not "serving" anyone, they're MAKING MONEY out of filming the activities of sexual predators. It does nobody any public service whatsoever, NBC then hand over the (most likely *very shakey*) cases to the cops.

And the cops probably then fail to secure a conviction, or the sentence is very light because of the exposure and harassment already involved due to the show... so the predators get a free lesson in how to evade honeytraps.

I do find it odd, however, that someone comes here to post their first posts about this. We are all aware that people promote TV shows in this way all the time?

Pick a country where your controversial show is not being shown yet, and start a big internet discussion of it, fuelled with youtube clips.

Free publicity, eh raspberry?

Raspberry

seahorse wrote: »

You can stop talking about my father in those terms, thanks. My father is not alive on this earth and has not been for a very long time, but when he was he was a decent man.

That's a nice way of avoiding my question. I don't care if your father is dead or alive. That has nothing to do with it. I'm asking you to put someone you love or loved dearly in a hypothetical situation to see what your reaction would be to that situation. I'm giving you an example to try and imagine where you'd be able to see that pedophiles are people and not monsters.

seahorse wrote: »

Oh I would acknowledge it all right - before I told them to fukoff out of my life and away from my family, which includes young kids. If you think paedophiles are suitably company for YOUR children, nieces and nephews, then that is your business (and their problem - their BIG problem), but I suspect your view there is very much in the minority. As to ignoring the issue, I would certainly not ignore it. I would take the issue directly to the local Garda station

Right, forget your friend since you apparently don't have any friends that are close enough for you to be willing to help. Would this be the same reaction you'd take up if you were to switch the friend in question with a family member?

seahorse wrote: »

YOU are just simply wrong here! "People just like you and me"????? Speak for yourself - they are not people like me.

Whether you like to admit it or not, they are people just like you or me.

seahorse wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact that a paedophile has to actually WANT help before they have the faintest hope of getting it. The men whose depraved intentions were highlighted by NBC certainly did not want help - what they wanted was to molest kids. Do you suppose paedophiles seeking help and reformation normally arrive equipt with a tube of KY jelly? :rolleyes:

What I would propose is that pedophiles who are convicted of sex crimes are not just thrown in jail. They should have the same treatment that a criminally insane person convicted of a crime would get. There is help available for pedophiles. Most pedophiles don't come forward because of the obvious taboo associated with being a pedophile.

seahorse wrote: »

I believe that that is deliberate bullsh!t spouted to support your argument. As I've said I've had several people close to me who've had their lives destroyed in this way and the 'sympathetic attitude':rolleyes: you are talking about is the FURTHEST THING from their minds.

My Mother is a psychologist. Through her I've met plenty of victims of sex abuse. One of my current best friends is a victim of child abuse.

seahorse wrote: »

Supporting the exposure of child molesters intentions is an 'irrational view'??? Maybe you should take your own advice - "Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it."

The problem I have with this program is that it doesn't just expose them. It humiliates them. Sex Abusers should be exposed, but they too deserve their basic human rights. Nobody should have the right to humiliate and nobody deserves to be humiliated the way NBC humiliate the victims on its show.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The show is retarded.

And NBC are not "serving" anyone, they're MAKING MONEY out of filming the activities of sexual predators. It does nobody any public service whatsoever, NBC then hand over the (most likely *very shakey*) cases to the cops.

And the cops probably then fail to secure a conviction, or the sentence is very light because of the exposure and harassment already involved due to the show... so the predators get a free lesson in how to evade honeytraps.

I do find it odd, however, that someone comes here to post their first posts about this. We are all aware that people promote TV shows in this way all the time?

Pick a country where your controversial show is not being shown yet, and start a big internet discussion of it, fuelled with youtube clips.

Free publicity, eh raspberry?

I'll assume that this is some kind of a joke...

LadyJ

Raspberry wrote: »

Whether you like to admit it or not, they are people just like you or me.

I agree with you but don't bother trying to change other people's minds. It never works. Believe me.

togster

Raspberry wrote: »

The problem I have with this program is that it doesn't just expose them. It humiliates them.

And what basic human right is being infringed here? I think you have missed a valid point. These "people" come to these houses with the sole intent of having sex with a child. I don't see the problem in exposing paedophiles or indeed humiliating them. Im sure there victims know what real humiliation is.

Paedophiles are scum, doesn't matter who they are (fathers, mothers, friends)
they are scum and if this show prevents one person from molesting a child then i don't see the problem.

What are you so outraged about? Paedophiles rights? The premise of the show?

seahorse

Rasberry, you and I do not agree and are never going to, so we could debate this issue for weeks at a stretch and find ourselves simply going round in circles and getting nowhere. I don't know about you but I personally haven't got that kind of time to waste.

As to your mother; I couldnt care less if she is a psychologist or if she is dead or alive either. And I absolutely DO believe that the "sympathetic attitude" you have attributed to several abuse victims you say you know is a deliberate fabrication of yours intended to support your argument. If you had the FIRST IDEA of the lifelong trauma these perverts happily cause you wouldn't dream of making such an obviously ludicrous claim on victims behalf.

To answer your question directly; I have never met nor been related to ANYONE in my life who I would continue to associate with in the event that I discovered they were a peadophile. You and I clearly have very different standards about the company we're prepared to keep.

I absolutely agree that psychological help ought to be available to paedophiles who are willing to seek it, but the fact that you are continually ignoring here is that the particular paedophiles exposed on that show were not seeking help; they were seeking to cause emotional and psychological problems that would last the span of their victims lifetimes for the sake of a depravity fuelled orgasm that would last seconds. People who make the decision to inflict a lifetime of humiliation on others do not, in my view, deserve protection from humiliation themselves. Edit: ESPECIALLY when the price of that protection would ensure their anonymity and freedom to continue to inflict humiliation by abusing children unhindered.

Now, this is all I have to say on this. If you want to continue to defend those who inflict pain worse than you can even imagine on the most vulnerable people in our society go ahead and do so; though I cannot for the life of me understand your position and to be honest I am very glad I don't.

Nerin

Raspberry wrote: »

Considering that the girl that they used to lure the people in in the first place, either was of legal age and was lying about her age, or was a man, and the fact that they didn't actually commit the crime of having sex with an under age minor, is it justified for this production company to go and plaster their faces all over television?


What are your thoughts on this whole thing? Personally these people should be helped rather than put on display for entertainment purposes.

Did a project on this kinda thing before christmas.
I much prefer this show than some of the other methods. some of those internet vigilante groups i studied are just wrong. one example being, a group named and shamed some sexual predators, but also (because they turned out to be anti-homosexuality) named gay people as pedophiles.

i suppose i cant argue that the show is a kind of deterrent, as many of the men they catch have seen it, and went anyway, although in the later episodes you can see how wary they are.

i suppose until the authorities get their act together and find a proper way to crack down on this kind of thing, im pretty much for this show.

if you feel pity for these men, fair enough, they are pathetic, but when you see them in predator mode yourself i find it hard to pity them.

go into a chatroom like i did and just sit there,silently, and watch how many older guys (24-55 was the age range of predators i witnessed during my study) start grooming kids.
even worse, give yourself a username that sounds young, and wait and see how long it takes for them to try it with you.

all in all, for the moment at least, im for the show.
Chris Hansen for the win

seahorse

nerin wrote: »

i suppose i cant argue that the show is a kind of deterrent, as many of the men they catch have seen it, and went anyway, although in the later episodes you can see how wary they are.

I agree with a lot of your points Nerin, but not with this one. The thing is, we cannot possibly quantify how many people decided not to involve themselves with this behaviour because of the risk of exposure involved. I think it does act as a deterrent, but just how effective a deterrent unfortunately we will never know.

MCMLXXXIII

So my friend is in prison right now for the same thing. We worked together, and one day his father called in for him. I thought it was weird so I called another mutual friend to see if he knew anything. Our friend was in jail. We didn't know why - but we knew that we cancelled plans with him the night before because we didn't feel like driving to where he lived (only about a half hour, but I had to work early the next morning, so I just stayed in). We called the jail and he had a bond of $1,000,000 for attempted sexual assault with a minor. It was an internet sting. The county prosecutor (pretending to be a 14 year old girl trapped him and one other at a restaurant that night.

I feel horrible. If I had hung out with him, he would have been drinking with me instead of chatting online. It might have happened eventually, but my friend obviously needed help. I had no idea about his problem, so we never talked about it, so it was impossible to make better.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While on the one hand you can say it's disgraceful that a person killed themself because of a tv show, I wonder whether he would not have done the same thing if he was caught in the normal way.

Or how about if they were helped, instead of trapped on a television show that millions of people watch on a regular basis? But I agree, he probably wouldn’t have had the same reaction if there weren’t cameras shooting him from every angle.

Raspberry wrote: »

What exactly are these people getting arrested for? Conspiracy to have sex with someone pretending to be a minor?

Yes, but in the US it doesn't matter if anyone actually did anything or not. All that matters is that the 12 jury members watch TV or listen to the radio, and if they THINK it's wrong or not.

togster wrote: »

They are getting arrested for being paedos. I think this show has a greater service. It acts as a deterrant.

The only thing it does is make people become even more secretive about it. It takes a lot to understand, but if people want to do something - they will find any way to do it.

Think to when Venezuela made abortion legal. It was originally illegal, but girls were throwing themselves down the stairs, or sticking themselves with clothing hangars to try and do it themselves. People were getting hurt, and no one benefited from it. So, they made it legal to abort your baby for any reason. Sure, the DOCTOR's statistics went up...but at least girls were not mutilating themselves because of the law.

No, don't legalize pedophilia. That was just an example on how the law doesn’t always make something better. At least realize that some people just need a little help before setting up an arrest for all of the US (and Canada) to watch.

JimmyCrackCorn! wrote: »

Trial by media = injustice. Same reason the death penalty kills the wrong people.

If NBC cared about justice they would hand over there evidence to police then after a trial has finished then publish the facts.

^+1

And let the man have his due process the government entitles him to.

togster wrote: »

And what basic human right is being infringed here? I think you have missed a valid point. These "people" come to these houses with the sole intent of having sex with a child. I don't see the problem in exposing paedophiles or indeed humiliating them. Im sure there victims know what real humiliation is.

Their victims don't necessarily know what "real" humiliation is. No one is getting raped here. No one is being hurt or injured. It would actually appear that the minor is inviting this person over to their house. The older individual thinks that this person is willing to "spend time" with them. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly would not shame the person that is hosting the meeting. The only reason it's not right is because anyone under 16 (for sexual cases) in (most of) the US (depending on the state) is legally unable to make any decisions...any at all including sexual decisions. The older person should understand that and stay away, but the younger person has their mind made up before they invite the other person over. I certainly had sexual experiences before I was 18, and many on this board probably have as well. Should you go back and have all those people arrested? Probably not, because they were also under 18? What if they were 19? ...or 21? Is it just weird that the other person is 50? Sure. They have much more experience in life, in sex, and in convincing people to do things how they want. It all depends on the situation.

togster wrote: »

What are you so outraged about? Paedophiles rights? The premise of the show?

That's what the show is supposed to do. Get everyone all angry at people with serious mental issues. No one is helped, and many are hurt. These men usually have families, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Once they are convicted of ANY sexual crime they register with the government and are required to notify everyone within a certain radius of their home or work (depending on population density). Whenever you move, get new neighbors, or apply for a job, it is a requirement to notify everyone of your sexual offense. Some people absolutely deserve it. You can also get this for taking a piss in public.

In the US, attempted sexual contact with a minor is a minimum 20 year federal offense, with no possibility of parole before 5 years. Isn't the point of going to prison to repay your debt to society? It's pretty hard to start a new life when 300,000,000 see your face and still think of you as the sexual predator.

dr_manhattan

"What are you so outraged about? Paedophiles rights? The premise of the show?"

Right, I'm not "outraged" I just think the whole thing is disgusting, lazy, greedy, trash made for the lazyminded, the vindictive... and of course the budding sexual predator.

Tbh I kinda hate all you paedo bashers, too - none of you contribute anything except hysteria to a very serious issue that requires some strategising.

After all, for thousands of years paedos have been confronted with outrage, persecution and mob rule. It's changed nothing. It might be time that you lot stepped aside and let someone with some perspective try something.

But the show? It's the lowest of the low.

You have sexual predators attempting to prey on pseudo-kids, which is a bad enough premise for a TV show IMHO, it's like the creators of "cops" weren't happy enough with clogging our TV sets up with garbage that's supposed to be "reality" but we know it's not cos duuuuuuuh it's a TV show.

And then we have you lot, cheering them on and screaming for blood. Great. You can show it to your kids, too, and freak them out even more than all this hysteria does.

So yeah, at this rate there should be no more child sex crime by 2010.

Thank you all, and NBC for helping so much to stop these crimes happenning with your truly socially conscious show, which has already cut child sex crime to almost nothing.

I'm also glad that the show is out there on TV, because we should be looking to make people commit crimes so we can GET them and prove finally that they are WRONG and we are all RIGHT.

All praise to you great people.

Oh and I do actually feel the need to underline this is sarcasm. Thanks.

CrazyRabbit

Raspberry wrote: »

What exactly are these people getting arrested for? Conspiracy to have sex with someone pretending to be a minor?

They should be arrested for being stupid enough to believe it was actually a kid they were talking to in the chat. It really is a shame that stupidity isn't a crime.

As for paedophilia, I've never been one to believe in the concept of good vs evil. It's just something people use in an attempt to understand something very complex.

I believe paedophiles are simply the sum of personality defects that they have acquired through their lives. Defects which deviated their thought patterns and moral compass from the norm. I think they can be treated, though not 100% cured. I would imagine it is a very difficult process as with any other mental illness and requires the willingness of the person to change.

How do we protect children from paedophiles? Well, there are three things that I think paedophiles use to prevent children from 'telling':

Firstly, the shame....many victims will feel great shame after the first instance of abuse. They will be ashamed that they 'didnt know what to do, and so let it happen'. Paedophiles will prey on this and reinforce it with comments like "You liked that, didn't you" & "That felt good, didn't it" etc. They make the victim feel like they are responsible and that they somehow gained from it (or that others will think they enjoyed it).

Secondly, fear...They fear what their loved ones will think of them. Again, this goes back to the feeling of shame. And if the abuser is someone they know or are related to, then it can elevate the fear...eg "what will mammy think/do if she finds out what daddy did?". Of course, the abuser may threaten harm to the victim or their loved ones as well.

Thirdly, and this is probably the hardest to explain, I think paedophiles can actually make the victim want to have sexual contact. Children who are neglected by their parents can crave attention and love. A paedophile could lavish attention & gifts unpon such a child and build a (false) relationship with the child. The child will not want to lose that relationship and will be much more easily persuaded to participate in sexual activity.
These type of victims probably very rarely 'tell'. They may spend their whole lives in denial about being abused. Subsequently we don't here about these cases on the news very often.

Paedophiles who seek help and admit their crimes should be helped. In these cases, the balance between punishment and rehabilitation should be tilted in favour of treatments
Paedophiles who show no remorse and/or deny their crimes cannot be helpded. In these cases, the balance should be title toward punishment..preferably a very long one.

In relation to Datelines tactics, well I would probably in favour of the tactics they use to find paedophiles, but I'm against making a TV show out of it. I don't see how putting the names/faces of offenders on national tv helps anyone. Remember, paedophiles who have been made public will find it impossible to get a place to live, to get a job or to make friends. This increases the risk of reoffended since they have so little to lose. Those with a lot to lose a much less likely to reoffend.

dr_manhattan

Crazyrabbit, thank you for your enlightened attitude. I honestly thought this was gonna be one of those "hang them!!!" threads, see above.

I wholeheartedly agree with your points, especially about good vs eveil and paedophilia not being a single "syndrome" but a convergence of a distorted worldview, a poorly developed sense of self, warped ideas of propriety and of course... the opportunity.

Plus of course, there's no one "standard" act of child molestation either, so go figure: personally I think kiddy pageants are child abuse but the law says it's not, and also has no problem with 6 year old clothing being emblazoned with "slut" and "porn star".

I would also *hugely* support your point about the child being made to enjoy the "relationship". A close friend of mine was abused by her uncle in the absence of her parents, and when he lost interest in her as she developed, it broke her heart because as far as she was concerned, she had a fully grown boyfriend.

And in this way we are *all* complicit in reinforcing sexual messages to kids and allowing a constant ideal of "your value is determined by how pretty or sexy you are, who your boy- or girlfriend is, and how much money you have" permeate out kids.

I would applaud CBS wholeheartedly if they attempted to investigate this, or to investigate producers of sexualised clothing and toys for kids. I would greatly appreciate if they did so.

But no: instead it's the easy sell.

Look at the BAD man being EVIL and WRONG. We are GOOD because we do not do what the BAD man does.

The people making these programmes are protecting nobody from nothing; all they are doing is protecting their greedy, no-talent lazy bigot asses from winding up on the street unemployed where they belong.

You do know that Brass Eye's paedophile special, the most complained about programme in britain, predicted a show *exactly* like this as a joke what, 5 years ago? Longer?

You people who think a TV show can protect you from human nature and weakness are in for a big surprise.

Raspberry

I don't think it could have been put any better than it has in the last three posts.

Endfloat

50 years ago, the witch hunt was on gay people. Gays were bad bad people and were evil to the core. Now its pedophiles. OK it's different. Children should not be abused and should not be touched, but the application of this justice is the same. These people are "predators"?! Jesus, thats just wrong in my opinion. They are still people. Disturbed people with a serious problem, but I don't think anyone would choose to be a pedophile, given the choice.

Red Sleeping Beauty

LadyJ wrote: »

Isn't it entrapment though?

I mean, jesus. I just don't agree with this at all.

I second this opinion.
I recommend "Capturing the Friedmans" to everyone.
Trial by media is a disgusting farce to all judicial systems.

the_syco

combo775 wrote: »

50 years ago, the witch hunt was on gay people. Gays were bad bad people and were evil to the core. Now its pedophiles. OK it's different. Children should not be abused and should not be touched, but the application of this justice is the same. These people are "predators"?! Jesus, thats just wrong in my opinion. They are still people. Disturbed people with a serious problem, but I don't think anyone would choose to be a pedophile, given the choice.

Yes, they are "predators", as they prey on small children.

Sorry, they ONLY prey on small children.

Although I accept it's a frame of mind, I go along the line of: if someone had a deranged mind went around hitting people on the head a few times with a lead pipe, do you think they should be let go free? My comparison is correct, as both the deranged person and the pedo saw nothing wrong with harming the people. Heck, some pedo's think that they are being "nice" to the child.

It doesn't change the fact that they molested the child, or want to molest the child.

=-=

Oh, and the christains are still trying to change the homos into hetros. But the homos don't hurt other people. They go with other people who are like them, who like their own sex.

Pedos go for children who often don't know any better.

=-=

Pedos often get with someone who they know. The children of a relative or friend. After seeing their uncle Pedo in the show, I don't think they'll let him near any kids again.

Red Sleeping Beauty

the_syco wrote: »

Yes, they are "predators", as they prey on small children.

Sorry, they ONLY prey on small children.

Although I accept it's a frame of mind, I go along the line of: if someone had a deranged mind went around hitting people on the head a few times with a lead pipe, do you think they should be let go free? My comparison is correct, as both the deranged person and the pedo saw nothing wrong with harming the people. Heck, some pedo's think that they are being "nice" to the child.

It doesn't change the fact that they molested the child, or want to molest the child.

=-=

Oh, and the christains are still trying to change the homos into hetros. But the homos don't hurt other people. They go with other people who are like them, who like their own sex.

Pedos go for children who often don't know any better.

=-=

Pedos often get with someone who they know. The children of a relative or friend. After seeing their uncle Pedo in the show, I don't think they'll let him near any kids again.

It's still entrapment. They should use their resources to do something more positive or constructive rather than locking people away and making huge ammounts of money through ratings.

Censorsh!t

I remember i spent like 3 hours straight watching episodes of this:p

But on topic, it is their own fault, it's them who were going around looking for underage girls/boys to have sex with.
This episode is fairly controversial, but do you think the show, or sexual predators are more controversial?
Someone said what if your father/best friend were a sexual predator? Then I'd be pretty damn ashamed to have them as my father/best friend. They know the law, and they should accept it, rather than putting their victims and themselves at risk.

carlybabe1

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

It's still entrapment. They should use their resources to do something more positive or constructive rather than locking people away and making huge ammounts of money through ratings.

What do you suggest we do with paedos, whats more constructive than locking them away? Pat them on the back and say 'god love ye, your life must be ****e, sure its not your fault, you know its wrong but ye cant control yourself, tell ye what, a bit of counselling might help ye feel better in yourself, lie down there and tell me how sorry for yourself your feeling. And dont worry about that little defencless 3 yr old you raped and who hasn't has a nights sleep since, we'll worry about you'
Jesus I have no patience for people who think these PREDATORS can be fixed/are human/cant help themselves... If we were to apply this logic to everything then technically if some paedo was to assault my child I could castrate him with a rusty razor and say I couldn't help myself. I knew it was wrong, I tried to cover my tracks, but I just got the urge :eek::eek::eek:

Red Sleeping Beauty

carlybabe1 wrote: »

What do you suggest we do with paedos, whats more constructive than locking them away? Pat them on the back and say 'god love ye, your life must be ****e, sure its not your fault, you know its wrong but ye cant control yourself, tell ye what, a bit of counselling might help ye feel better in yourself, lie down there and tell me how sorry for yourself your feeling. And dont worry about that little defencless 3 yr old you raped and who hasn't has a nights sleep since, we'll worry about you'
Jesus I have no patience for people who think these PREDATORS can be fixed/are human/cant help themselves... If we were to apply this logic to everything then technically if some paedo was to assault my child I could castrate him with a rusty razor and say I couldn't help myself. I knew it was wrong, I tried to cover my tracks, but I just got the urge :eek::eek::eek:

It sounds like castrating paedos wouldn't bother you too much ? Sure this tv show only bends the law slightly, why not have just feck the law out the window. Why not promote vigilantism and have public hangings and castrating.

carlybabe1

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

It sounds like castrating paedos wouldn't bother you too much ? Sure this tv show only bends the law slightly, why not have just feck the law out the window. Why not promote vigilantism and have public hangings and castrating.

And it sounds like you have a lot of sympathy towards paedos? Quite frankly, I have no problem with any method that protects innocent victims and curtails offenders, and I cant understand why any one else would. It has been shown that these predators can and do re-offend, and as they are the offenders then why should they have more rights than thier victims, past or indeed potential. And they do castrate paedos in some states in the US and it doesn't always work as they dont want to be fixed or cured and because they have such extensively rediculous rights they cant be physically forced to take the medication....So whats your great plan?

_______________________________________
to remove misplaced cnuts sorry commas

mirwillbeback

If my kids were abused, I would kill the person who did it, have no regrets and would gladly spend the rest of my life in a prison cell ( if a judge found me guilty ). The " let's treat them with respect " is a bull**** argument in my view, where is their respect for children in their sick minds?

Bottle_of_Smoke

These guys aren't paedos, that refer's to prepubescent children.

I'm not saying it's okay but when a 14 year old girl suggests goign to her house for sex and flirts with you, having sex with her doesn't put you on the same level as men having sex with 8 year olds. It's just not goign to be near as psychologically damaging to the child.

Once again. Not saying it's okay.

carlybabe1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

These guys aren't paedos, that refer's to prepubescent children.

I'm not saying it's okay but when a 14 year old girl suggests goign to her house for sex and flirts with you, having sex with her doesn't put you on the same level as men having sex with 8 year olds. It's just not goign to be near as psychologically damaging to the child.

Once again. Not saying it's okay.

And you know this how??? seriously, I would reckon with the good sense god gave me that how it affected the CHILD would be an individual thing... an eight yr old may block it out till she's older and has a family or could go off the rails, drink, smoke, take drugs and be promiscious all before she's twelve..and a fourteen yr old could have that same reaction and be pregnant and on the streets by the age of sixteen, or she could become reclusive and suicidal...either way, when a child has benn forced upon, cause thats really what it is, it will have an extreme psychological affect on them regardless of thier age

Bottle_of_Smoke

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And you know this how??? seriously, I would reckon with the good sense god gave me that how it affected the CHILD would be an individual thing... an eight yr old may block it out till she's older and has a family or could go off the rails, drink, smoke, take drugs and be promiscious all before she's twelve..and a fourteen yr old could have that same reaction and be pregnant and on the streets by the age of sixteen, or she could become reclusive and suicidal...either way, when a child has benn forced upon, cause thats really what it is, it will have an extreme psychological affect on them regardless of thier age

Learn to post like an adult, could barely read that mess.

In the 14 year old case she isn't being forced. Sex with a 14 year old could be consensual, whereas its just not possible with an eight year old.

I would agree non-consensual sex with a 14 year old is as bad as the same with an eight year old.

carlybabe1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Learn to post like an adult, could barely read that mess.

In the 14 year old case she isn't being forced. Sex with a 14 year old could be consensual, whereas its just not possible with an eight year old.

I would agree non-consensual sex with a 14 year old is as bad as the same with an eight year old.

Learn to read, and get some sense, the only way sex with a fourteen yr old MIGHT be consensual is if the other partner is similar in age, but legally its still RAPE. And its considered so for a reason....Any adult that considers a fourteen yr old fair game is in my opinion a PAEDO.....that clear enough for you????

Red Sleeping Beauty

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Learn to read, and get some sense, the only way sex with a fourteen yr old MIGHT be consensual is if the other partner is similar in age, but legally its still RAPE. And its considered so for a reason....Any adult that considers a fourteen yr old fair game is in my opinion a PAEDO.....that clear enough for you????

What age are you ?
Can boards not impliment some sort of age limit ?

carlybabe1

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

What age are you ?
Can boards not impliment some sort of age limit ?

Im twelve, going on fourteen...no wait, what year was i born.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
SNORE...anything interesting to say??????
Did I touch a nerve there or something with the fair game statement?

Bottle_of_Smoke

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Learn to read, and get some sense, the only way sex with a fourteen yr old MIGHT be consensual is if the other partner is similar in age, but legally its still RAPE. And its considered so for a reason....Any adult that considers a fourteen yr old fair game is in my opinion a PAEDO.....that clear enough for you????

Legally yes with good reason, however 14 year olds are "designed" for sex given they can get pregnant. Therefore it would also seem they are more likely to be emotionally ready for it. I would say almost as ready as a 17 year old which would in your view would be completely okay because its legal.

Now I still think a man should be charged for consensual sex with a fourteen year old. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I just think it's a far less serious crime than non-consensual sex.

Seeing as you're so stuck on semantics paedophelia refers to pre-pubescent children

You've implied I think 14 year olds are fair game. If that were actually what I said do you not think there'd be lot more people condemning me? Calm down and read properly this time.

RedPlanet

I haven't watched the videos but this show sounds unethical.
One thing i don't understand, is how any of these people could be prosecuted.
If the actor is 18 and is only pretending to be 14; well than legally they are still 18 because they are 18, so it's not soliciting a minor.
Looks to me that this is really about thought crime more than anything else.

In fact, my advice to the defense would be to say:

My client insists that he concluded the other party was putting on a ruse that she was a minor, and proceeded with the meeting to confirm that theory.