Paedophile Hunters

Discodog

There was an excellent episode of 24 hour in Police Custody which can be viewed here

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody/on-demand/61751-007

It focussed on the activities of self appointed, vigilante, paedophile hunters who pose as underage girls on the internet. Two men received jail sentences even though no contact ever happened & the victims didn't exist. The Police were concerned about entrapment & didn't approve of the "hunters". The accused are clearly unpleasant & the hunters are pretty obnoxious too.

In this case the accused pleaded guilty. I wonder what would of happened if they contested the case ? It has a relevance for us as I have heard that we intend to introduce legislation. Would such methods of exposure & citizens arrest follow from a change in the law ?

Pat Mustard

Discodog wrote: »

I have heard that we intend to introduce legislation. Would such methods of exposure & citizens arrest follow from a change in the law ?

Do you have a link to something relating to the proposed legislation?

MarkAnthony

Incoming ramble:

The legislation in E&W and probably the UK is very much slanted against would-be paedophiles and hebephiles - probably as it should be however I have some basic principle's issues with actus reus but I've not really looked into it that deeply.

If they contested the case, I doubt very much would have changed. The 'hunters' are quite good at keeping all the records etc. I also have my suspicions that no one wanted these 'hunters' in court and that perhaps a guilty plea was made the best solution for all parties. If we're thinking of the same people they're not exactly the nicest people themselves and I have my doubts about the purity of their motives. Not to mention if they can sit at the computer all day they can get a feckin job, however I do on some level appauld what they're doing.

Discodog

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Do you have a link to something relating to the proposed legislation?

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015071000003

The documentary raised a lot of issues. Had the men not owned up the evidence would be mainly Facebook conversations with someone pretending to be an underage girl.

The other obvious issue is that these "hunters" put videos up of the accused. The Police raised the issue of a fair trial given that thousands of people had seen the videos.

The "hunters" hold public meetings & encourage vigilantism. In the UK doctor was attacked when one group confused paedophile with paediatrician.

NUTLEY BOY

Saw that documentary. Very interesting not least of all from a procedural perspective.

The concern I would have about the hunters is that they may go too far. I am not worried about the suspects if they are guilty. However, at the points of interception by the hunters the suspects were still entitled to the presumption of innocence.

What would happen if incriminating evidence was adduced by the hunters in a manner that would cause it and other evidence to be excluded procedurally at trial ?

MadDog76

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Incoming ramble:

The legislation in E&W and probably the UK is very much slanted against would-be paedophiles and hebephiles - probably as it should be however I have some basic principle's issues with actus reus but I've not really looked into it that deeply.

If they contested the case, I doubt very much would have changed. The 'hunters' are quite good at keeping all the records etc. I also have my suspicions that no one wanted these 'hunters' in court and that perhaps a guilty plea was made the best solution for all parties. If we're thinking of the same people they're not exactly the nicest people themselves and I have my doubts about the purity of their motives. Not to mention if they can sit at the computer all day they can get a feckin job, however I do on some level appauld what they're doing.

I have zero sympathy for the paedophiles and, as such, I was delighted to see them prosecuted, convicted and sentenced .......... I couldn't help disliking the "Hunters" though.
I would respect them, and their motives, a lot more if they simply handed over their evidence and allowed the Police/Prosecutors to get on with the (tough enough) job of dealing with these suspects.
The fact that they immediately post their videos on-line, make demands of the Police and hold public meetings makes me think they're more interested in personal glory than seeing justice done.

Also, they're just not very likeable people .......... but maybe they're a necessary evil?

Discodog

If you are going to rely on Facebook conversations then how secure are they ? For example if one wanted to use it for extortion or falsifying evidence. Could someone change their age after a conversation ?

There was a strange bit in the documentary where the Police were having a pally chat with the accused solicitor & he said that he didn't understand why his client was saying no comment.

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

If you are going to rely on Facebook conversations then how secure are they ? For example if one wanted to use it for extortion or falsifying evidence. Could someone change their age after a conversation ?

There was a strange bit in the documentary where the Police were having a pally chat with the accused solicitor & he said that he didn't understand why his client was saying no comment.

I think it's unusual for Suspects to hand themselves in, answer some incriminating questions, partly admit guilt on some aspects of the Investigation and then respond with "No Comment" to other questions ................ it's usually a case of the Suspect holding their hands up to a crime or just consistently replying "No Comment" to every question.

I think his Solicitor was expressing his surprise at his Clients peculiar way of dealing with being Interviewed.

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think it's unusual for Suspects to hand themselves in, answer some incriminating questions, partly admit guilt on some aspects of the Investigation and then respond with "No Comment" to other questions ................ it's usually a case of the Suspect holding their hands up to a crime or just consistently replying "No Comment" to every question.

I think his Solicitor was expressing his surprise at his Clients peculiar way of dealing with being Interviewed.

I wouldn't want my solicitor to discuss how I am handling questions with my questioners. The accused appeared to me to be rather immature.

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

I wouldn't want my solicitor to discuss how I am handling questions with my questioners. The accused appeared to me to be rather immature.

I don't think it's relevant when the Questioners are in the room with the Suspect and can see for themselves how he is handling the questioning, it's all on Record anyway ......... it would be another story if the Solicitor was discussing confidential conversations between himself and his Client.

Shep_Dog

Discodog wrote: »

If you are going to rely on Facebook conversations then how secure are they ? For example if one wanted to use it for extortion or falsifying evidence. Could someone change their age after a conversation ?

There was a court case here in Ireland in Ireland that held that such a conversation whether or not either participant was under age or even if the subject was not a real person, would constitute the manufacture of child pornography. The verdict was upheld on appeal.

Grolschevik

Every time I see this thread title, my brain adds "...with Bear Grylls" to it.

MarkAnthony

It's like a kennel in 'ere! :pac:

MadDog76

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's like a kennel in 'ere! :pac: