Vigilante groups who catch sex offenders

lifeandtimes

Can someone add some information regarding these groups and consequences they could suffer?

A certain vigilante recently broadcast a live Facebook sting operation where the cornered a suspected sex offender, put to him what he was accused of and the guards were called and he was arrested. Subsequently he was released without charge

"A source last night said that, despite the justice groups "heart appearing to be in the right place", the footage could present major complications for the investigation team.

"The fact that this footage was streamed live on Facebook and was viewed by hundreds of thousands of people will prove a major headache for gardai.

"The man is clearly identified and his name is mentioned throughout," the source said."

This isn't the first time they have dine this and last time a man took his life.

A recent ruling by a judge in the UK stated that there was nothing needed regarding any regulation for these groups, however I'm wondering what charges if any these groups could face?

They could be jeopardizing actual investigations and not only that these people as being named and shamed before any trial and as such a lot are walking free. Not to mention the case of David Murray,being wrongly accused in a case of mistaken identity of being a paedophile.

Do the people who are being named and shamed without any charge have a case to sue or can the police bring them to court for jeopardizing police investigations?

Claw Hammer

A group can't be charged, only an individual.

hullaballoo

The equivalent (or near it) practice in the UK of vigilantes "outing" paedophiles from what I've seen is very different to what you've described the Irish group doing.

Afaik, the UK groups have enough about them not to publish anything online until after a conviction has taken place to avoid the very real legal problems that would arise otherwise.

What you've described happening here sounds more like a bunch of idiots broadcasting a public lynching.

A couple of other things. I don't know what the law in the UK says specifically, but I believe they have strict laws on grooming etc. that we just don't have here. The UK groups who do this also have a different MO, I think. They pose as underage people and ultimately arrange to meet with the target (for want of a better word) and then when the target identifies himself, they spring the trap and record the interaction, which I gather may be used in court over there. This, to me, is entrapment and I am not sure you'd get very far with it here, even if grooming was an offence, which it isn't. (I have to presume that in the UK, sending inappropriate messages to someone you believe to be underage is an offence, whether or not they are actually underage... otherwise, there wouldn't be convictions resulting from these vigilante groups.)

We have this whole pesky concept of fair procedures in Ireland introduced by the hippies probably. It would seem to me that they would render a lot of what any copycat group here might be trying to achieve futile at best, and extremely dangerous at worst.

One eyed Jack

hullaballoo wrote: »

A couple of other things. I don't know what the law in the UK says specifically, but I believe they have strict laws on grooming etc. that we just don't have here.

Would Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 address online grooming of a child?

Use of information and communication technology to facilitate sexual exploitation of child


8. (1) A person who by means of information and communication technology communicates with another person (including a child) for the purpose of facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child by that person or any other person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.


(2) A person who by means of information and communication technology sends sexually explicit material to a child shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—


(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or


(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.


(3) No proceedings for an offence under this section against a child under the age of 17 years shall be brought except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.


(4) In this section “sexually explicit material” means any indecent or obscene images or words.


(5) In this section “child” means a person under the age of 17 years.

Source: Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017

Peregrinus

This kind of vigilante activity is attended with a number of legal dangers, among which are:

- Whatever you do online to attract the notice of offenders or potential offenders could itself be illegal.

- Even if it isn't, you yourself (or the online persona you have created for this exercise) may begin to show up on the radar of investigating agencies as a potential offender or a potential victim. At best, this distracts their attention, wastes their resources and reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of their work; at worst, you find yourself the object of some very unpleasant police attention, and when you assure them of your public-spirited motivation you may find them sceptical.

- Correspondence with or confrontation of the offender/potential offender may generate information which is inadmissible as evidence. You could thus alert him to the fact that he has been detected and is being investigated while at the same time sabotaging the chances of his being successfully prosecuted.

- If you "out" him by broadcasting or publishing your activities you are obviously exposed to an action for defamation, and if the action is successful the award of damages for such a libel must be enormous. And, again, your actions may interrupt a competent investigation of the same suspect by the police and/or sabotage the chances of a successful prosecution.

TL;DR version: Don't do this at home.

One eyed Jack

All of the above is actually excellent advice Peregrinus, and having recent experience of this kind of thing where I'm aware of children who were targeted on social media (the adult involved was quite blatant about it, friended one child first, then because the child had their school on their profile, there were quite a number of children targeted!), I suggested the thing to do was to confiscate their phone and tablet and hand them in to the Gardaí to allow them to carry out an investigation rather than go the vigilante route, for precisely many of the reasons you mention above!

I was also thinking that any names involved in vigilante behaviour don't be long getting around on social media too and that in itself can have an effect on the child or children involved.

Mr. Incognito

These people are idiots with too much time on their hands whipped into a frenzy of rigeous rage by the Mirror, the Star and the Sun and each other.

We have a justice system to deal with these things.

However these people are safely above the law as most of them have no jobs or assets so cant be fixed with a defamation claim.

Morons.

lifeandtimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

These people are idiots with too much time on their hands whipped into a frenzy of rigeous rage by the Mirror, the Star and the Sun and each other.

We have a justice system to deal with these things.

However these people are safely above the law as most of them have no jobs or assets so cant be fixed with a defamation claim.

Morons.

Exactly, heart in the right place, head in the wrong place.

I'm sure there is something that can be done but like you said they would have f-all (presumably) assets to have anything brought against them. Though maybe a case against with community service may stop them from continuing.

Some of the group's do bring the details to the police and then name and shame which is great but the Muppets the ither broadcast the whole event and screwed everything up

lifeandtimes

https://m.independent.ie/business/technology/facebook-and-twitter-face-unlimited-fines-in-bid-to-stop-trial-by-social-media-risk-36251194.html

It was only a matter of time but I for one am delighted this is finally coming about

the_syco

Peregrinus wrote: »

- If you "out" him by broadcasting or publishing your activities you are obviously exposed to an action for defamation, and if the action is successful the award of damages for such a libel must be enormous. And, again, your actions may interrupt a competent investigation of the same suspect by the police and/or sabotage the chances of a successful prosecution.

Could the person they try to "out" sue anyone on the group seen or heard in the video for defamation?

IMO, it'd also be showing their hand, and said individual could change their habits so they wouldn't be caught out as easily again.

lifeandtimes

the_syco wrote: »

Could the person they try to "out" sue anyone on the group seen or heard in the video for defamation?

IMO, it'd also be showing their hand, and said individual could change their habits so they wouldn't be caught out as easily again.

Defamation is only about false statements.

In this case even if there was no trial the person "defamed" would have to sue and prove it's not true....in which case they can't so it wouldn't really happen unless it was a serious case of mistaken identity

Peregrinus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Defamation is only about false statements.

In this case even if there was no trial the person "defamed" would have to sue and prove it's not true....in which case they can't so it wouldn't really happen unless it was a serious case of mistaken identity

No. If I make a defamatory claim about you, and you sue me, and I try to defend the case by saying that the claim is true, it's up to me to prove that it's true; it's not up to you to prove that it's false.

If you post a video denouncing Mr X as a pedophile, you had better be in a position to prove that Mr X is a pedophile.

Much of the discussion above proceeds on the assumption that someone outed by one of the vigilante groups is, in fact, a pedophile. This may not always be the case. There have been instances of men who are gay being set up to be outed as pedophiles by vigilante groups which assume, or which contain members who assume, that anyone who is gay is also likely to be a pedophile. And there have been cases of men being invited to meetings with women whom they believe to be of age, only to have a camera pointed at them while somebody shouts that they are there to meet an underage person. Not everybody targetted by a vigilante group is in fact an offender.

Back up the page lifeandtimes summarises the vigilantes as people with "heart in the right place, head in the wrong place". Well, sometimes. But sometimes even the motivation isn't quite as pure as we might like to think. Sometimes the real driver here isn't to protect children, but to feel heroic, to validate oneself, or to make up for some perceived deficiency or failing in oneself. Some people are doing this, basically, in order to feel good about themselves. And since these people are basically meeting their own unrecognised psychological need for self-esteem, their judgment about the activities they are engaged in, and the people they are targetting, can be clouded.

lifeandtimes

Peregrinus wrote: »

Back up the page lifeandtimes summarises the vigilantes as people with "heart in the right place, head in the wrong place". Well, sometimes. But sometimes even the motivation isn't quite as pure as we might like to think. Sometimes the real driver here isn't to protect children, but to feel heroic, to validate oneself, or to make up for some perceived deficiency or failing in oneself. Some people are doing this, basically, in order to feel good about themselves. And since these people are basically meeting their own unrecognised psychological need for self-esteem, their judgment about the activities they are engaged in, and the people they are targetting, can be clouded.

What i find troubling is the fact they arent regulated and say for some reason i,a member of the public or even one of their owm got onto the wrong side of a high ranking memeber and they could orchestrate a whole sting operation to catch them out as whatever they choose it too be and no one would no if its true or not.

Going by the tactics of trial by social media it's a ticking time bomb