Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.

[Swaki]

i dont watch the show, because i find it evil, there was a big case in denmark a few years ago when a newspaper copied the show, they managed to do that twice before getting sued, the people went free, and rightly so, they did use more questionable than this show, i think it was around 12 people who got fired, and a few of them got arrested.

there are many American laws and morals i will never get, this show embodies both.

 

[Micah Weil]

there are many American laws and morals i will never get, this show embodies both.

...okay, disregarding Shrodinger's Morals here for just a second, the laws thing confuses me.
Could you go into a little further detail as to what laws the show is embodying (I mean beyond the obvious "don't ally with a certain internet bear")?

 

[Slycne]

My only question how they get these people to agree to letting them air the footage or if they are somehow allowed to run it without their consent?

It's because criminal records and proceedings are considered public, at least in the USA. A person being charged on on trial does not have the right to privacy in the matter. Not for humiliation reasons, but to ensure fair due process.

Ah ok. I figured it was either something related to that or that they entered private property. Thanks.

 

[Wardnath]

Half the people the show "catches" are harmless idiots (emphasis on "idiots"), and it blows my mind how painfully obvious some of these undercover people are. Now I know what to look for next time I'm in a chat room, thanks guys.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

That said, entcing a person to commit a crime and then aressting them for it seems a little morally questionable to me, especially when the authorities have to contantly badger them and pressure the person into doing the deed.

I believe it's commonly referred to as "Entrapment". It also aggravates a sub-group of society willing to use any means to bring these pediatrist, podiatrist, pedophiles to justice.

@Slycne: I do agree with your points about Entrapment, but I'd be unwilling to say they go to great lengths to avoid

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

as that would apply to agents going for a specific person. To Catch a Predator places its "honeypot" to get film, not to serve justice.

 

[Swaki]

there are many American laws and morals i will never get, this show embodies both.

...okay, disregarding Shrodinger's Morals here for just a second, the laws thing confuses me.
Could you go into a little further detail as to what laws the show is embodying (I mean beyond the obvious "don't ally with a certain internet bear")?

well there's the obvious gun law, then there's the big trial about video games being protected by freedom of speech, and many others, but trust me i dont hate Americans, that would be incredibly america...erhh, i mean, narrow minded of me.

 

[Micah Weil]

there are many American laws and morals i will never get, this show embodies both.

...okay, disregarding Shrodinger's Morals here for just a second, the laws thing confuses me.
Could you go into a little further detail as to what laws the show is embodying (I mean beyond the obvious "don't ally with a certain internet bear")?

well there's the obvious gun law, then there's the big trial about video games being protected by freedom of speech, and many others, but trust me i dont hate Americans, that would be incredibly america...erhh, i mean, narrow minded of me.

I...think I get what you're saying. I think.

 

[AwesomeExpress]

Oh.. I was thinking of Predator the alien from the movies and comics...

 

[quiet_samurai]

My only question how they get these people to agree to letting them air the footage or if they are somehow allowed to run it without their consent?

It's because criminal records and proceedings are considered public, at least in the USA. A person being charged on on trial does not have the right to privacy in the matter. Not for humiliation reasons, but to ensure fair due process.

Ah ok. I figured it was either something related to that or that they entered private property. Thanks.

No problem, and I didn't even think of the private property thing. It could actually be both reasons. NBC could have rented the house for a month making it a temporary residence, which you can film in and around all you want.

 

[quiet_samurai]

My point is that how is someone supposed to learn what a bad decision is if they aren't allowed to make bad decisions. I doubt a single decision could ruin anyone's life so long as their family is there for them. There to put things in perspective, to give a home, food, and acceptance. Besides, I would argue that many adults are no better when it comes to pleasure and thinking of consequences.

Just because a decision will affect the family doesn't mean the family has the right to take away a minor's choice. A family can deal with just about any consequence an individual can inflict on themselves, if the family has the main goal of sticking together and supporting one another. Furthermore, I would argue that a family following such a principal wouldn't encounter much in the way of horrible consequences. As it's members learned from a young age how to make decisions.

So, if your 14 year old son met a 40 year old on the internet, then said he was going to go meet him you wouldn't refute it? And if he ended up getting ass raped by said 40 year old, would you just make him a cup of hot cocoa, pat his shoulder and ask him what it is he learned here?

Yeah, totally resonable. That's some pretty tough love.

 

[Imp Poster]

I don't have any problem with this. Maybe the camera thing is too much. It is like any prostitution sting or drug sting. If you feel the need to talk dirty to a person that says they are in low teens in age. Entice them to give up where they live while their parents are away, then go there with some alcohol/drugs and condoms. You are sick. And for those people that have good intentions about going there in a situation like that. You are an idiot. That would be like picking up a gun next a dead body with gunshot wounds while the police come in.
It's call Child Services, call it.

Why do you think there is a show like this? There are real children that get hurt or killed.

 

[Eicha]

Okay, so, it basically all boils down to whether or not sex with a minor is immoral. Morality and legality are two entirely different things. People say "Oh, people under the age of 18 don't really know whether they want to have sex and someone over 18 that does it with them was raping them." Well, look at high schools in most large cities. You'll find a number of girls that are pregnant through 'oopsies' with males that are within their age range. And don't forget that we educate kids about sex at around 13 anyways. Kids younger and younger are getting used to the idea of sex because they're developing earlier on and their classmates tell them stuff. I personally remember being in fourth grade when I heard classmates express desires to perform sexual acts with attractive celebrities. So, are those celebrities enticing minors? Of course not.

I spoke to the mother of a man that was 19 and was going out and having sex with a girl that was 13. She swore that she was 18, and probably looked it, too, with the way that girls are developing now and the way fashion trends like to show skin. Her parents found out and had the guy arrested for performing completely consensual sex with a minor. Was that immoral? The minor knew exactly what it was and what she was getting into. Was it illegal? The law says yes. So, this young man was convicted and made to register as a sex offender for life for a completely consensual act.

Now, as far as the police posing as minors, that is a tricky thing to discuss. Yes, they do catch real predators that wanted to do sexually explicit things with minors, but they also don't consider that the internet is a fantasy land. Many people don't tell the truth because why should they? its not a face to face conversation. So the police take an internet conversation literally and in their eyes this person is seriously considering meeting up and having sexual relations with a minor. The police are on the legal side of this issue, not the moral.

One could argue yes, they intended to break the law and that's what the whole point is. But how many of us have intended to break the law in other ways? Walking through a store and thinking "I would love to get that CD, but I can't afford it. I could always slip it into my pocket and try walking out with it." Whether we actually do it or not, according to TCaP we're guilty of it anyways just by thinking about it.

Food for thought~

Awesome garlicky dip

3 tbs. mayo
1 tsp onion powder
1 1/2 tbs. granulated garlic.
1 squeeze of lemon juice
a/n water

Combine in a bowl, adding water to adjust consistency. Great with baby carrots!

 

[WittyInfidel]

Question) Is this morally right?
Answer)These people are trying to have sex with children.

Question) Are they enticing people to commit these crimes?
Answer) They are trying to have sex with children. They approach the children and proposition sex, not the other way around. Thus, not entrapment, not enticement. They couldn't tell the difference between an average child and a decoy? So, what, you going to give them another shot? Maybe they'll hit a home run instead of a strike? This line of thinking right here disgusts me.

Observation) Maybe they wouldn't have gone through with it if the decoy didn't make themselves available.
Answer) These people are trying to have sex with children. They set out to look for children. They knew they were looking for children. Through the transcripts, it is made abundantly clear that they wanted children for sex. If they did not get caught, they would have undoubtedly tried again. If a fox raids the henhouse once, what makes you think it won't return the following night?


What is the deal people? They are/were wanting sex with children. They didn't order a pizza and have the wrong van pull up to their door.
They were trying to have sex with children!

As a person who was abused at a young age, I do not see this as a thought crime. This is heinous, physical crime. They were simply stopped before they could get their leg over some young child.

There is no moral gray area. Ask anybody who was abused in such a manner. I'm sure you will get a similar answer.

They were trying to have sex with children. They got caught. They are lucky. If I had my way, people like this would be put to death. Period.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Food for thought~

Awesome garlicky dip

3 tbs. mayo
1 tsp onion powder
1 1/2 tbs. granulated garlic.
1 squeeze of lemon juice
a/n water

Combine in a bowl, adding water to adjust consistency. Great with baby carrots!

Hmmmm...could that do with a little chilli powder as well, or would that spoil it?

 

[Eicha]

Food for thought~

Awesome garlicky dip

3 tbs. mayo
1 tsp onion powder
1 1/2 tbs. granulated garlic.
1 squeeze of lemon juice
a/n water

Combine in a bowl, adding water to adjust consistency. Great with baby carrots!

Hmmmm...could that do with a little chilli powder as well, or would that spoil it?

Actually, great idea! A touch of cayenne or some sriracha would make it nice and spicy.

 

[Starke]

Discussion: Is the act of enticing people to commit a crime morally wrong?

EDIT: I'm editing this post to include the fact that a man was killed because of the show. He was a well known district attorney who was talking to a minor online and arranged a meeting. The district attorney decided not to go through with the meeting, so the police went to his house to arrest him anyway (Texas law enabled them to do so - even without him physically doing anything). They knocked at his door and got no response, they broke in and encountered him in the hallway where he shot himself in head. He is dead. Because of the show.

Honestly that's a pretty clear case of entrapment. Which is, quite frankly: illegal.

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

Eh, I can't really say more than has been said. Some of these people are dangerous, some of these people are not. Sometimes you can't help but feel for the guy.

It makes for damn entertaining television though.

 

[Valksy]

Yeah I've watched it and might watch it again. I have no problem with what the programme does. I recall initially wondering if it was entrapment but the law seems quite clear in terms of grooming a potential target and the ramifications of actually showing up. That the person isn't a child does not remove the clearly defined intent behind showing up and getting told to take a seat.

Only a complete and utter moron would not know that arranging to have sex with an 11 year old is a criminal thing to do. If this show does nothing else than make nonces think again, then fine. If every single one of them wonders if the person they are talking to is a cop or a fed then maybe they will knock that shit off.

Is it amusing to watch a man in his 40s (who showed up hoping to fuck a 12 year old in the ass) squirming on the tarmac weeping like a *****...yes. yes it is.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Hmmmm...could that do with a little chilli powder as well, or would that spoil it?

Actually, great idea! A touch of cayenne or some sriracha would make it nice and spicy.

If you're going to make it spicy though, I'd change the lemon juice for lime juice to give it a nice piquant taste.

 

[Worgen]

the morality of it comes from what we dont see, the chat that goes on before he gets to the house, thats really were it is either creepy entrapment or vigilante justice.