Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.

[Starke]

This show might ride the line of entrapment, but they take careful steps to avoid it. I would urge those of you to actually read up what I provided below. Because they do not initiate the coercion nor is there a snap decision required in leaving your house and driving somewhere, you don't see these cases thrown out for entrapment like say if an undercover police officer offered to sell you some drugs on the street.

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?

That's got to be what it is. Though I'm not sure how they can get away with that.

Spoiler: Entrapment as legally defined.

ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

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

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

The catch here is that Entrapment is defined by state law, not federal, so it will vary (slightly) in definition from state to state.

 

[WittyInfidel]

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.

Texas law enabled them to do so - even without him physically doing anything
Texas law enabled them to do so
Texas law
law


If a man approaches a prostitute a solicits sex from her, and is arrested for soliciting sex from a prostitute, he has still broken the law. Even if there is no physical touching.

If a man approaches a minor and is arrested for soliciting sex from a minor, he has still broken the law. Even if there is no physical touching.

It's not entrapment to get nailed soliciting sex from a minor. Even if you do nothing physical, you have still broken the law by soliciting it from a minor. This is not a case of entrapment.

The only thing illegal was a grown adult tried to solicit sex from a minor. The fact he decided to eat a bullet instead of face the consequences is another matter altogether.

 

[Eicha]

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.

Excellent. Now, which beer to accompany it?

 

[Starke]

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.

"The Gun Law" is a constitutional amendment (the second specifically) that's been with us for over two centuries. There is no trial, it is an appeal to overturn a California law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional (again, because of a constitutional amendment, in this case the first).

 

[RatRace123]

Oh no, they're tricking pedophiles into getting arrested somebody stop those monsters.
It doesn't matter if they were tricked, if they accepted a booty call from what they thought was a kid, then they deserve their punishment.
Besides they had the opportunity at any time to stop it, and they wouldn've eventually done it anyway.

 

[AbstinentUser]

hmm i find it interesting how pedophillia is now against the law when not even a hundred years or more ago a girl would get married as soon as they hit puberty.

Now i don't support it in any way but from a historical stand point its interesting to see how civilization has changed.

The only thing that bothers me is when the police bait people with hookers.

Thats because of a big change in womens rights, they are now allowed to choose who they marry, instead of just being told to marry someone

Remember it wasn't just girls who weren't allowed to choose who they married. And not necessarily when they hit puberty either, it wasn't unheard of for 7 and 8 year old boys and girls to be married as a dynastic marriage.

OT: Personally I find it distasteful to watch. I mean sure I want them locked up. But it kinda gets to me that there are people in the world who commit crimes like that, and plenty of times 20 armed police men won't be waiting just outside to storm in and save the day. I'd much rather watch something which praised the good in society, like a program about heroic firefighters or something

 

[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.

Texas law enabled them to do so - even without him physically doing anything
Texas law enabled them to do so
Texas law
law

Which is probably a constitutional violation of some kind. There is no law in Texas, there's only fuckin' Texas and Texas fuckin' you.

If a man approaches a prostitute a solicits sex from her, and is arrested for soliciting sex from a prostitute, he has still broken the law. Even if there is no physical touching.

Remember the list that someone posted earlier about the three necessary portions for entrapment to occur.

In this case it isn't entrapment because the prostitute didn't talk him into this or coerce him into violating the law.

If a man approaches a minor and is arrested for soliciting sex from a minor, he has still broken the law. Even if there is no physical touching.

Again, because he wasn't lead or coerced (or induced) to behave this way.

It's not entrapment to get nailed soliciting sex from a minor. Even if you do nothing physical, you have still broken the law by soliciting it from a minor. This is not a case of entrapment.

Unfortunately you haven't presented an example case for entrapment yet.

The only thing illegal was a grown adult tried to solicit sex from a minor. The fact he decided to eat a bullet instead of face the consequences is another matter altogether.

Now, without viewing the tape, what we appear to have is an individual who was talked into visiting a minor (the government agent), for the purpose of having sex.

So, if we go back to your prostitute example above, if the prostitute is a cop, and she follows you down the street talking you into an alley and then attempts to arrest you, that IS entrapment. You had no intention of hiring her services until she wore you down over a period of time.

Here we have a "honey pot" that apparently goes out looking for people to pull in, otherwise no arrests, no ratings. The DA who got roped thought better of it, indicating that this was not his intent and that he did not generate mens rea on his own, that my friend is entrapment.

EDIT: Cleaning up the grammar a bit.

 

[WittyInfidel]

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.

Texas law enabled them to do so - even without him physically doing anything
Texas law enabled them to do so
Texas law
law

Which is probably a constitutional violation of some kind. There is no law in Texas, there's only fuckin' Texas and Texas fuckin' you.

If a man approaches a prostitute a solicits sex from her, and is arrested for soliciting sex from a prostitute, he has still broken the law. Even if there is no physical touching.

Remember the list that someone posted earlier about the three necessary portions for entrapment to occur.

In this case it isn't entrapment because the prostitute didn't talk him into this or coerce him into violating the law.

If a man approaches a minor and is arrested for soliciting sex from a minor, he has still broken the law. Even if there is no physical touching.

Again, because he wasn't lead or coerced (or induced) to behave this way.

It's not entrapment to get nailed soliciting sex from a minor. Even if you do nothing physical, you have still broken the law by soliciting it from a minor. This is not a case of entrapment.

Unfortunately you haven't presented an example case for entrapment yet.

The only thing illegal was a grown adult tried to solicit sex from a minor. The fact he decided to eat a bullet instead of face the consequences is another matter altogether.

Now, without viewing the tape, what we appear to have is an individual who was talked into visiting a minor (the government agent), for the purpose of having sex.

So, if we go back to your prostitute example above, if the prostitute is a cop, and she follows you down the street talking you into an alley and then attempts to arrest you, that IS entrapment. You had no intention of hiring her services until she wore you down over a period of time.

Here we have a "honey pot" that apparently goes out looking for people to pull in, otherwise no arrests, no ratings. The DA who got roped thought better of it, indicating that this was not his intent he did not generate mens rea on his own, that my friend is entrapment.

The DA expressed to what he thought was a minor that he wanted to watch the minor masturbate, then they could hold each other and touch each other. I'm pretty sure this expresses intent. And it falls into the category of soliciting sex from a minor. Watch the video again.

This is not someone following him around and proposing him. He caught on that he was getting nailed, which is why he was trying to back away. Otherwise, why would he not answer his door? I really don't think he was taking a shower.

Sorry, it still doesn't hold water. He was hunting children. He just caught the sent of the police before he visited the supposed minor's house.

 

[Mr Fixit]

Stupid people deserve no mercy. The arguement that they were enticed is bullshit. They all knew exactly what they were doing & knowing it was illegal, they still did it.

 

[oldmeme]

If you're just randomly joining chatrooms and throwing a line out in an attempt to catch a big one, then I don't agree with that.
If there is evidence to suggest the person may already be violating the law, then wail all you want to coax him out, should it be true.

It's a funny sort of subject alright.

 

[Starke]

The DA expressed to what he thought was a minor that he wanted to watch the minor masturbate, then they could hold each other and touch each other. I'm pretty sure this expresses intent. And it falls into the category of soliciting sex from a minor. Watch the video again.

Well, strictly speaking it can't be again since I hadn't watched it the first time around.

Now, it may be my own innate paranoia and familiarity with editing techniques but the case they're presenting is anything but iron clad. And it certainly doesn't prove in any way shape or form that he wasn't entrapped.

In more detail you're presented with what appears to be a persuasive case, but by necessity you will not and cannot get the whole picture. Given the objective of a show like this, that starts to cast everything in a suspicious light.

This is not someone following him around and proposing him. He caught on that he was getting nailed, which is why he was trying to back away. Otherwise, why would he not answer his door? I really don't think he was taking a shower.

Legally that's honestly irrelevant. We literally do not know. So, all we can do is speculate.

Sorry, it still doesn't hold water. He was hunting children. He just caught the sent of the police before he visited the supposed minor's house.

I think you mean scent. And, again, from a five minute TV piece there's literally no evidence you can use to argue against the supposition that he was a victim of gross entrapment.

 

[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.

Excellent. Now, which beer to accompany it?

Depends on the crudités. If you're going for vegetables, then I'd suggest a good white wine; however, if it's breadsticks, take red - and if it's meat, match the beer to the spice, you'll want something with a mild taste not to take away from the spices.

Possibly a good lager like Kingfisher or Cobra? Sol could work, but you'd need a good spice to go with it.

 

[Starke]

sorry to poke a hole but this isnt entrapment, this is a sting. If they go on and start flirting with guys first, making the first push, it is, if they go on pretending to be a 13 year old cheerleader, and the guy starts something, its a sting.

The limited format of what we see makes me really suspicious of this though. Particularly in light of the ADA who backed out. This, to me, suggests a pattern of behavior where they lure people into these situations through repeated trawling and potentially harassment. Where they've just lucked out so far because they haven't gone after anyone smart enough to beat them over the head for that.

 

[WittyInfidel]

Watch the video again.

Well, strictly speaking it can't be again since I hadn't watched it the first time around.

This explains much. I was trying to figure out how you were building a case while ignore much of the presented information. Just turns out you have refused to view any of the information, and are simply speculating on what you *think* may have been on the video. I highly suggest watching it. it will help you understand the full argument you are trying to make, versus basing an argument on conjecture and speculation.

The part where he sent pornographic photos of himself to what he thought was a minor can really sway an argument.

*tips his hat*

Good day to you. I am off to do other things.

 

[Iwata]

I love the show, and I enjoy seeing paedophiles squirm.

 

[Starke]

sorry to poke a hole but this isnt entrapment, this is a sting. If they go on and start flirting with guys first, making the first push, it is, if they go on pretending to be a 13 year old cheerleader, and the guy starts something, its a sting.

The limited format of what we see makes me really suspicious of this though. Particularly in light of the ADA who backed out. This, to me, suggests a pattern of behavior where they lure people into these situations through repeated trawling and potentially harassment. Where they've just lucked out so far because they haven't gone after anyone smart enough to beat them over the head for that.

if it was entrapment, none of those people would be going to jail, any lawyer who passed a bar cna not only spring you from anything if entrapment is involved, but get you a big check as well.

Any lawyer with half a brain should be able to get the cases tossed because they were interviewed on national television without an attorney present, unless these idiots were dumb enough to wave Miranda (I skimmed through this section of the video).

 

[Starke]

This explains much. I was trying to figure out how you were building a case while ignore much of the presented information. Just turns out you have refused to view any of the information, and are simply speculating on what you *think* may have been on the video.

Not so much refused as was unable to at the time. Please don't attempt to ascribe motives to me.

I highly suggest watching it.

Too late. I already did. The second post was in light of the video.

it will help you understand the full argument you are trying to make, versus basing an argument on conjecture and speculation.

No, it actually reinforced my suspicion of the material, again, because of the relative lack of information.

The part where he sent pornographic photos of himself to what he thought was a minor can really sway an argument.

Yeah, and I'd be inclined to say that was damning if we knew any of the context that went with it. It looks terrible, but without context, what provoked this? Most people don't start a conversation by sending other people gay porn (unless you're secretly Jack Thompson). So it looks pretty fucking damning, but without context, what the fuck is going on, honestly?

Good day to you. I am off to do other things.

Your inner child called, he's escaped and robbed a liquor store.