To Catch a Predator Catcher 2

[Nbadan]

Not trying to protect child predators, especially those who actively prowl for kids on internet chat forums, but in some states, like Texas, just suggesting lewd comments at a known minor can land you in jail for a long time....so why should adults playing kids be allowed to sexually prowl the internet for lonely men?

Casey gabs to potential predators on the phone. "Come on over, we're not going to get caught," she says. "If we got caught, I would get into trouble, and everybody would call me a , and I don't want that, either. I'll pay for your gas. It's no big deal, trust me. My dad gave me plenty of money for the weekend." When the guy fails to take the bait, her voice rises in pitch. "OK, fine, whatever, lame. L-A-M-E. You're being a baby. I told you I've done it a million times!"

...

This is much to the glee of Perverted Justice, which views child sex abuse as a vastly underrated evil, one deserving of harsher punishment. "I'm just a guy working within the Cons ution to make the world a better place, using my freedom of speech to chat with individuals on the other end of the screen name," says Frag. "How much more gratifying does it get than finding guys who are about to molest children and putting them in jail? Not many Americans have that."

In reality, though, the stings conducted by Perverted Justice are essentially designed to cir vent the Cons ution. Police departments are largely overtaxed in the area of Internet crimes, and since Dateline reportedly pays Perverted Justice $100,000 per sting, the group is able to provide its services to the cops for free. In many ways, it is a subcontracted police force, with Del and Frag even deputized by local cops for one Dateline sting. But because its members are private citizens, their actions are impervious to charges of entrapment. Casey's come-on at the New Jersey house is not unusual: Perverted Justice tries to talk predators who have decided against a date into changing their mind, making calls in calming, baby-girl voices to men who are having second thoughts.

While some police departments enjoy the publicity that Perverted Justice brings, many in the criminal-justice field aren't so sanguine about the group's tactics. "We can't let anyone who wants simply become law enforcement," says Mike Iacopino, co-chair of a task force on sex offenders assembled by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "This is no different than letting a guy with a six-shooter walk around protecting your hometown." Indeed, many child-protection agencies express a disapproval of Dateline. "We've seen numerous cases that would cons ute entrapment, and then Chris Hansen shoves a camera in these guys' faces and they end up convicted on the basis of the camera confession," says Brad Russ, director of training for Internet Crimes Against Children, a federally funded task force that declined to partner with Dateline. "The whole thing is a perversion of the way the criminal-justice system is supposed to operate."

There is something undeniably disturbing about watching a delicate law-enforcement operation being orchestrated by a group of citizens bent on revenge -- and anonymous ones at that. (During a Dateline sting in Texas, one alleged predator committed suicide while cameras waited down the street from his house.) In addition to the seventy-five "high-security-clearance" members who form the core of Perverted Justice, another 45,000 people have signed up for the group's online forums, where anyone can puff up their chest and play deputy dog. Despite warnings by the group, these nameless volunteers have made harassing phone calls to predators and mailed flyers to local businesses outing sex offenders. In addition, they post their own "investigations" under a section called "Human Shields." Perverted Justice also posts the pornographic material that predators have sent to decoys -- Webcam photos of their penises, videos of themselves masturbating -- alongside their first names and hometowns, thus disseminating the very perversions it fights.

Rollingstone

[Extra Stout]

I'm not terribly sympathetic to the cause of pederasts and predators, and my opinion of Rolling Stone is that its clientele consists largely of drug addicts, petty criminals, and sexual deviants (aka the "music industry") who would like child molestation to be legal, so I take their "investigate journalism" seriously not at all.

I struggle to envision a legitimate notion of entrapment for sexual predation of children. Having somebody call you names on the internet is not exactly my idea of enticement.

[DarkReign]

I'm not terribly sympathetic to the cause of pederasts and predators, and my opinion of Rolling Stone is that its clientele consists largely of drug addicts, petty criminals, and sexual deviants (aka the "music industry") who would like child molestation to be legal, so I take their "investigate journalism" seriously not at all.

I struggle to envision a legitimate notion of entrapment for sexual predation of children. Having somebody call you names on the internet is not exactly my idea of enticement.

While I would agree, the question isnt "Do I agree?"

Its "Is it legal according to the law?"

Grey areas are to be minimized in law.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm not terribly sympathetic to the cause of pederasts and predators, and my opinion of Rolling Stone is that its clientele consists largely of drug addicts, petty criminals, and sexual deviants (aka the "music industry") who would like child molestation to be legal, so I take their "investigate journalism" seriously not at all.

I struggle to envision a legitimate notion of entrapment for sexual predation of children. Having somebody call you names on the internet is not exactly my idea of enticement.

I saw a rather interesting case in court the other day. The defendant was nabbed trying to elicit sex from a "minor" in a Yahoo chat room. It turned out, as is expected, that the "minor" was an undercover officer. The defendant claimed that he was into role-playing and he had a fantasy involving cheerleaders. He said he described his fantasy in the chat room and the "minor" responded that she was a cheerleader. The defendant checked her Yahoo profile and the officer had listed her real age of 27. However, in the chat room she identified herself as 15. The defendant said he assumed that she, like him, was into role-playing, so he identified himself as a 16 year old boy. I won't bore you with the other details, but I thought he had a interesting defense.*

*It must not have been interesting enough, because ultimately he was convicted.

[Nbadan]

That's just it, the Perverted Justice aren't police, so they aren't subject to the same rules on entrapment which law enforcement is subject too, and there's also no one policing their actions, so you get cases where it can be very ambiguous as to the methods the Perverted Justice people may have represented, or rather misrepresented, the age of the intended victim....what you get is a very powerful weapon to impose social morality over the internet, all of the sudden, every lonely guy in a chat room is a potential predator, you just gotta figure out what buttons to push...

[Fabbs]

The defendant checked her Yahoo profile and the officer had listed her real age of 27. However, in the chat room she identified herself as 15. The defendant said he assumed that she, like him, was into role-playing, so he identified himself as a 16 year old boy. I won't bore you with the other details, but I thought he had a interesting defense.*

*It must not have been interesting enough, because ultimately he was convicted.

So he was guilty of.....believing someone when they told him they were 27. Over the internet. Because he was.....supposed to know they were lying about being 27 and were really 15. Over the Internet. Except she wasn't really 15.
Guilty!

I heard Dateline say of 90* or so arrests 89 had been convicted. Wonder how that one person got off? *I can't recall the exact # but it was one shy, so obviously one never got convicted.

Beyond that I think Dateline and PJ do some awesome work. When they nab the ones with a childmolesting record from way back, good for them!!

[FromWayDowntown]

I saw a rather interesting case in court the other day. The defendant was nabbed trying to elicit sex from a "minor" in a Yahoo chat room. It turned out, as is expected, that the "minor" was an undercover officer. The defendant claimed that he was into role-playing and he had a fantasy involving cheerleaders. He said he described his fantasy in the chat room and the "minor" responded that she was a cheerleader. The defendant checked her Yahoo profile and the officer had listed her real age of 27. However, in the chat room she identified herself as 15. The defendant said he assumed that she, like him, was into role-playing, so he identified himself as a 16 year old boy. I won't bore you with the other details, but I thought he had a interesting defense.*

*It must not have been interesting enough, because ultimately he was convicted.

It is an interesting defense -- I suppose a defense to the intent element of the charge ("I intended to solicit sex from a 27-year old woman playing the role of a minor child") and/or the actus reus part of the charge ("I didn't actually solicit sex from a minor child because I was, at all times, talking to a 27-year-old woman"). I don't think the assumption part of it works -- if anything, it might negate the defense because even the role-playing element suggests a desire to entice minor children into sex.

I suppose the State's argument, though, is that a child who is truly soliciting sex would be inclined to forge a profile to suggest that he or she is of majority and that a predator should not be relieved of culpability for the attempt by the assertions in the target's profile. If he had gone to a club and solicited sex with a minor girl (one who got into the club on a fake i.d.) I'm not sure that his belief that she was older than 21 would be enough to save him from conviction. In the case that Mr. Peabody notes, it turns out that he was soliciting from a 27-year-old woman; he was convicted, though, of pursuing it after he was told that she was a 15-year-old girl.

The protection of minors and the seemingly overwhelming public desire to see pedophiles and predators behind bars is the prevailing concern and I think, in that regard, that all doubts are (understandably) drawn against the accused predator.

As to the larger point about entrapment, I guess one question I have -- acknowledging that my knowledge of criminal procedure is pretty rusty at this point -- is the extent to which an entrapment defense might be viable where the police are working in concert with a private person or en y. I mean, I'd be somewhat surprised if the State could cir vent the rules against entrapment by enlisting a proxy (such as Perverted Justice) to do exactly what the State would otherwise not be permitted to do. I don't know that it's enough to just say that the State wasn't directly involved, particularly where the State is able to effectuate an arrest only by having knowledge of the perpetrator's misdeeds through the entrapping activity.

[Extra Stout]

lonely guy in a chat room

I don't think being a lonely guy in a chat room predisposes one to desire sex with minors. Have you yourself been in that situation before, and feel that these tactics threaten you?

[Nbadan]

I don't think being a lonely guy in a chat room predisposes one to desire sex with minors. Have you yourself been in that situation before, and feel that these tactics threaten you?

No, but if a guy wants to chat with girls on the internet and everyone is of legal age its really up to them what goes on, but like I stated in To Catch a predator Catcher 1 thread, if no one is watching these internet vigilantes, then who is to say what tactics they utilize to try trap some guy, just like the guy in this thread who assumed he was role-playing with another adult, just wanted to chat with girls over the net...I've even heard stories were these vigilantes switching profiles from a adult to a minor in mid-conversation...or switching to a minor-implied name to continue a conversation...that they started in a non-minor role....

...who's going to question their integrity against the integrity of a accused pedophile?.....its a very slippery slope....

[FromWayDowntown]

No, but if a guy wants to chat with girls on the internet and everyone is of legal age its really up to them what goes on, but like I stated in To Catch a predator Catcher 1 thread, if no one is watching these internet vigilantes, then who is to say what tactics they utilize to try trap some guy, just like the guy in this thread who assumed he was role-playing with another adult, just wanted to chat with girls over the net...I've even heard stories were these vigilantes switching profiles from a adult to a minor in mid-conversation...or switching to a minor-implied name to continue a conversation...that they started in a non-minor role....

...who's going to question their integrity against the integrity of a accused pedophile?.....its a very slippery slope....

Are the PJ folks obtaining arrests of those who only engage in internet conversations? or do the arrests depend on those individuals going one step further towards a sexual encounter? If the arrest depends on the guys coming over to a house, I'd say that the "entrapment" idea is a bit of a stretch. There's a significant deliberation period in there during which the guy has plenty of opportunity to consider that he might be breaking the law. That's particularly true if he's going to a home believing his trip is one to have a sexual encounter with a minor child. I'd certainly say that there is a substantial public interest in seeking arrests of those who would go to homes believing they're there to have sex with minor children. Better in those cases to arrest and be wrong than to sit idly by and allow molestation or statutory rape to occur.

As for the profile thing, like I say, a representation about age usually isn't enough to avoid charges for things like statutory rape -- you meet a girl at the club and think she's 21 but she's really 15, your belief that she's 21 isn't going to be a defense (usually) to the crime. It might mitigate your punishment, but it doesn't render you not guilty of the crime. I'd think that given that rule, representations about age online are pretty much a non-starter in terms of defending against a charge for a predatory crime.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

?!

Someone's been reading spurstalk because CBF said this exact thing in the child predator thread in the Club like over a year ago