Richards 0
Quote... the guy getting off by some lawyer claiming entrapment or prejudice to his clients rights.
You raise valid concerns. I guess I was just curious why the police would not then want to cooperate. Again I only have the news article to go on, but I am curious.
I really don't understand the rationale behind the "entrapment" argument.... entrapment... I still don't get it...
"Entrapment is complex because the exact limits differ from locality to locality. As such, it's a legal minefield for experienced cops. For an inexperienced TV company staff with different motives it gets dangerous.
In effect, the cop (or TV Company) has to show that they did NOTHING to persuade the accused to do something he MIGHT NOT have otherwise done anyway. They can't have encouraged or helped the accused to commit the crime. All they could do is sit and watch while the accused makes ALL the running and all the decisions.
Now... The TV Company isn't doing this stuff to help society. They're doing it to sell advertising by showing stuff people will watch. It's more important for it to be interesting than socially responsible. Can you REALLY trust them to stay absolutely inside the local entrapment guidelines and previous cases?.. Or might some ambitious TV staffer "stretch" things, just a little bit?
Then... When is it shown? It has to be after the individuals trial. But what if it's a series? Does the fact that jurors could have seen earlier episodes of such a show prejudice them? What if the accused is acquitted? Can the sting then be shown? Wouldn't that be trial by media and public inflammation? What if a "righteous" TV staffer posted footage out on the 'net?
This is one of those great ideas where a hell of a lot can go wrong.
Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
Lucky... 0
OK, on a narrow scope it "deters" online predators, but I doubt it changes pedophilia one bit. With that, I'm all for what they're doing with the show.
In justice classes they demonstrate how deterrence is meaningless and that it doesn't change crime a bit, just as gun revocation doesn't deter crime in Europe/Australia, it just lessens gun crimes. Same with internet pedos, the show may slow some internet pedo crimes, but not effect pedophilia in general. Just as when they go bust up the red light districts, the whores go elsewhere. They police base jumping at national parks, base jumpers go elsewhere. Get what I'm saying?
I don't think inactive pedos count, so pedos are numbered by those committing acts, so I don't see that point as meningful. I see you trying to say that the show just cuts down on internet pedos, but not on pedophilia as a whole, then trying to backdoor the notion that the show does deter pedophilia in general. It would be nice, but let's be real, these fuckers don't care about punishment/death when it comes to their acts.
And before teh GD internet we had no pedophilia, rt?
Pedos have been alive and well in teh Catholic church for decades if not centuries. Hell, the Greek/Roman theatre didn't use women but little boys as women, so there was plenty of that shit then too. I think the internet has had little impact on pedophilia, just made it more visible and convenient.
Now that I can agree with.
Agreed.
I wish they'd stop being the ticket-writing, revenue producing pricks that they are and do more stings like this. Then we could appreciate them.
Agreed. I wonder if these creeps agree to let the media air these as part of a sweetheart plea deal. And then sign a gag to that fact.
In justice classes they demonstrate how deterrence is meaningless and that it doesn't change crime a bit, just as gun revocation doesn't deter crime in Europe/Australia, it just lessens gun crimes. Same with internet pedos, the show may slow some internet pedo crimes, but not effect pedophilia in general. Just as when they go bust up the red light districts, the whores go elsewhere. They police base jumping at national parks, base jumpers go elsewhere. Get what I'm saying?
Quoteon your second point, the number of pedophiles probably has not changed, but the number that act on their fantasies may have.
I don't think inactive pedos count, so pedos are numbered by those committing acts, so I don't see that point as meningful. I see you trying to say that the show just cuts down on internet pedos, but not on pedophilia as a whole, then trying to backdoor the notion that the show does deter pedophilia in general. It would be nice, but let's be real, these fuckers don't care about punishment/death when it comes to their acts.
Quotethe internet may the tool that is needed for a person to take the step from just thinking about it in their own home and actually seeking it out.
And before teh GD internet we had no pedophilia, rt?
Pedos have been alive and well in teh Catholic church for decades if not centuries. Hell, the Greek/Roman theatre didn't use women but little boys as women, so there was plenty of that shit then too. I think the internet has had little impact on pedophilia, just made it more visible and convenient. Quotei think with a lot of these guys though, nothing is going to stop them.
Now that I can agree with.
Quoteover all, i think that shows like this are doing a good thing, even if their main objective is ratings.
Agreed.
Quotei can imagine that many police agencies would like to have elaborate sting operations like that, but it would likely get very expensive to do.
I wish they'd stop being the ticket-writing, revenue producing pricks that they are and do more stings like this. Then we could appreciate them.
Quotethe only thing i wonder about is showing the videos before the people are convicted. reguardless of how horrible the crime is or how much evidence there is, people in the u.s. still get their due process.
Agreed. I wonder if these creeps agree to let the media air these as part of a sweetheart plea deal. And then sign a gag to that fact.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI guess I was just curious why the police would not then want to cooperate.
Perhaps teh police aren't for public safety as advertised.
QuoteI really don't understand the rationale behind the "entrapment" argument. It seems like if you are not a bad guy, you will not be entrapped and if you do get entrapped then you would have done it anyway only then you would have victimised someone instead of walking into a sting.
Entrapment is a thing of the past for teh most part. You have to go to a nunnery and talk a nun into prostituting before you can claim entrapment. If it's something you would do anyway, the police can lie to you; it's Constitutionally upheld that way. Police are liars.....Duh.
QuoteIf entrapment gets bad guys off the street what is the big deal.
Ends justifies the means? If we kill all Arabs and we have no more terrorism, is it a bad thing to kill all Arabs? I don;t think these stings are entrapment, but I don't like ends/means ars either.
QuoteI know I have asked about entrapment before on this site but I still don't get it (I did not study law). Can you explain to me in laymens terms without all kinds of legal jargon why it is unethical to trick a guy who wishes to harm little children into thinking he has a victim so you can catch him?
I can look up cases later, but you wrote it: if it's something you would do anyway. Have entrapment args worked for these creeps? I don't think so.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI don't think anyone is against making sure that we don't imprison the wrong guy, but it seems that these guys are caught in the act and start whining about entrappment.
I don't support that, I just support them having rights, due process, as I wrote and others denied them having. Don't you know what a fascist, semi-totalitarian POS the US gov is? If we just let sme guys with vid cams send guys to prison for life we would have >1/2 our citizens in jail as indentured servants producing goods and services as slaves. Do you think that 99.99999999% of all prisoners are guilty with a puny erro/corruption factor? There are 10's of 1,000's of innocents in jail/prison, probably a 100,000 or more. Political prisoners, prisoners of convenience, prisoners of wrong place/time.
QuoteThere is little chance of getting the wrong guy when you have e-mails from his computer, graphic descriptions of the sex acts he wants to perform (on the undercover guy he presumes is a child), and he shows up at the address the "kid" gave him with a bottle of wine, flowers and condoms.
You're right, we should have 15-minute summary trials in front of lower court judges (non-lawyers) and sentence them at the same time.
Hasn't your party's recent lies and unillingness to testify under oath taught you that all kinds of shit occurrs when liars are allowed to run free?
QuoteAt what point do you say the guy is just a scumbag and guilty as sin
At the point where I watch the trial and evidence and understadn the rulings by teh judge. Judges can refuse to admit critical evidence taht would have rendered a differnet ruling. Judges can refuse a defendant's defense and make them choose a more pallatable one that is of teh liking of teh court, rendering exonertaing evidecnce unheard. Learn a bit about the system and become nausiated.
QuoteEven if that is officially up to a jury (with respect to criminal conviction), I have no problem with having the guy trembling and crying on TV while his wife, freinds and co-wokers watch the show and see what filth he is.
I do, but as I wrote, he may have consented to that as part of a plea deal.
With all that said, I think the show is doing great theings, why aren't the cops doing this on their own?
Quote[
I don't think anyone is against making sure that we don't imprison the wrong guy, but it seems that these guys are caught in the act and start whining about entrappment. There is little chance of getting the wrong guy when you have e-mails from his computer, graphic descriptions of the sex acts he wants to perform (on the undercover guy he presumes is a child), and he shows up at the address the "kid" gave him with a bottle of wine, flowers and condoms. At what point do you say the guy is just a scumbag and guilty as sin.
I saw one of the TV shows. It's as entrancing as train wrecks. However, I noticed that they arrested one guy who was parked down the street and changed his mind, drove off. I think that's as good as example as any of going over the line. Is he still a scumbag because he thought about doing it?
BTW, the actress they used was so clearly over 18, that I don't think the role playing element (ie, lying on the internet) can be ignored. Guys used to (still do?) carry condoms in their wallet all the time. Showing up doesn't guarantee that the guy would do more than talk.
I've got no problem with throwing the penal system at guys who knowingly go after 13 year olds. I'm concerned with the fact that the system doesn't require any proof of that intent.
And the most effective solution still lies with the parents.
Richards 0
QuoteEntrapment is a thing of the past for teh most part. You have to go to a nunnery and talk a nun into prostituting before you can claim entrapment. If it's something you would do anyway, the police can lie to you; it's Constitutionally upheld that way. Police are liars.....Duh.
I can look up cases later, but you wrote it: if it's something you would do anyway. Have entrapment args worked for these creeps? I don't think so.
I am glad to hear that. the way soem people throw that word around I was starting to worry if it actually held that much weight in a court.
Quote***If entrapment gets bad guys off the street what is the big deal.
Ends justifies the means? If we kill all Arabs and we have no more terrorism, is it a bad thing to kill all Arabs? I don;t think these stings are entrapment, but I don't like ends/means ars either.
I think you might have misunderstaood me (or I didn't explain myself well). Obviously I do not wish that they use such sweeping measures that innocents are at high risk of being wrongly convicted. I do feel however that if it can get those who are bad without any legal "collateral damage" then the methodology used to get Mr. bad guy to land himself in prison is usually OK with me.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteI don't support that, I just support them having rights, due process, as I wrote and others denied them having. Don't you know what a fascist, semi-totalitarian POS the US gov is? If we just let sme guys with vid cams send guys to prison for life we would have >1/2 our citizens in jail as indentured servants producing goods and services as slaves. Do you think that 99.99999999% of all prisoners are guilty with a puny erro/corruption factor? There are 10's of 1,000's of innocents in jail/prison, probably a 100,000 or more. Political prisoners, prisoners of convenience, prisoners of wrong place/time.
Not sure what that has to do with a few well meaning journalists exposing some of these creeps. They still get a chance in front of a jury, regardless of what happens on camera.
Quote***There is little chance of getting the wrong guy when you have e-mails from his computer, graphic descriptions of the sex acts he wants to perform (on the undercover guy he presumes is a child), and he shows up at the address the "kid" gave him with a bottle of wine, flowers and condoms.
You're right, we should have 15-minute summary trials in front of lower court judges (non-lawyers) and sentence them at the same time.
I was certainly not suggesting that we skip the trial. I just don't agree with the line of thinking that portrays the guy as a victim. He can still get a lawyer and go to court to plead his case. I simply feel that I do not have sympathy for these guys if they get embarrased on TV. I do not feel that this show has victimised them. In the court of public opinion I and television viewers have every right to judge him a scumbag. Since I in my living room am not responsible for arriving at a verdict that will impact his freedom, I can look at the obvious and say that the evidence is pretty strong and he is a dirtbag. I can't see the harm in grabbing these guys this way.
QuoteHasn't your party's recent lies and unillingness to testify under oath taught you that all kinds of shit occurrs when liars are allowed to run free?
My party? Not following that one but it sounds like we are taking a sharp turn towards politics. Please clarify.
Quote***At what point do you say the guy is just a scumbag and guilty as sin
At the point where I watch the trial and evidence and understadn the rulings by teh judge. Judges can refuse to admit critical evidence taht would have rendered a differnet ruling. Judges can refuse a defendant's defense and make them choose a more pallatable one that is of teh liking of teh court, rendering exonertaing evidecnce unheard. Learn a bit about the system and become nausiated.
I am not refering to me personally sentencing him to jail. I agree with you that he still has a right to have a trial and a lawyer, but since investigative reporters expose dirtbags on TV all the time why not pedophiles too?
Quote***Even if that is officially up to a jury (with respect to criminal conviction), I have no problem with having the guy trembling and crying on TV while his wife, freinds and co-wokers watch the show and see what filth he is.
I do,
This is what I don't get. Why do you not like seeing these guys being humiliated on camera? It might just make some people who are considering such behaviour think twice. I realize that pedophilia will continue to exist in varying degrees and that the hardcore ones will never be detered, but surely most start with that one first step and if some borderline cases (who have a 50/50 chance of never acting on their impulses) see some guy with a wife and a career destroyed on national television it might just make a few of them afraid to make that first step. It will not eliminate the problem but it might discourage new participants. Like any other problem, every bit does help on the margin.
QuoteWith all that said, I think the show is doing great theings, why aren't the cops doing this on their own?
I agree that the show is doing good things. I do not know why the cops are not doing this on their own.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteHowever, I noticed that they arrested one guy who was parked down the street and changed his mind, drove off. I think that's as good as example as any of going over the line. Is he still a scumbag because he thought about doing it?
I would have to know more about his specific case before I could offer an opinion.
QuoteBTW, the actress they used was so clearly over 18, that I don't think the role playing element (ie, lying on the internet) can be ignored.
Not sure I follow.
QuoteShowing up doesn't guarantee that the guy would do more than talk.
If the guy has already discussed a sexual encounter while being told that she is a minor, if he shows up at the house (with condoms) I think we are stretching probabilities to say he may not do anything. In many cases they have shown the correspondence where the guy expresses his concern that he might get into legal trouble (which says that he intends to do more than talk). Do they stand there with a camera and wait untill he is actually engaged in intercourse with a minor before they can comfortably move in and make the arrest? At some point there is a line of no return, where his intentions can be reasonably assumed.
QuoteAnd the most effective solution still lies with the parents.
Very true
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Amen Brother, back at you!
And thanks for clearing up & responding to Lucky for me in post #27! I couldn't have said it better myself! I wasn't referring to "alledged" perps, I'm referring to the ones actually guilty of it.
And thanks for clearing up & responding to Lucky for me in post #27! I couldn't have said it better myself! I wasn't referring to "alledged" perps, I'm referring to the ones actually guilty of it.
*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteAmen Brother, back at you!
And thanks for clearing up & responding to Lucky for me in post #27! I couldn't have said it better myself! I wasn't referring to "alledged" perps, I'm referring to the ones actually guilty of it.
Gracias Senior.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteAmen Brother, back at you!
And thanks for clearing up & responding to Lucky for me in post #27! I couldn't have said it better myself! I wasn't referring to "alledged" perps, I'm referring to the ones actually guilty of it.
Gracias Senior.
You two get a room..... assuming you are both over 18 that is
Richards 0
QuoteYou two get a room..... assuming you are both over 18 that is
Uhm...no. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Boy!
No-one executed him. He made his own choice.
Uh no. The "little girl" look doesn't do it for me.