Talk:To Catch a Predator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the To Catch a Predator article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Entrapment

Is entrapment an issue here? It seems to be an "induced" crime commited; maybe it doesn't count because the police is not directly involved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.57.197.39 (talk • contribs) .

As far as I know, no mark has ever raised the entrapment issue in court -- and if one has, then it wasn't successful. It used to be that Perverted Justice stings were not considered entrapment primarily because "entrapment" as defined in law can only be performed by law enforcement. However, for a recent sting, the contributors were actually deputized, which would seem to mean they'd be capable of entrapping while deputized. Considering, though, that law enforcement agencies throughout the country perform these sorts of stings themselves, even without PeeJ, entrapment is clearly not an issue. The reason it's not an issue is found in the Entrapment article: "For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment..." Powers T 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
See also this "Explainer" article from Slate. Powers T 12:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In short, no. As has already been mentioned, the principle of entrapment only applies to law enforcement, and in addition to this, PeeJ's policies are to never make the first contact or suggest any sort of sexual encounter. However, once contact and intent have been established, the PeeJ volunteer may initiate individual chats to feign interest. theProject 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding on entrapment is that it's a crime. Yes it is usable as defense, and it only counts as a defense if police or agents of the police commit it. The reason being that it's misconduct that effectively compromises the intregrity of the investigation. If entrapment is not commited by either the police or their agents that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just means a defendant can't use it as a legal defense. However, the person who entrapped the defendant can still be charged. Still, with issues of the burden of proof it is much harder to convict someone for entrapment than it is to acquit them for entrapment; although it does sometimes happen, usually to careless law enforcement officers.

As for entrapment and the show. I suspect that fortunately or tragically depending on how you look at it, it's not that hard to find and lure child molesters without actually going out of your way with solicitations to the point of entrapping them. It's perhaps worth pointing out that like most males these guys are horndogs easy to lead by a certain extremity to their undoing.

(Edit) Oh and recalling that episode of the Boondocks "Guess Ho's Coming to Dinner". No, it is not entrapment if he doesn't tell you he's a cop. More to the point it's still entrapment even if he tells you he's a cop. (For example: "Hey I'm going to rob that Seven11." "I'm not a cop!" "Um... Didn't say you were. So, do you wanna watch?" versus "Hi I'm a cop. Do you want to rob the Seven11?") 68.48.160.243 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a vilid criticism.

[edit] Corrupted Justice link

How is the link to Corrupted Justice (added twice now) relevant to To Catch a Predator? Powers T 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the show would not exist without the perveretd justice vigilantes.

Yo, yo yo!! Why do peeps keep changin' our edits??

The fact that aforementioned edits consist of nonsense might have something to do with it. theProject 00:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Explanations?

Nearly each and every one caught in this sting tries to offer some sort of explanation...none of them seem valid. This makes me wonder...is there ANY logical explanation for why an adult would go to the home of a 13 year old that they've spoken to in a sexual manner online (other than the obvious)? I'm also wondering how safe Chris Hansen is. What if one of these guys pulled out a gun?

Well, obviously Hansen's in some danger every time he steps out -- these guys are people who have just allegedly committed a crime, after all. The security process, though, was detailed in a blog post here. The confrontation area is removed of any objects (kitchen knifes especially) that might pose a threat. You will also notice that Hansen usually asks those with their hands in their pockets to take them out. And, of course, the police are never far away.
A lot of potential predators also seem to think Hansen is a police officer too, which may work to his benefit (he would be armed and trained in the use of a gun, and criminal penalties for shooting a police officer are often much higher). Obviously all of this is no use against a potential predator bent on shooting a police officer to conceal a crime, but as the Dateline series has aimed to show, while there are some career criminals in the mix, many are just regular, even respected professionals in society. theProject 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, the Petaluma investigation saw an active-duty sniper with the Marine Corps who said that he brought his shotgun wherever he went. Police took him down immediately, before any confrontation with Hansen. theProject 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see Chris Hansen injured in some way. He's such a prick. Him and MSNBC are totally entrapping people into going to these places. It's all a part of the show.

I think it would be interesting to note the entrapment factor of the whole situation and the psychological factors involved with enticing someone into thinking that they do want to have sex with them even if they are underage. It seems to me that Perverted Justice is the one usually instigating these conversations and enables them to continue their conversations. This i feel is unrealistic since when I was younger it and from women i have known, none of them would ever continue to engage in such conversations especially after the sending of those photographs. Also, it's interesting to note that the decoys themselves provoke and egg on the predators into coming to the house. I mean, sure some of them seem like shady characters. Although, I feel that some of those led on to the house are just pushed to that limit. This is where I find the psychological factor to be most interesting when considering 1st time offenders. What kind of factors are involved that trigger them to continue these kinds of conversations and egg them on to be invited into the house. I wonder also how many times perverted justice is the one that starts these conversations, intentionally searching for the number of people that go on this show. In the episode with Murphy texas, i found it kind of odd considering the small size of the town (since i am familiar with it having been there) that they got so many people to show up. of course some of them may have been from the neighboring larger cities. i just think it is interesting to not. 129.120.244.121 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Criticism section

I have nothing against a criticism section being included, but it has to be sourced and referenced. I removed the section that was there because it was neither. Here it is, for posterity:

== Criticism ==

<!-- please de-weasel word this paragraph -->
The news story has garnered much criticism. Some question the methods of the Perverted
Justice team and even suggest that entrapment is involved. Hansen himself has not been
free of criticism. Many blogs have written about his very harsh attitude being very
prevalent on the show. During the interviews, he will sometimes speak mockingly and
condescending towards potential predators. As these people are innocent until proven
guilty, his manner of tone is not reflective of that.

It sounds like it was written by someone who was caught in one of the stings and had his feelings hurt by Hansen, moreso than an objective encyclopedia entry. We can do better. Powers T 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't just flat out remove criticism (especially if I've been working on an article quite a bit) because I believe criticism can almost always be integrated into an article. In this particular case, I've read several blogs (I think, one of them semi-notable) that have criticized the idea of the show, and I think coverage of that sort of criticism would be warranted on this article. However, I don't have much objection to what Powers just removed. theProject 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, sourced and referenced = OK. Not referenced = Not OK. And if blogs are the only source of criticism, I'd question whether it's necessary to have such a section at all. Blogs can criticize anything. You could find a blog to criticize world peace if you wanted to. Powers T 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't misinterpret me as disagreeing you. I agree with you for the large part, although some fairly prominent thinkers do express themselves using blogs often. theProject 02:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you watched this show? In the episode I was subjected to, they had a nice little "you're a bad person" segment to the ephebophile in question. They don't treat this like a disorder, they treat it like the spawn of satan. And to Powers' comment -- blogs can criticize world peace and if they're in sufficient numbers, we must represent that. It is unfairly slanted to not have an criticism section at all in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hayfordoleary (talk • contribs) .
Sufficient numbers? Sure. But you'd have to have an awful lot of blogs criticizing world peace, as well as significant evidence that it wasn't all a put-on. And through all this, no one has YET pointed to even ONE blog that criticizes TCAP. Powers T 02:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The media can say the same thing. If it's a paper, especially in the editorial section, they can almost always print anything they want, providing that they are able to substantiate on it significantly. So what about bloggers with reputations? Couldn't they garner the same respect as the writer of an editorial from a respected paper? Or if the blogger is a journalist? I know quite a few have them now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.244.121 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
I am going to note that the statement 'It sounds like it was written by someone who was caught in one of the stings and had his feelings hurt by Hansen, moreso than an objective encyclopedia entry.' is in fact insulating that the person that added that criticism is a child molester. As if someone who adds criticism of PeeJ is obviously a child molestor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.230.50 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
He didn't insinuate anything. All he said was it sounded like that. As for the criticism section, I sourced it in. theProject 21:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

This article states "One argument is that the entire operation is not truly interested in upholding justice, only in ratings." (The arguement of course is note referenced/cited) I admit most of the motivation is ratings but the wording makes the assumption that there is not any desire to put these "predators" behind bars and stop them from harming children. Delete this sentence? (This section where people are defending the "predators", seems to be written as a blog instead of an encyclopedia article.)--DrRisk13 00:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "opinion" statement on videotaping as it is not only original research, but flawed original research in that it claims locations are picked based on what "counties" allow such videotaping. Such laws are issued on a state level in the vast majority of the country. The other area of criticism, that of entrapment, is again, merely unsourced uninformed opinion. It seems contrary to Wikipedia standards to allow that section to remain. Regardless, added a note that no claim of entrapment against a case involving the show has ever been successful in a court of law. XavierVE 06:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've sourced in some criticism about ratings and other issues. Hopefully this meets citation requirements. theProject 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] media release ?

I am just wondering after watching a few episodes, how in hell do they get these guys to sign a release for television broadcast ? As far as I understand, to use images of someone on television, that person has to sign a waiver allowing for use of that footage...if they didn't then that footage would be unusable, right ? Then again, how does Cops keep producing episdoes ? Dowew 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Waivers can be signed after the fact. Those who refuse to sign waivers don't have to have their footage aired. Which maybe begs what possesses these men to submit to such spectacle. I suspect it has something to do with the particular variant of antisocial personalities that lend themselves to pedophilia. In particular, these men desire to provoke sympathy by the viewers or some segment of the viewers. 68.48.160.243 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure if waivers are required. They generally investigate all the laws on hidden camera taping before they begin the investigation. theProject 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a news investigation broadcast, hence no waivers are needed. XavierVE 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

I think it is important for this article to accurately describe the methods that the Perverted Justice team uses to capture predators. It should be noted that the team does activly engage in sexually converstion with the predators. Actively engaging in sexually charged conversation (even if you are pretending to be 13) constitutes cyber sex. So the article should read as such.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.230.50 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 December 2006.

"Engaging in cyber sex" typically implies that they themselves are being sincere in such a chat, when the fact that they're pretending to be teenagers pretty much nullifies any idea of sincerity. How is "the chats turn sexually graphic" not sufficient? theProject 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no way of knowing whether or not that they are not sincere... unless you get into their minds. That is why Cyber sex is an act, not an intention. Much like masturbation is an act whether or not ejaculation is a goal. "the chats turn sexually graphic" does not describe the fact that the team of perverted encourage, engage, and partipate in the sexual advances. This is a pivital piece of the methodolgy used by perverted justice in capturing its predators. It is what seperates it from investigations done by the police. To ignore this fact, would be to miss the entire point of Perverted Justice, and thus the Dateline NBC investigations.
My point is that "engage in cyber sex" is not the right kind of tone for an encyclopedia entry. You're welcome to suggest another version which does not have such tonal implications. theProject 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no 'tone' envolved with an accurate description of the methodology that they perform. If you do not like the methodology that they use, then I suggest that you contact them and ask them to change their methodology. But censorship is not a valid option.
"Baiting" or "trolling" (both of which have been used to describe P-J on Wikipedia) are more accurate, as "engaging in cyber sex", as I said before, suggests an aspect of the whole encounter that is not necessarily true, or does not capture an important aspect of the encounter, depending on which way it is looked at. theProject 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well this is up to you as you have taken this into your hands. The wording is up to you. I am going to stop arguing about it. I would like to state that I feel that the current wording is a cop out, and does not describe the true nature of the tactics that PJ uses. It is my personal belief (from reading other comments on this discussion page that the editors of this article are biased towards PeeJ and believe that the ‘ends justify the means’. And in doing so are presenting an incomplete picture of the investigations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.230.50 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Certainly it's your right to do so. I'll only point out that I was the editor who sourced in criticism of the show, and that there is already considerable criticism of P-J's methods on their own article. Again, you're welcome to suggest an alternate non-"cop out" wording at any time, so long as it doesn't contain nuances that introduce inaccuracies as I've already discussed above. Thanks. theProject 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
PeeJ's methods are no different from that of any law enforcement agency; that's why they're fully admissible in court. They even train law enforcement agencies in their methods. It's difficult to see, given those facts, how anything "seperates [sic] it from investigations done by the police." Also, here's a quotation from the Cybersex article: "Cybersex, computer sex or net sex is a virtual sex encounter in which two or more persons connected remotely via a computer network send one another sexually explicit messages describing a sexual experience. It is a form of role-playing in which the participants pretend they are having actual sexual relations, by describing their actions and responding to their chat partners in a mostly written form designed to stimulate their own sexual feelings and fantasies." PeeJ's methods in no way meet this description. The chat is sexually explicit, but PeeJ contributors actively avoid engaging in simulated sex via the chat. On rare occasions they will briefly play along with the mark if they think they'll lose him otherwise, but the interaction is brief and perfunctory at best, and it's obviously not intended to "stimulate their own sexual feelings and fantasies." Believe me, if they wanted to engage in cybersex, they could -- the marks are often more than willing to do so. But if you read some chatlogs, you'll usually find an offer to do so is met with a "No way d00d, I don't cyber" from the contributor. Powers T 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well they actually log everything they say so that you can read it for yourself. I actually read through some of it, and i couldnt believe it. I suggest going to perverted-justice.com. You will that they talk to the men about how much they like sex, and how they would want the older man to do that to them. Im sorry, if you dont believe that is cyber-sex... you might already be a child molestor. As far as whether or not they are 'gettting off' on this... i have no clue. Believe it or not when I was 12, 13, and 14 i went into to chatrooms and never had an adult talk to me in that way, and i certainlly wouldnt have responded in the way perverted justice does. Its textbook cyber-sex, and its digusting.
There's a textbook on cybersex? There's one I won't be picking up at the used bookstore. 66.67.98.207 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Clearly" Underage Profiles?

I don't think that statement is quite accurate, most of the Perverted Justice profiles that are shown either don't state the age or state and obviously incorrect age (such as 99). Perhaps this should be corrected? Wikifried 12:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll need a credible source for that one, vast majority of our profiles have an age indicator somewhere on the profile. It also matters if you're stating that all TCAP predators come from Yahoo... not all do, many come from AIM, some from Myspace, some from Craigslist, some from teenspot, gay.com... there's a variety of sources that have produced predators that were later featured on Dateline. XavierVE 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, some of those go beyond the line. Last time I checked, you had to be 18 to register for gay.com, and craiglist is an adult site. You guys are crossing to many boundries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.43.171.61 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
You have to be of proper age to buy alcohol and cigarettes from convenience stores, yet the state still sends in decoys pretending to be underage to see what happens. XavierVE 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome

I love this show and program. But the more I read here, the more I realize there are child molestor-sympathetics on here, trying to vandalize the article. Go away and get some help, you freaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.250.203.75 (talk • contribs).

Ironically, your post was moved on this page by one of them, Wikipedian Clayboy. The entire Wikipedia structure is rife with pedophile activists trying to justify their fetish. Always keep your eye out by viewing the history on pages and seeing exactly who is editing them. XavierVE 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Err, no, it was just moved for chronology. New comments go at the bottom. I don't think blanket statements about the Wikipedia structure are very much appreciated, considering I'm part of it, and I'm most certainly not a pedophile activist. theProject 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't say you were, said Clayboy is (And he's the tip of the iceberg). If you doubt that, read his own userpage. That's why I commented on it, the unsigned comment was a person concerned about pedophiles vandalizing articles and it was moved by a pedophile. If you don't find that telling, that's your boggle, my friend. XavierVE 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I don't find it particularly telling for anybody (doesn't matter who) to move a comment for chronology. I would imagine that should be one of the most uncontroversial actions one could take on Wikipedia, moving a comment. theProject 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't find it telling that a person is concerned about pedophiles on Wikipedia then has their very comment is moved by an admitted pedophile on Wikipedia? Well, like I said, that's your boggle! (And nobody said moving a comment was controversial, it was called "telling") XavierVE 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law & Order

There was one of them "ripped from the headlines" Law & Order episozdes based on this and it should be mentioned, yes? --164.107.92.120 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism based on portrayal of males

I don't know if this has been addressed in the past, or if there are many articles criticizing this, but it would be nice to see a section on how the show does not show female online predators. Casey14 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If you've watched the series substantially, you've probably seen Hansen say that they simply aren't around: female predators, as the show suggests, work more with children they know, rather than strangers over the Internet. theProject 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Also - The official "To Catch A Predator" website addresses this very issue. There is a section entitled "Where Are All Of The Female Predators?" -- and the answer, as explained above, is that there essentially are none on line that have responded to the Dateline sting operations. (Joe S.)

[edit] Sentences

The article needs to say what sentence these people are given. I believe most of them plead guilty to something - what's the typical sentence? The average? Tempshill 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from what I recall, most of them plead not guilty, and the very first cases (the ones that made it to court, anyway) are only now starting to wind their way down the court system. Perhaps, in a few years, if the conviction rate for these stings is high, there will be more in the way of guilty pleas, but that's not happening now. theProject 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We've actually had quite a few convictions and sentencings handed down for TCAP stings. Almost all of the Ohio predators have now plead guilty and many have been sentenced, for instance. Fifteen of the eighteen caught there are already sentenced and the terms of their sentencings can be found in our archives. If you use the following link: http://www.perverted-justice.com/?groupmedia=byDate - and click on a location, you can see which predators have been convicted (and sentenced, as we don't post until sentencing) from the TCAP series. You're right in that there are a LOT of cases left out there (getting 250+ arrests in a year will make that the case) but there have been quite a few resolutions that have already rolled in.
As for the typical sentence, there is no typical sentence. Different areas have different standards, laws and judges. For example, all the predators convicted out of our Riverside sting have had pretty substantial jail time. However, in Long Beach, they're all getting probation. It's the same state, yet two dramatically different results. Reason being is that judges in California have discretionary sentencing and can impose less than the full amount if they wish. The judges in the Riverside cases are throwing down jail terms... the lone judge of the Long Beach cases is not. Hence there will never be a "typical" sentence handed down, too much variance between the states. XavierVE 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Minors" Instead Of "Children"

The article refers to the people being contacted as "children", I would suggest "minors" is a more appropriate legal term since minor is the term you should use when someone is legally considered a child as opposed to the connonations with the biological term, etc.

AgentScully

Ages played range from eleven to fifteen with the vast majority being 12-14. Are you suggesting an eleven or twelve year old is not a child? XavierVE 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A child is one that has not reached puberty yet and most 12-14 year olds have.

AgentScully

So you would, in fact, be saying that a twelve year old is not a child. Natch, Padre. XavierVE 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that Agent Scully is simply trying to make the distinction between one who is child biologically (a "child") versus one who is a child legally (a "minor") ... and, in the context of this article, that is an important distinction. Yes, Scully? (JosephASpadaro 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, that's all I was doing.

AgentScully

[edit] Issues with the show

Let me preface this opinion with a small bit of information. I myself am a minor, between the age of 15-18 (I don't want to reveal my exact age for privacy). I have watched a few episodes of this TV show, and have found it to be somewhat troubling. On one side, I definitely see that many people don't fit in with society's rules and therefore deserve consequences because they have a clear intent to perform activites harmful to other members of society. This constitutes part of the predators who become "exposed" on the show. I also see how the show can be used as a preventative measure - spreading the word about sexual predators (evidenced in the show itself, with many predators realizing they have been caught because they have seen or heard of the show). I feel that these are noble objectives.

For me, (remember that I myself am a minor), the problem lies primarily in one place: the show is run in such a way that contradicts a fundamental concept of law here in the United States. These men are treated as guilty before they are convicted. (I do know that most if not all have been convicted, but still, that does not mean anything about any other individual case.) I can easily see a guy chatting online, agreeing to meet someone...even if that someone is underage. Why? Perhaps it can be explained with an example - why do underage boys lie about their age ("You must be 18 to enter. Click here if you are over 18") to access porn on the internet? Why do men pay money to see nude women online? The sex drive is a very powerful force that often overpowers logical reasoning. Couple this fact with another significant point: the majority of people (from my experience) agree that the Internet is impersonal and taken much less seriously than things in real life. It is easy and common for people to lie about their age, appearance, even things like gender online. With these two factors taken into account, I feel that it is fairly easy to see a "sexual predator" work himself into a situation that he normally would not put himself in. It's almost as though most of these people deserve a warning or one more chance...maybe the first time, they just get a small punishment...not multiple years in prison and parole! Making this one careless mistake ends up having detrimental consequences, which seems unfair because the mistake is fairly easy to make. I bet your mom told you not to steal, but did she (or anyone for that matter) explicitly tell you that you cannot engage in sexual conversations/acts with minors? Although nearly all of us are aware of the illegality, it may not be ingrained in the forefront of our consciousness as a serious offense like murder or arson is.

That brings me to the final point I wish to make. I am obviously not a legal expert in any way, and in fact I would welcome the opinion of someone who is more knowledgeable in that respect. However, as I sit here and think with common sense, has a crime really been committed with these sting operations? It seems the only hard evidence is that these men have said (often vaguely) in chats that they want to have sex. When they send nude photos, yeah, then they have crossed the line. But just talking about sex online, and then showing up (even if they do have condoms or such, that does not prove their intent), who is to conclude their guilt from that alone? I could see if they actually waited until the man made a sexual attempt or gesture or something on the decoy, but until then, have they really done anything illegal? Since they don't even let the men touch the decoy, and therefore go off of the chat logs alone, maybe this should be considered entrapment? I'll bet you some of these guys actually would not do anything sexual with the decoy, unless it was initiated by the decoy and with her consent. Of course they might want to do something, but that is not justification for arrest and conviction.

I do realize the positive benefits of the show, and that many of the predators actually are habitual offenders who do or would cause harm to young teenagers. But it seems to me that a little more care and leniency should be exercised in determining guilt. Feel free to respond to this, as this is my opinion after watching only a few episodes and doing some basic research. smileyborg 06:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have truly "missed the point" of this show and all of its underlying factors. I wanted to reply to your post, but I did not know where to even begin. I was almost overwhelmed. Your post was extremely long and contained many inaccuracies and misperceptions. As I said, I did not even know where to begin when addressing your post. You have conceded that you are no legal expert and lack knowledge in the field. Perhaps that is the crucial element underlying the reason why you "miss the whole point" of the show. I'd like to clarify for you, but you need a conceptual baseline of understanding. If you want, ask a simpler / less complex / less detailed question, to which I can reply. Then, we can go from there. This is an important issue and, if you are a minor (as you claim), I think it's even more important for you to understand this issue. Ask away. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
Really? First off, the whole post was essentially just a "rant" about what I was feeling. To address the concern that I have missed many basic conceptual points, I am not exactly sure what you are talking about in specific. I feel that I understand the basics and that, when writing the post, I must have not conveyed this as I was focusing more on what I felt was wrong than what I knew about it (and what was good). The rant was very stream-of-consciousness...I wrote it as I went, and it went wherever my mind did. (This did make it somewhat less coherent, long, and hard to follow.)
I don't have any specific questions per se, I just typed that post up to express my reaction to the show, and see if others agreed/disagreed/etc with me. Maybe if you feel like continuing the discussion, choose a few points that you think need addressing and I'll respond. I'm assuming by your response that you disagree with me (and/or feel that my opinion is flawed), which I also guess may be related to your point of view (which is understandble if, say, you are the parent of a young teenage child for example). I gladly welcome your view as I am not particularly "attached" to mine...in fact, the reason I originally posted this was to provoke dissent from the opposing view, so that I could understand where other people -- who strongly/wholeheartedly support the show -- are coming from. smileyborg 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply to my reply. The most basic element that you seem to have a lack of understanding is, in fact, the entire basis of the show. That is, in these jurisdictions, the legislatures have defined it to be a crime to solicit a minor with the intent of having sex with that minor. That, in and of itself, is the crime. Thus, whether they (the adult predator) would actually go through with it (actually have sex) when they reach the decoy at home is irrelevent. The crime has already been completed by that point. That is why the police can (and do) arrest people before they even walk into the decoy's home -- or even as they are driving by the decoy's home. You did not seem to grasp this concept in your initial post. And, certainly, it is critical to the sting operations and the program. (JosephASpadaro 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
Okay, yeah I did understand that when writing the post. What I meant when I asked "Have they really committed a crime?" was that based off of common sense, what have they done wrong? Or put another way, maybe the law is too "strict" and should be made to only include actual attempts or acts of sex...in which case the show would be promoting/enforcing an "unfair" law. Does that make sense? Some of what I said not only reflected the show itself but also addressed topics such as the age of consent, and this solicitation of sex law. Concerning the age of consent, in some jurisdictions it is illegal for a 17 year old to have sex with an 18 year old (who turned 18 a week ago)...isn't this rediculous? That's why many jurisdictions allow a small general range of crossover for situations like this. How about this recent story? I was partially addressing this issue by complaining about the show - since the show deals with similar issues. But yes, I do realize that this is a completely different subject altogether. smileyborg 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the laws are not "too strict" or "unfair." They are on the books in many (if not all) states. Surely, ALL of these legislators can't be wrong? And, I am sure that the constitutionality of these laws has been tested in courts. Surely, ALL of these judges can't be wrong? Furthermore -- No, the example you cite is not ridiculous. Age of consent laws protect minors from themselves. Yes, of course, a bright-line division needs to be made (age 18, for example). We can always "concoct" an example that makes the law seem ridicuous (example: a person who is one day shy of his 18th birthday, or a person who just turned 18 yesterday). The spirit, intent, and letter of the law is to prevent older people from taking advantage of younger (more vulnerable) people for sexual gratification. How is that wrong? In a state where a person can start legally drinking at age 21, is it "ridiculous" that he can't legally drink the day before his 21st birthday? In a state where a person can start legally voting at age 18, is it "ridiculous" that he can't legally vote the day before his 18th birthday? If, indeed, you had valid points -- you can bring them up to the legislators in your state to change the laws. You'd have little success and would be laughed at -- no? (JosephASpadaro 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
I understand and agree with you, that explanation was essentially what I was looking for in the beginning to "justify" the show. (Thanks for taking the time to respond!) For now, I believe that my concerns have been addressed...I'll have to watch another episode and see if anything comes up that I don't agree with or have questions about. Glad we were able to hold a discussion like this - it was exactly what I was looking for, and it is something that I wish I could have more often in life with other people...most of the time people become too emotionally involved or steadfast in the belief that they are right, and they cannot simply listen to the opposing side and address it. Once again, thank you, and I'll let you know if something else comes up. smileyborg 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you say in your last post. Thanks for replying to my posts, as well. I am happy to help. If need be, we can continue our discussion. Unforunately, if you want to watch more episodes, I believe that the series is over (at least for now). But, I am sure that you can watch old episodes on the internet or the Dateline NBC website. (JosephASpadaro 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] reverse predator

i think it would be cool to do a reverse predator operation. you pretend to be a predator, and then show up at the house. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.83.66 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

And then what? Confront the minor and expose him/her on TV? Explain to the minor the dangers of internet predators? I don't understand the premise of the "reverse" operation. Remember -- the adult is the only one committing a crime in these instances, not the minor. (JosephASpadaro 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
Hah well on that topic, what about having a 17 1/2 year old minor pose as an older predator, get on the show, go to the decoy, get arrested, etc...and then see what happens. "Oops, sorry, you're actually legal! Err..." ...Not that it would achieve much. And of course, it (and any other mistakes like that) would NEVER make it to TV. smileyborg 05:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's pass on the "reverse predator" idea. By the way, the "fake" predator would be the decoy -- the minor at the house would be the "legit" one. (JosephASpadaro 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC))


[edit] South Asians

Why are there a disproportionate number of South Asians (India/Pakistan) who appear on this show? Is this worth mentioning, or is it just a coincidence? 202.155.194.222 03:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There really aren't. I guess if you watch the Northern California sting, you might think so but most areas don't have that many South Asians. Watch the Georgia, Ohio or Riverside stings. XavierVE 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faces

Does anyone know how this show can show the faces of all the perps? Have they all been convicted before the show airs? Do they all foolishly sign a waiver? Or is the blurring of the faces of suspects (like in the show COPS) not really necessary? Harksaw 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

News programs don't have to blur faces, COPS isn't a news show, Dateline NBC is. XavierVE 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the show is a fraud

The believed to be underage age girls solicit sex with older men. They are the ones to blame. This is why I beat off to avoid such problems. People go to jail for anything today. My god it's horrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.200.103 (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

...any grown man who wants to fuck a 12-14 year old is a bad person in my book. On the other hand, any grown woman willing to do such a thing is generous. But hey, thats just me. <_< --Whoabro 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools?

"It was finally admitted in April 2007 that all the predators were really actors and the sting was to capture the teenage "pervert" who was used as bait.She was prosecuted for "enticing for sexual purposes", and released on bail."

so... is this true or is this trash? because it sounds like trash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.205.116 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Uh, what do you think. Brain is for thinking. XavierVE 10:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/_/Talk%7ETo_Catch_a_Predator_cabf.html"