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.
Article policies

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] Who keeps deleting?

http://www.chatmag.com/news/052807-datelinenbc-producer-sues-for-wrongful-termination.html Why is it when I try to include information on this is it quicky deleted? Trying to cover up facts, Xavier? The whole complaint has some great points in it, and I for one, am very curious to see how it comes out.

And now, I posted a link about the 24 cases in Murphy, TX being thrown out because PJ screwed up, and THAT TO WAS DELETED. Xavier, you and your PJ'rs need to stop deleting this. The truth about your organization is coming out. And now it's back up, but incase it's deleted again: http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/jun/01/murphysi-catch-predatori-cases-canned-collin-count/

Does anyone really think it is appropriate to refer to human beings, no matter how sinful, as "predators"? It is this kind of perverted justice that plagues ours and secular Europe's society. No wonder we have higher suicide rates than war torn countries. America without Love is like Nazi Germany.

[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] 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) .
As per the law, the people that Chris Hansen interviews have already broken the law by the simple fact of their sexual conversations with someone who they believed to be a minor. Innocent till proven guity shouldn't apply since they are not being arrested for what they might do, but for what they have already done. Coradon 04:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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 / 1

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] Wording / 2

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

No shop owner has ever shot himself to death after being exposed on national television as someone who sells cigarettes to kids. Your minds are perverted by the idea that there is no universal evil and that certain people are pure evil...you go about as if Satan walks among us everywhere, well he does, inside of you as well as the "predators". Something about bad fruits and good fruits.

[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.)

Also there almost no female sexual predators period, 99.99% of all sex criminals are males. --76.214.105.106 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that there is no research backing this up, and that figure (if it does exist) would rely solely on prosecuted sexual predators. It might very well be that there is some institutional bias where female sex predators are not as heavily prosecuted or caught as often, et. al. To simply claim a 99.99% statistic with no source is just a little absurd. 68.58.118.26 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[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] Popular culture references

Can someone add a reference to the parody of this show that was on MTV's "Human Giant", episode 2 called "Catching a predator".? Opticalnoise 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should also mention South Park season 11 episode "Le Petit Tourette" which spoofs Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator. In one scene, dozens of potential child molesters flock to a location, enter the building (which happens to be a Dateline studio filming another segment), spot Chris Hansen and immediately shoot themselves. greenodonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.16.247 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit

The wife of the Texas DA who shot himself in connection to this show has filed a lawsuit against NBC and this show. The lawyer was just featured on the 7/17/07 O'Reilly Factor. Anyone want to add it in under the criticism section? 67.186.34.123 08:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a threatened lawsuit (not filed) and there's already a ton about Conradt Jr. in the article. XavierVE 09:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singling out David Kaye

There is no reason Rabbi David Kaye should be singled out in this article. Many individuals of prominence (more so than Kaye) were arrested in this operation, so it doesn't make sense why this article singled out this man ONLY. If you're going to publish David Kaye's situation, then you should publish all prominent situations. Or not publish at all. There is no reason "To Catch a Predator" should be associated with only a Jewish leader. That's like writing an article on pedophilia, and only citing the example of a Jewish pedophile, or a Muslim pedophile.

I--a Jew--added the Kaye segment. It has nothing to do with racism or religious prejudice. It has to do with the fact that Kaye, thus far, is not only the only "guest" to attempt to attack the host of the show, but the FBI actually stepped in and took over the case.68.13.245.53 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC):
While you may be right that is has nothing to do with race or prejudice, I stand by the assertion that there is NO reason Rabbi David Kaye should be singled out in this article. First, we do not know for certain if his incident was the only incident of "violence," as you assert. Second, according to your argument, we should single anyone out who's scenario is unique in some way. So should we then single out the only trauma surgeon because he was the only trauma surgeon? Should we also make a sub-section for the man who got naked in the show, because after all, he was the only person who got naked? Yet you don't write a sub-section about that; why not? Because you're not being viewpoint neutral. Your logic does not stand, as you clearly show a point of view by subjectively stating that Kaye's unique actions were more notable than other unique actions within the show. Finally - and this is my weakest argument of the three - if you had read the anti-semitism page on Wikipedia, you would notice that Jews have historically been singled out in numerous societies for criticism, whether justified or not. According to my first two arguments, your criticism of Kaye is not justified enough to single him out or make him more unique than other notable situations. Therefore I have to question what motive you have given the historical context I cite; that's why I brought up the Jewish issue. Whether you realize it or not, anti-Semitism is alive, especially on the internet. So don't act like singling out a Rabbi is not a big deal. I'd let it slide if Kaye was somehow an extraordinarily notable preditor or criminal - or if his actions were both more notable and unusual than other actions. But that's just not the case. I assure, if you place that sub-section back in, I will create a sub-section for EVERY unique and notable scenario I deem relevent to the show. Monitorer 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)::

Your logic is ridiculous. A county police sting was taken over by the FBI, and you want to compare that to the occupations of other "guests?" If you have ever watched the program then you will know that every "guest" is shown leaving the house or, in one instance, after a medical emergency, being removed. Kaye IS unique in that he attacked/attemped to attack the crew. It is plain as day on film, Kaye grabbing a camera lens--not putting his hand over it to block his face, but grabbing the lens and trying to yank the camera away--and then charging Chris Hansen. No other "guest" on the show has attempted to attack the host and had to be wrestled down by the crew of the show. How is that not noteworthy?68.13.245.53 05:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your facts and reasoning (you didn't even refute my point). First, I've seen most episodes of To Catch a Predator, including the one with David Kaye. David Kay did not "wrestle" anyone. He was not wrestled down, neither can you substantiate your claim that he tried to "attack" the cameraman or Chris Hansen. It seemed apparent to me that he was trying to obstruct and manhandle the camera, and then manhandle Chris Hansen. But once someone put their arm in front of him, and told him to cease his actions, he stopped and did not struggle - I think your use of the word "attack" is sensationalist. You'll notice none of the charges against Kaye are assault charges. Secondly, who are you to be the judge of what is the most noteworthy incident? In my mind, the man who walked into the kitchen nude was the most noteworthy incident. You say my logic is rediculous, but you don't refute why your example is more noteworthy than my example. So let me provide why I think my example is more noteworthy: If you go on YouTube, you'll see that the Naked Man clip has almost the most views of all the To Catch a Predator clips, while you can't even find a clip of David Kay! That tells me internet viewers - on YouTube at least - find the Naked Man clip to be more noteworthy than the David Kaye clip. So how do you intend to show your clip is more noteworthy than mine? So far you're argument is 'it's more noteworthy because I say it is.' I'm sorry, but David Kaye's gotta go. Unless you're willing to let me include the Naked Man sub-section. Monitorer 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Underage looking" decoys

What concerns me when I've watched the program, is that the accused pedophiles don't lose interest when they see the decoy. I know the decoys are supposed to look underage, but some of them don't look underage at all to me - certainly not thirteen-year-olds anyway. Is there strong evidence that all of the accused actually believe their correspondents are underage, and don't just think it's some kind of sex mind-game where they dress up and pretend? More pointedly, is there evidence that anyone over 18 truly looks under 18 to all observers? If this is true I'd like to see some purely medical research done - do these people grow more slowly, age more slowly, live longer? We should be studying their genes instead of just using them as decoys! 204.186.14.163 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:31, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Kids grow up fast these days. A 165 year old and an 18 year old can look pretty similar in developmentNotthegoatseguy 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And if they actually are overage, how can they be charged with soliciting sex from a minor, if they werent actually soliciting sex from a minor? Grsz11 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's all semantics. But, I believe that they are charged with attempting to solicit sex from a minor ... and not actually soliciting sex from a minor. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
Which is, of course, a patently false charge. What minor did they solicit? There is no minor. There's a nineteen-year-old. So what if they *thought* they were soliciting a minor? You can be convicted of thought crime now? What if your friend tricked you into thinking you were robbing a bank, but it was all a setup and you weren't really robbing a bank--could you be convicted of attempted bank robbery just because *you* thought you were robbing a bank? These guys are sick punks that need to be dealt with, obviously, but must we destory justice in this country in order to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A patently false charge? From which law school did you graduate? And in which state did you pass the Bar Exam? Clearly, you miss the point. And judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and legislators all over the country (if not the world) disagree with your thinking. As my prior post stated -- no, they did not, in fact, actually solicit a minor. They did, however, attempt to solicit a minor. And -- yes -- their thoughts can and do rise to the level of a crime -- if they think they are soliciting a minor ... and, furthermore, they take steps toward achieving that illegal end (for example, driving to the decoy's house, buying the decoy gifts, etc.). If you thought that a gun was loaded -- but it really was not loaded -- and you aim it at my head and pull the trigger ... you don't think you can get charged with attempted murder? You can't get charged with actual murder -- but you certainly can get charged with attempted murder. Yes -- based on your thoughts. You thought the gun was loaded ... you thought that a shot from that gun in my head would kill me ... and, furthermore, you took steps toward that illegal end (that is, firing, aiming, shooting, etc.). Spend your time defending a more defensible -- and less absurd -- position. And, while you are at it, sue the law school that gave you such an inferior legal education and sue the Bar Examiners who allowed you admission to the State Bar based on such an inferior (yet cavalier) "understanding" of the law. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

All that's cute, but nobody said I had a law degree. And I don't need one to understand that where no crime is commited, no charges can be filed. How about taking your ad hominem attacks elsewhere? Your example of the gun doesn't fit--apples and oranges. Fact: There is no underage girl. Fact: No underage girl was solicited. Like I said, these guys are scum and need to be put away, but surely there is a better way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, an idiot. Hard to believe that you are a Marine. You're giving the USMC a bad name here. Yet again, there is a crime committed ... and it is not actual solicitation, but it is attempted solicitation. Shall I repeat that for the, uhhhhh, 10th time? If indeed there is no crime committed (as you suggested), how on earth is it that these people are getting arrested and going to jail? I guess, under your theory ... the police, the prosecutor, the judge, and the defense lawyer are all in cahoots ... conspiring and throwing people in jail for committing no crimes. Wow, and the American Bar Association and the ACLU and the US Supreme Court has done nothing about this at all? I'd think they'd be outraged, no? Or -- just a theory -- perhaps they are right (a crime is indeed committed) ... and you are wrong? I dunno, it's just a theory. And, without a law degree, you know a little more about the law than the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer, the American Bar Association, the ACLU, and the US Supreme Court? Wow, not bad. That's pretty impressive. You gotta share your gifts and enlighten all these folk. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Contradiction in "Entrapment claims" section

The first paragraph states:

former Dateline anchor Stone Phillips concedes that "... in many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex."

The final paragraph says:

Volunteers never initiate contact with the person; all communication begins with the offender. Later, contributors never instigate lewd conversations or talks of sexual meetings.

This is a clear contradiction. I don't particularly know which one to remove, as both appear to be cited. Anyone else care to deal with this? --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The decoy doesn't initiate conversation with the suspect, but once conversation is established - they bring up the subject of sex. So its not a conversation but possibly quite confusing. Quite chilling stuff really, I hadn't caught this show before now. 125.239.36.97 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virgins

Is this really that notable? Isn't it pretty much implied that these people are losers anyway. Notthegoatseguy 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Implied" ... that's an understatement, if I ever heard one ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Kentucky Bust

The number cited on the wikipedia entry does not match the number cited in the Kentucky newspaper article that it cites. I could not find an article verifying the number listed on the page, but I also could not affirm that the number on the page was wrong, so I left it as is for now. Can anyone verify the number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelbishop (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The number in the article agrees with the cited source, as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia article states that 29 men were arrested over the course of the one year. The cited source (newspaper article) states the same number, 29. The number 29 appears further down in the newspaper article, in the seventh paragraph. The very first paragraph of the newspaper article discusses a smaller number of men arrested (7). I believe that the number 7 refers only to the Bowling Green arrests ... while the number 29 refers to the entire year-long sting operation that included Bowling Green as well as the other two locations (Louisville and Northern Kentucky). That is my interpretation of things. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC))