• Chris Hansen is reviving To Catch A Predator on Kickstarter
    162 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47519536]Justice? I agree it's not, but damn if it isn't satisfying to see the kind of sicko who wants to fuck a kid get nabbed. :v:[/QUOTE] It's certainly the wrong way to deal with it, especially when some of the cases on the show actually fell through and they weren't convicted in the end. As satisfying as it appears on the screen, the actual legal process is something a bit more robust. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027147/Joseph-Roisman-acquitted-paedophile-To-Catch-A-Predator-entrapment.html[/url] Some of these people aren't predators. Predators do disgust me, but when this show unintentionally manages to make you feel sorry for potential child rapists, then sorry something is really wrong with the show.
[QUOTE=Deng;47519774]It's certainly the wrong way to deal with it, especially when some of the cases on the show actually fell through and they weren't convicted in the end. As satisfying as it appears on the screen, the actual legal process is something a bit more robust. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027147/Joseph-Roisman-acquitted-paedophile-To-Catch-A-Predator-entrapment.html[/url] Some of these people aren't predators. Predators do disgust me, but when this show unintentionally manages to make you feel sorry for potential child rapists, then sorry something is really wrong with the show.[/QUOTE] How could it possibly make you feel sorry for them? [I]They went after young girls with the intent to rape them.[/I]
[QUOTE=Deng;47519774][url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027147/Joseph-Roisman-acquitted-paedophile-To-Catch-A-Predator-entrapment.html[/url] Some of these people aren't predators. Predators do disgust me, but when this show unintentionally manages to make you feel sorry for potential child rapists, then sorry something is really wrong with the show.[/QUOTE] Bullshit [quote]Mr Roisman's lawyer, Stephen Turer, argued that it was volunteers from Perverted Justice who had steered the conversation towards sex and his client had [B]intended nothing more than 'watching movies and cuddling' after travelling 110 miles to meet the girl.[/B][/quote] Driving 110 miles to meet a girl to watch movies and cuddle? Yup. Sure. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about the way it's handled via the public but these people are 100% predators.
[QUOTE=Hervey;47519870]Bullshit Driving 110 miles to meet a girl to watch movies and cuddle? Yup. Sure. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about the way it's handled via the public but these people are 100% predators.[/QUOTE] The guy was acquitted on lack of evidence. The courts decided that. [QUOTE=Starlight 456;47519858]How could it possibly make you feel sorry for them? [I]They went after young girls with the intent to rape them.[/I][/QUOTE] Because its exploiting a social problem for entertainment and blurs too many lines. We already have a system for dealing with it. A television show isn't one of them.
[QUOTE=Deng;47519885]The guy was acquitted on lack of evidence. The courts decided that.[/QUOTE] Lack of evidence to convict, but his intent was clear. [editline]13th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deng;47519885]The guy was acquitted on lack of evidence. The courts decided that. Because its exploiting a social problem for entertainment and blurs too many lines. We already have a system for dealing with it. A television show isn't one of them.[/QUOTE] Why does it make you feel sorry for them, though? How can you even feel sorry for someone who wants to rape kids?
Starlight 456, Saying "Come fuck me you big sexy man" is without a doubt entrapment. That's why that's not what the actors say.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47519900]Lack of evidence to convict, but his intent was clear.[/quote] Yes, but the law is the law. It's not up to self-posturing vigilantes and NBC to determine guilt. [quote]Why does it make you feel sorry for them, though? How can you even feel sorry for someone who wants to rape kids?[/QUOTE] Because empathy means it's possible to feel sorry for people. The point is that the show is just as disgusting as the child predators they are going after.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47517723]It's the other way around. Police baiting someone here is entrapment. [/QUOTE] baiting isn't entrapment, entrapment is when a police officer breaks the law first to get you to break the law. If a cop is posing as a prostitute and you attempt to buy services from him/her, that's not entrapment. If the officer is posing as a prostitute and comes to you and offers, that is entrapment. Entrapment is when a person is coerced, forced, or otherwise made to commit a crime that they normally wouldn't commit.
[QUOTE=geel9;47519940]Starlight 456, Saying "Come fuck me you big sexy man" is without a doubt entrapment. That's why that's not what the actors say.[/QUOTE] It's not goading them. It's not making them do something they wouldn't do normally. They give an offer, and the predator agrees to it. Entrapment is if the police [I]coerced[/I] him into agreeing to the offer. If it was an actual minor, they would've agreed, only then it would be an actual crime being committed rather than them falling for the bait. By your logic, honeypots are entrapment, since they're criminals falling for a website held by the police and used to catch them.
[QUOTE=isnipeu;47519058]Who cares if people find it entertaining? It's still putting creepy predators behind bars where they can't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE] I don't have a problem with them putting predators behind bars, that's a great thing. What I have a problem with is that the people that appear in the show when they get out of jail they might be rehabilitated and can start being normal society people, the problem is that this program is still going to be aired in many countries by that time, and even if they are rehabilitated they will still be treated as if they weren't. I hope you get what I mean.
[QUOTE=eirexe;47520079]I don't have a problem with them putting predators behind bars, that's a great thing. What I have a problem with is that the people that appear in the show when they get out of jail they might be rehabilitated and can start being normal society people, the problem is that this program is still going to be aired in many countries by that time, and even if they are rehabilitated they will still be treated as if they weren't. I hope you get what I mean.[/QUOTE] Does it matter? When you're on the sex offender register you are forced to tell everyone you live near that you are a registered sex offender. An employer can look up your name and you will instantly come up. Seriously have you seen these restrictions. [url]http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/rulesincommunity.asp[/url] [editline]13th April 2015[/editline] Also take this for example [url]http://sexoffender.ncdoj.gov/[/url] [quote]Sign up here to receive e-mail alerts when an offender registers to an address in your community, or to track a specific offender. You can also map all offenders' addresses up to five miles away from any site you choose, such as home, school, child care center or park.[/quote] Once you're on that registry, you're pretty much done for. Seriously you can track [B]specific offenders. [/B]Doesn't matter if you were famous or the most obscure person ever. [editline]13th April 2015[/editline] Ok apparently I was misled about the door to door thing -- however the rest is still certainly true and does not detract from the main point. I just wanted to point out my own error before anyone else.
[QUOTE=Deng;47519266] In the past, homosexuals and sexual predators were often equated as being the same. Yes it is different now. The point is that in the past this wasn't the case, and that shows like that would have been popular.[/QUOTE] So what's your point with "in the past, homosexuals would be publicly humiliated like this"?
I'm assuming that the predators on the show aren't given the option of anonymity when it's broadcasted after conviction? I think the "public shaming" would be less of an issue if they did so for all of them. Same goes for TV broadcasted criminals in general imo
Entrapment, isn't that the movie where Catherine Zeta-Jones dodges lasers with Sean Connery
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47520244]So what's your point with "in the past, homosexuals would be publicly humiliated like this"?[/QUOTE] That in 20 years people might finally be able to marry 9 year olds duh. So we should't support this kind of shows since it'd look like we were a backwards society that shunned child rapists.
stretch goal: the return of hambubger
I don't like the show for the reason that it perpetuates the stereotype of pedophiles as rapist scumbag freaks. When I was 16 I started dating someone who was 15, and we stayed together up until my senior year. They were 17, I was 18. In my state, I could have been convicted as being a pedophile because I dated someone a year younger than me. There are many cases where vindictive parents or ex's have done this, with a harmless person facing jailtime and a ruined life. If I was convicted, I would have become a convicted sex offender which would ruin my social and professional life. These sorts of things only stay in effect because this sort of thing is so stigmatized as to forbid honest and objective discussion on the subject. I also find it objectionable because they could potentially humiliate a person who was not planning on going through with the act. The act itself is what I personally find objectionable, not someone's private thoughts. I was watching an episode of that show today because I find it hilarious and one of the people decided that he didn't want to go any further with the situation after the actor started flirting with the guy. You could plainly see he wasn't comfortable, and considering he came over on a bike I think he realized that his decision was wrong. IIRC the show said he was found not guilty, but now his face and name are immortalized as being those of a pedophile rapist scumbag.
[QUOTE=sasherz;47520786]I don't like the show for the reason that it perpetuates the stereotype of pedophiles as rapist scumbag freaks. When I was 16 I started dating someone who was 15, and we stayed together up until my senior year. They were 17, I was 18. In my state, I could have been convicted as being a pedophile because I dated someone a year younger than me. There are many cases where vindictive parents or ex's have done this, with a harmless person facing jailtime and a ruined life. If I was convicted, I would have become a convicted sex offender which would ruin my social and professional life. These sorts of things only stay in effect because this sort of thing is so stigmatized as to forbid honest and objective discussion on the subject. I also find it objectionable because they could potentially humiliate a person who was not planning on going through with the act. The act itself is what I personally find objectionable, not someone's private thoughts. I was watching an episode of that show today because I find it hilarious and one of the people decided that he didn't want to go any further with the situation after the actor started flirting with the guy. You could plainly see he wasn't comfortable, and considering he came over on a bike I think he realized that his decision was wrong. IIRC the show said he was found not guilty, but now his face and name are immortalized as being those of a pedophile rapist scumbag.[/QUOTE] Nobody is convicted for being a [b]pedophile[/b]; Pedophila is not illegal. The part that's illegal is raping minors. The kind of person who rapes a kid [I]is[/I] a scumbag creep. If you seek out and rape a child, you're an objectively horrible person. These people answer to a extremely underage person desiring sex from them, and go to the extent of meeting with them. Sure, he may not have been found guilty, but he was at the edge; Nobody who didn't have the desire to rape a kid would have gone that far.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47520885]If you seek out and rape a child, you're an objectively horrible person.[/QUOTE] Objectively isn't the correct term to use. In western culture, it is wrong to have sex with a child. In other cultures, it is perfectly acceptable. Using the term objectively implies your opinion is fact based, which based on your use of loaded language and obvious emotional bias on sex-based issues, it is not. Please do not misuse words that imply a fact-based position to justify your opinions. Not arguing against your position, as I agree with you. I just have a deep dislike for situations when people masquerade opinion as fact (Unless you do have facts, in whic case please share them). I believe that proper discussion of such issues should be as fair and unbiased as possible. [QUOTE=Starlight 456;47520885]Nobody who didn't have the desire to rape a kid would have gone that far.[/QUOTE] The guy in my example is a counter point to that. Once things got serious and he realized what he was doing, he backed out of it and told the kid that he wasn't comfortable with it. I don't think that he would have had sex with a child, the jury didn't feel he would have had sex with a child, but the court of public opinion now things he's a scumbag pedophile rapist because he appeared on the show. I think that's wrong. He'll be suffering for a victimless indiscresion now even though he's innocent.
[QUOTE=sasherz;47521137]Objectively isn't the correct term to use. In western culture, it is wrong to have sex with a child. In other cultures, it is perfectly acceptable. Using the term objectively implies your opinion is fact based, which based on your use of loaded language and obvious emotional bias on sex-based issues, it is not. Please do not misuse words that imply a fact-based position to justify your opinions. Not arguing against your position, as I agree with you. I just have a deep dislike for situations when people masquerade opinion as fact (Unless you do have facts, in whic case please share them). I believe that proper discussion of such issues should be as fair and unbiased as possible. The guy in my example is a counter point to that. Once things got serious and he realized what he was doing, he backed out of it and told the kid that he wasn't comfortable with it. I don't think that he would have had sex with a child, the jury didn't feel he would have had sex with a child, but the court of public opinion now things he's a scumbag pedophile rapist because he appeared on the show. I think that's wrong. He'll be suffering for a victimless indiscresion now even though he's innocent.[/QUOTE] It is, fact-based, objectively wrong to have sex with children. Assuming that mentally, they understand the full implications of sex and the risks involved, their bodies are still unable to properly handle it. It can lead to trauma and premature pregnancy, which can stunt growth and kill them. It's not that i'm misusing words, it's that cultures that are fine with child rape are backwards. I too agree that calling opinions fact is wrong, but in this case, I believe there is factual proof that sex with children is wrong.
[QUOTE=sasherz;47521137]Objectively isn't the correct term to use. In western culture, it is wrong to have sex with a child. In other cultures, it is perfectly acceptable.[/QUOTE] But it doesn't matter what people think or accept. Something that is wrong is always going to be wrong, no matter the year, laws, or public acceptance of it. [editline]13th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=isnipeu;47519058]Who cares if people find it entertaining? It's still putting creepy predators behind bars where they can't hurt anyone.[/QUOTE] Yeah, let's just put them behind bars and ignore the problem. These people shouldn't be put in jail, they need to be in a hospital, being studied so that we can one day better understand their illness, and hopefully find a solution. It's better than just getting rid of them and waiting for the next child to get raped and repeating the same futile process over and over again.
[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;47521881]But it doesn't matter what people think or accept. Something that is wrong is always going to be wrong, no matter the year, laws, or public acceptance of it. [/QUOTE] Tangentially, not really. Morals are relative and you can't really say something is "wrong" without actual logic leading to that conclusion.
[QUOTE=geel9;47521937]Tangentially, not really. Morals are relative and you can't really say something is "wrong" without actual logic leading to that conclusion.[/QUOTE] It is wrong to cause suffering to others by raping them for your own selfish, temporary pleasure. It doesn't matter whether you can understand it or not, it is still wrong.
[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;47521955]It is wrong to cause suffering to others by raping them for your own selfish, temporary pleasure. It doesn't matter whether you can understand it or not, it is still wrong.[/QUOTE]It's still relative and not a rule. The fact that not so far back in history it was perfectly acceptable is proof enough it's relative.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47521874]It is, fact-based, objectively wrong to have sex with children. Assuming that mentally, they understand the full implications of sex and the risks involved, their bodies are still unable to properly handle it. It can lead to trauma and premature pregnancy, which can stunt growth and kill them. It's not that i'm misusing words, it's that cultures that are fine with child rape are backwards. I too agree that calling opinions fact is wrong, but in this case, I believe there is factual proof that sex with children is wrong.[/QUOTE] 15 years old is still a child legally but their bodies are perfectly capable of dealing with sex. Mentally isn't so clear cut, which is why sex with children is generally not a nice thing to do.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47522029]It's still relative and not a rule. The fact that not so far back in history it was perfectly acceptable is proof enough it's relative.[/QUOTE] Like I said, it's still wrong, no matter the date or whether or not it is accepted or understood by people. These are human rights that we all have. Just because they may be violated, doesn't mean you don't have them. I never mentioned anything about your opinion on what is right or wrong, I was talking about what IS right and wrong, and deliberately causing harm to another being for your selfish pleasure is wrong. That is truth, whether you agree with it or not.
Making a TV show about arresting someone so that everyone can point and laugh at the freaky freak seems like something that belongs in the middle ages, not 2015.
[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;47521955]It is wrong to cause suffering to others by raping them for your own selfish, temporary pleasure. It doesn't matter whether you can understand it or not, it is still wrong.[/QUOTE] Some cultures believe children can consent to sex at that age. Using the term rape to apply to having sex with an underage child comes from our laws which assume that a child is unable to consent properly. In a debate about this kind of stuff, it simply doesn't apply due to the fact that it being used in this case is not technically valid in some places. Mental stuff is weird like that when it comes to different cultures. Many cultures define mental disorders differently and some even have differing lists (some countries do not recognize schizophrenia for instance but recognize other stuff that we don't)
[QUOTE=sasherz;47522761]Some cultures believe children can consent to sex at that age. Using the term rape to apply to having sex with an underage child comes from our laws which assume that a child is unable to consent properly. In a debate about this kind of stuff, it simply doesn't apply due to the fact that it being used in this case is not technically valid in some places. Mental stuff is weird like that when it comes to different cultures. Many cultures define mental disorders differently and some even have differing lists (some countries do not recognize schizophrenia for instance but recognize other stuff that we don't)[/QUOTE] I meant to say statutory rape, and I noticed now that I missed out that part. That's interesting though. I wonder in what culture they recognize things such as hate, greed, selfishness, apathy, etc. as the mental disorders that they are.
[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;47523011] I wonder in what culture they recognize things such as hate, greed, selfishness, apathy, etc. as the mental disorders that they are.[/QUOTE] Um.... None of them? Negative mental traits != Mental disorders. Mental disorders (at least in America) are defined by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders"]the DSM[/URL]. Those attributes would not even fit the definition of a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder"]mental disorder [/URL]anyways. All of those things aren't anomalies, and they are most certainly social norms. They are basic human emotions and motivations (not sure what adjective to use to describe selfishness, greed and apathy).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.