My friend and I watched "To Catch A Predator" for the first time about two nights ago. I had been horrified by the show's complete utter lack for the legal system, and the use of entrapment tactics to catch these 'criminals'. However, my revulsion only paled in comparison to my friend, who shed light on a new angle I hadn't even considered before.
Up until watching the show with my friend, I had been appalled by the Machiavellian disregard for the legal system to get these 'predators' by any means necessary. However, my friend pointed out that the entire premise of the show was misleading: none of these guys were actually predators.
The show was pretty simple. The decoy enters a chatroom posing as an underage (13-15 year old) girl or boy to lure an interested party.
Wait, didn't we say these guys were predators?
Then, they begin a private chat via instant message. Sometime into the conversation, the decoy brings up the topic of sex.
These guys are predators, right?
Once the decoy has the 'predator' talking about sex, they invite them to a house down the shore, promising an uninterrupted night of wild fantasies while the decoy's parents are away.
So, let's review. The decoy lures the 'predator' into chatting with them, lures the 'predator' into talking about sex, and lures the 'predator' into visiting them at an empty home.
Who's the predator again?
So what crime did these men commit? The only crime was the age of the men in relationship to the person whom they were talking to.
In New Jersey, a person cannot consent to sex until they reach age 14. At 14, they are allowed to consent to a person no more than 3 years older than themselves. At 16, they are allowed to consent to anyone (however, parents can intervene and prohibit it from happening).
Now, it's perfectly legal for a 19 year old to consent to sex with a 47 year old. And it's also perfectly legal for a 14 year old to consent to sex. Why does the difference in age matter?
And what did these men do wrong? Not illegal, this is an issue that is independent of the legal system. Laws were written for a reason, and we can't say that the reason that something is against the law is because it's illegal. That's begging the question.
In order to understand why there are statutory rape laws, we must understand the nature of rape.
Rape is using some means of coersion as a tool to gain sexual dominance over a person. There is rape by physical force, when a person uses strength as a tool to sexually dominate a person. There is rape with drugs, when a person uses an intoxicant as a tool to gain sexual dominance over a person. There is rape with the mentally handicapped, when a person uses someone's mental shortcomings as a way of taking advantage of them sexually. So what is the nature of statutory rape (besides based on statute)?
The reason that age is a factor in statutory rape is because adults may use their age and seniority to trick or coerce a child into having sex with them. Taking advantage of a child's yearning to be grown-up and exploiting that by convincing the child that this is 'what grown-ups do' and 'don't you want to be grown up?' That is the basis of this crime. Exploiting a child's naivetee by assuring them that they should 'trust me, I'm an adult.' That is the basis of this crime.
There is nothing predatory about having a sexual encounter with a girl (or boy) who knows what to expect. The online conversations are proof of that understanding, and regardless of the age, that understanding contradicts everything for which these laws were instated.
Luckily, since few of these cases actually follow due process, the conviction rate is rather low. Especially considering that a few of the 'predators' attempted to leave before anything was revealed. It's very likely that these 'predators' were merely benignly fantasizing, and would never have gone even as far as they did without the coercion of the decoy.
And that's fucked up.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Here, here. "The ends justify the means" seems prevalent in this type of entrapment.
And wait...isn't entrapment illegal?? ::strokes imaginary beard::
There is a difference between the decoy bringing up the topics, and the person in question bringing it up. They are just consenting. Should the suspect say "hey lets go I wanna do your brains out meet me here at so and so time" then it is time to go in. Otherwise, you're just trapping them wrongfully.
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity--and I'm not so sure about the universe"
-Albert Einstein
I'd say that in the spirit of the law (rather than the letter of the law), the suspect would have to avoid the issue or coerce the child and trick them into a sexual encounter.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
I've always hated the very premise of the show... it is the only one on TV right now that uses schadenfreude to such a degree, that watching people being humiliated is the ONLY hook for watching the show. Nothing interesting happens, there's no drama, and the same thing keeps happening over and over, unlike most reality shows which may be worth watching for other reasons besides the fact that someone is embarrassing themself.
I've always wondered why the hell these people can be arrested, when no actual crime has taken place. In actuality, those people who are shown being tackled by police never talked to someone underage, because the person they were talking to was really an adult. Perhaps I could agree with the charge of conspiracy to commit statutory rape because it recognizes that while no crime was actually commited, the intent was there. And if no such law exists within that jurisdiction, then I don't think they've broken the law. Yes, older men who want to violate young men and women are deplorable, but we have to put aside our contempt for cradle-robbers to objectively make sure if a law was broken or not.
For most of those people, I've had a feeling that had the decoys not instigated the conversation, they wouldn't have done it.
Thank you, sir. You said it. This is is a pathetic show exploiting society through humiliation for ratings. Chris Hansen acts as if he is somehow noble for this behavior. He is a as much a pig as the men he coerces into doing something they otherwise may have never done!
In one episode a while back, they caught a man for the second time. It was hilarious. I think that anyone stupid enough to follow through with a sex-date with someone that they've never met should be locked up; though perhaps not in jail.
If someone is caught in the more "legal" sense, the should be thrown into jail...I might even allow a "lack of trail" and just throw them into general population at Sing-Sing.
But I'd never thought of that before. I guess it should be renamed "How to Catch a Guy" and should be aimed at old single women.
Nicholas Aden
embryowassup, you've made me rethink my stance on this issue.
____________________________________________________________________
Denken. Nicht lesen.
Completely irrelevant question....but why is the term douche bag?
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
I...I don't know. It sounded phonetically appropriate. I thought 'cunt' was too harsh and 'fucker' too scathing.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
lol. My question was more general than that. What is the term douchebag? I've never understood where that insult came from. It is a nice insult. I just wonder about its origins.
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
What could be more degrading (or fun to say) than calling someone a bag of douche?
LOL.
It's kind of like "asswipe" - it's toilet paper for crying out loud, but it sounds funny and people are actually offended by it at times...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
Dillhole is my personal favorite.
Hubby calls people asshats. That one always makes me giggle.
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
douche
1766, from Fr. douche, from It. doccia "shower," from docciare "to spray," from L. ductionem "a leading," from ducere "to lead" (see duke). The verb is first attested 1838.
"...douche bag", used against patriarchists and male supremacists, is an insult, not because we now realize regular douching is bad, or because douching is per se bad, but because the term hearkens to the reasons for which douche bags were invented, namely, to clean what men believed to be women's foul-smelling, diseased genitalia. When we use the word, the patriarchists we intend to insult are insulted, not because douche bags are bad things, but because of the revulsion over women's bodies which the term "douche bags" evokes and which inspired their invention."
I don't know. This sounds plausable.
(Source: http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/godbags-douche-bags-and-old-... )
Nicholas Aden
lmao. Thanks Nicholas!
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
I was more impressed that people started saying "douche" in 1838...lol
Nicholas Aden
They had some pretty amusing insults and words back then.
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
LOL, you learn something new everyday!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
HAHA i love that word--cunt. You should blog about why women hate that word. Like its soooo offensive. Someone calls me a cunt I'm like "thanks, got one, can't have it sorry" and walk off laughing.
You should do it! (the blog...er lol)
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity--and I'm not so sure about the universe"
-Albert Einstein
I already use it and argue for its beauty on a regular basis...
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Chris Hansen ought to be in jail. But if we had any common sense as a society, we would lower the age of consent to 13 (which it already is in Spain, Japan, and South Korea) and render all this nonsensical yellow journalism impossible.
Hm, interesting thought but I'm not sure I agree.
Remembering back to when I was 13, I don't think I had the mental capacity to really be able to make a decision like that on my own. Granted, a lot of this was due to my upbringing which was slightly sheltered, and I had a lot of emotional problems and abandonment issues just because of some of my experiences. Lowering the age of consent might lead to different parenting tactics that would alleviate some of these concerns, but I'm not convinced that every 13 year old out there would make informed decisions regarding consent for sex.
Especially with the messed up sexual education programs out there right now that do nothing to teach awareness or safe sex.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member, Moderator
But you also have to ask yourself: would you have been luring much older men when you were 13. I'm not saying that every young person is informed enough to make those decisions (I tried to make that point clear in the post); what I am saying is that these tactics that the Hansen crew uses create a decoy that is very well informed about what he or she is doing.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Hm, sure, make me think, LOL.
At 13, no I would not have tried to lure grown men into bed with me; but, like I said, I was somewhat sheltered.
My comment was mainly to the post stating that if we had common sense as a society we would lower the age of consent to 13.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
I always get odd looks when I comment about the R. Kelly having sex with a 14 year old. Apparently, I'm one of the few who doesn't think him a perverted fuck. But, I remember my days as a young teenager and the girls I went to school with. They knew what sleeping with an older man could mean and they just didn't care. They were going to do it regardless because they wanted too. I find it a tad ridiculous that we dub men pedophiles for sleeping with someone that was able to make a conscious decision and did so willingly.
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
But these are grown men what makes them decide okay because she wants to i'll do it i dont think so. If somebody said it was okay to kill them, If this had been murder,i don't think you would see it the same way. everyone treats underage sex like a little game it's not it destroys to many lives to give excuses to any of them statutory rape or not.
I'm a young, I'm a teenager, I'm a girl and I'm confused. MaYK IT HaPN: event planning extraordinaires
If you are 13 and luring men into bed with you, doesn't that indicate that you are pursuing the situation yourself and should be aloud to? Statutory rape laws are basically there so that prosecutors don't have to untangle who brought up sex or anything. They can just look at the ages and throw somebody in jail. No consideration is made for who is enjoying what or who wanted to have sex with who first.
While it may be unhealthy for a 13 to lure older people into bed with them, I don't think you can really call it rape, can you?
Statutory rape laws put a lot of people in jail who don't need to be in jail because the wrong thing is illegal. Simply having mismatched ages shouldn't make sex illegal. An age difference does not constitute rape. Rape is illegal, being older than your sexual partner shouldn't be. It's and ends over means law. It simplifies child molestation cases because the "child" doesn't need to be consulted in anyway. It only needs to be proved that sexual contact took place.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."
True, but they also can't really say "some kids can consent if they're mature and understand while others can't".
And as it was explained, the idea behind statutory rape wasn't forceable rape; it was using your age and your knowledge of a child who wants to be grown up to exert power and get them into bed.
You can do that by convincing most 13 year olds to have sex with you; which is still "consent".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
But the issue isn't "consent;" it's pursuit. These 'children' are pursuing sex, not consenting to it.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
I really don't think most 13-year-olds are mature enough to decide to have sex. In light of most people I've known, I really think the age should actually be raised, maybe to sixteen or seventeen. Most younger teens don't fully recognize the risks associated with sex, and just shouldn't be having it.
Those are all probably true statements, but should it be a matter of law? Should we be throwing people in jail, often for quite a long time, because in general, many of their sexual partner's peers couldn't make a mature decision about sex?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."
The first time I read this blog, I'll be honest, I couldn't comment because I was laughing so hard at the look my husband gave me as I exclaimed "no shit".
You see, I have had these same issues with this show - which is why I don't watch it. Sadly, most of my friends watch this show, and they continually try to convince me to start.
Weird how the fans of that show never want to hear about how it is entrapment...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
It may not be ideal for 13 year olds to be sexually active, and it certainly isn't ideal for girls that age to be bearing children (although if that is the main justification for the laws, only heterosexual coitus should be banned.) But there's a limit to how far the government should go and how much damage it should be prepared to do in people's lives to prevent less than ideal behavior, and this Hansen business is definitely WAY over the line.
The older women and/or men posing as underage girls are NEVER the first in the conversation to bring up sex. It's always the men, and if you watched the show on even a semi-regular basis, you would know that. Most of these guys are predators, because they are going into chat rooms designed for children looking for young girls and boys to prey on. That's what makes them predators. It's not the decoys showing up in an adult oriented chat room looking to hook up with an adult, it's the other way around.
That's not true. I watched the show once and I saw three guys who did not bring up the topic of sex or were forced into bringing up the topic of sex. Regardless, I also saw one of the guys try to leave as soon as he came; not having known that he was set up at all. He just straight up tried to leave. Chris Hansen actually had to come out of hiding to make the guy stay.
As well, these guys are never coming under false pretenses. They don't intend to lure these girls unknowingly into sex or use their adulthood as an advantage. You have to take your mind out of your preconceived social constructs based on arbitrary arbitrated numbers and figure out what the law means rather than what it says.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Have you seen the movie Hard Candy? If so, what did you think?
I loved it, actually. If you didn't notice, she had evidence and probable cause (revealed at the end) to show that he and another guy - mentioned in passing - to prove that he had taken advantage of that Diana Muhler girl's youth and naivitee (like he had tried with her in the coffee shop). Therefore, the spirit of the law (as well as the law itself) was violated.
Plus, that castration scene was one of the best 15 minutes of cinema I've ever seen.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
I totally don't know what you just said, but it makes me want to watch that movie to find out.
Nicholas Aden
Look at these people on this show honestly look. These grown men even going pass the topic of sex with any girl there age is being a predator. There is no excuse. Any sane man would not continue talking to these girls about anything, even if they fantasize. And the fact that many of them actually go through with these mean they are not liable to even be pitied. I do not agree, he is not a douche bag. The legal system sucks come on who doesn't know that if the law protects these bastards it protects Chris Allen too. If i had the willpower I torture all those sick bastards and then kill em. CHRIS ALLEN IS NOT A PREDATOR, THOSE SICK MEN ON THE SHOW ARE!
I'm a young, I'm a teenager, I'm a girl and I'm confused. MaYK IT HaPN: event planning extraordinaries
Chris Allen? Who the hell is that? I thought this page was called "Chris Hansen Is A Douche Bag."
I understand how you feel about the people that they "catch" on "To Catch a Predator," but can you not put aside the fact that they are being caught in an illegal manner? It's like trying to prove that someone is a thief by putting a million dollars on their door step. The person is going to open their door, see the money, and they're going to pick it up. By your logic, that person should be arrested for stealing.
I see nothing wrong with fantasizing about anything. Honestly, I think of enough things that are taboo. So long as somone doesn't act on these urges, I could care less what they're thinking.
In my state, 18 is the age of consent. I think about having sex with girls ranging in age from 15-17. Does that make me a "sexual predator?" I mean, technically speaking, that makes me a pedophile.
I think we should let you "torture all those sick bastards and then kill em" so that we can put you into jail. We can even have Chris Hansen send you a couple.
The reply to the preceding comment has been deleted for violating Progressive U's Terms of Service...
Emotional topics such as this one can sometimes bring out strong emotional responses and heated debates; but name calling, accusations, and personal attacks directly violate Progressive U's Terms of Service.
Progressive U is a place for people to discuss and share their opinions about various issues; some of our opinions will be unpopular due to various life experiences... but we all have to remember that these opinions are allowed all the same and we cannot impede on anyone's right to feel comfortable while posting them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
>>In my state, 18 is the age of consent. I think about having sex with girls ranging in age from 15-17. Does that make me a "sexual predator?" I mean, technically speaking, that makes me a pedophile.
No, it doesn't. "Pedophile" is a clinical term, not a legal term, and it only refers to people who have a persistent attraction to prepubescent children. The age of consent has nothing to do with who is or is not a pedophile. Granted, the term is often misused, but we shouldn't encourage its misuse.
Probably a very low percentage of the men entrapped on the revolting Hansen show are "pedophiles."
Yeah, because of course torture and killing a person is much more moral than giving someone underage an orgasm.
Did you see the recent South Park with Chirs Hanson? "Le Petite Tourette"
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion