Pretending to be a minor to catch online predators?

[Marauder]

I hope to the Good Lord that is not a near occasion sin to anyone, I mean to hear what a molester says to an child. Especially the people on this forum who are overwhelmingly Catholic Christian, I can not believe they would be “seduced” by such evil and disgusting conversation.

Sadly some people can be turned on by any sexual discussion, whether it be between a pervert and a supposed underage person or not. Also you have to remember that some of the people that view this site are underage, so you don’t want to have links to sites that are sexually explicit. The Perverted Justice site is very sexually explicit if you read the transcripts so anyone that even remotely can be tempted by stuff like that, shouldn’t view it.

 

[litllulu]

Sadly some people can be turned on by any sexual discussion, whether it be between a pervert and a supposed underage person or not. Also you have to remember that some of the people that view this site are underage, so you don’t want to have links to sites that are sexually explicit. The Perverted Justice site is very sexually explicit if you read the transcripts so anyone that even remotely can be tempted by stuff like that, shouldn’t view it.

SICK!

 

[chevalier]

Sigh… It’s a good thing that pervs are caught and eliminated. But I don’t believe that there are no moral limits on what one can do to put them behind the bars. We can’t do evil so that good would come out of it.

For example, let’s take those prostitute/john catching cops. If a cop pretends to be a prostitute or john, that’s one thing. But when the cop engages in oral sex because the law of the land won’t otherwise allow the prostitute to be prosecuted, then it’s wrong. Cops or military intelligence or secret services using sex to elicit informations, is wrong. Online conversations in chatrooms can be pretended and physical actions do not happen. But I’m sure there is enough opportunity to cross a certain line.

 

[AndyF]

Reformed Rob:

The Church teaches that evil means cannot justify the end. I have always had a dim view of this method and similar ones such as “John Baiting”, but admittedly less so where children are concerned.

It goes on the principle that people are intrinsically evil. The setup is to bait* the evil that already exists* in a person, and not one that could arise as a case may present itself.

Suppose a really enticing bait cop is the only time someone is tempted to elicit prostitution. It only proves the cop was successful in the temptation process, and was able to duplicate the circumstances that that process takes and she was able to surmount the man’s resistance. Proves only that a man failed a temptation test.

Andyf

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Although I don’t watch television and therefore do not know about that program specifically, it does sound similar to what is defined as entrapment in the legal system in which there is a pecuniary interest to fulfill a quota. If one wants to catch someone stealing, the strategic placement of a diamond in a purposefully tempting location so as to pounce on and arrest the first hapless person who tries to grab it sounds morally questionable at best.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

This is my take on it.

1. From a theological perspective, it seems to be bordering on bearing false witness.
2. from a secular perspective, it seems to be entrapment. These “decoys” are going out an soliciting men, inclined as they may be to these acts of perversion, to do something that they may not have had the gumption to do otherwise.
3. The Church teaches that the ends do no justify the means. If the means to end evil are in and of themselves evil, then they are not justifiable, no matter how noble the end result would be.

I almost thought about doing a double-agent entrap the entrapper by seeing if I could engage myself in an ambiguous conversation with one of these decoys, go to the house, and show up with a bible, copies of the local legal statues regarding statutory rape, and some educational material about safety and the hazard of promiscuous sex with a stranger. When Doug Whatshisface came out from behind the curtain, I would break out my stuff and say that I came to talk some sense into the kid. I ditched it as a stupid idea.

 

[JimG]

When I first saw this program I thought that the crime was committed when these men showed up a house where they expected to meet a minor child for the purpose of engaging in some sexual act.

On a few shows, though, I noticed that even in those cases where the person did not enter the house, or even when they did not stop their car, but only slowed down to look, or drove around the block, the police nevertheless gave chase and arrested them. So I think the crime was not in entering the house, it must have been in the online solicitation itself. The program already had the chat logs, and knew the identities of these people, presumably by their IP addresses. So my question is: why have them come to the house? Why not just have the police go knock and their door and arrest them?

 

[jmcrae]

Why not just have the police go knock and their door and arrest them?

Because that would give them time to hide the evidence, and without evidence, there can be no conviction.

One assumes that someone is also at the predator’s house, taking his computer in for evidence, while he’s distracted and thinking he’s picking up a child to prey on.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

When I first saw this program I thought that the crime was committed when these men showed up a house where they expected to meet a minor child for the purpose of engaging in some sexual act.

On a few shows, though, I noticed that even in those cases where the person did not enter the house, or even when they did not stop their car, but only slowed down to look, or drove around the block, the police nevertheless gave chase and arrested them. So I think the crime was not in entering the house, it must have been in the online solicitation itself. The program already had the chat logs, and knew the identities of these people, presumably by their IP addresses. So my question is: why have them come to the house? Why not just have the police go knock and their door and arrest them?

Yes, the crime is solicitation, and it is corroborated by the suspect going to the house to actively act upon that solicitation. The subsequent arrest then strengthens the case for the search warrant and the warrant to seize any electronic devices purportedly used to engage in the solictation.

My whole problem with this program “To Catch a Predator” is that they are catching the dumbest, most naive, and inexperienced of the bunch. Experienced pedophiles never use their own computers or anything that can be traced back to them. They use blind public access computers and route themselves through anonymous offshore proxies with dynamic IP addresses that change every 30 minutes or so. They never use bank accounts or credit cards that can be traced back to them, or cell phones. The REAL predators that they should be trying to catch make it their business not to get caught. How many of these poor creeps admit that this was their first time and they didn’t know why they were doing it. Its almost cliche.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no sympathy for these guys. They are criminals intent on damaging the innocents of our nation. BUt they are also the LEAST dangerous of the group we should be going after.

 

[JimG]

Well, if the crime is in the solicitation, they have the evidence right in the chat logs. And like I said, I have seen on this program cases where the police make an arrest even though the suspect never stopped his car.

Now I can understand making an arrest if a suspect directly solicits an undercover cop. But to me, this sounds kind of borderline. If one of these idiots makes a solicitation in a chat room, thinks better of it, and never leaves the house, it’s too late, he’s already committed the crime. The cops could come and arrest him. I don’t normally have sympathy for defendants, but this sounds a little to close to thought-crime to me.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well, if the crime is in the solicitation, they have the evidence right in the chat logs. And like I said, I have seen on this program cases where the police make an arrest even though the suspect never stopped his car.

Now I can understand making an arrest if a suspect directly solicits an undercover cop. But to me, this sounds kind of borderline. If one of these idiots makes a solicitation in a chat room, thinks better of it, and never leaves the house, it’s too late, he’s already committed the crime. The cops could come and arrest him. I don’t normally have sympathy for defendants, but this sounds a little to close to thought-crime to me.

They have to have the person respond to the solicitation by acting on it. If the person did it from a public access terminal, they could have the chat room records, but they wouldn’t have anyone to trace it back to. Of course if the person did it from home, they would trace it back to their IP address, which is pretty concrete. The only way to catch someone who makes a solicitation from a public terminal is to have the person go to the “meeting point”.

 

[Marauder]

Well, if the crime is in the solicitation, they have the evidence right in the chat logs. And like I said, I have seen on this program cases where the police make an arrest even though the suspect never stopped his car.

Now I can understand making an arrest if a suspect directly solicits an undercover cop. But to me, this sounds kind of borderline. If one of these idiots makes a solicitation in a chat room, thinks better of it, and never leaves the house, it’s too late, he’s already committed the crime. The cops could come and arrest him. I don’t normally have sympathy for defendants, but this sounds a little to close to thought-crime to me.

The reason things are done they way they do with the Online Special is two-fold.

1. The laws vary state to state. In some states it is illegeal to even solicite a person that is underage or appears underage online. In some states the person actually has to attempt to meet up. In other states there are no laws against what they are doing and even showing up doesn’t show intent. None of the busts happen in those states. Perverted Justice only works with police departments that call them in, not the other way around.
2. Even in states were just talking to someone that may be underage is illegal, showing up at the house with specific items shows specific intent. Not that the person was just fantisizing etc that they will claim.

I like to reiterate, this is not entrapment. The people they are talking to just sit in the chatrooms. The Perverted Justice people just sit there and never make first contact. The double trap that Scott_Lafrance talks about would never work, because you would have to hit on the person that really could be an underage person, you would then have to talk sexual, you would then have to talk ON THE PHONE to verify you are who you say you are. If you didn’t show real intent they wouldn’t proceed with you.

The only thing the Perverted-Justice people are doing is lying about age and responding sexual when the people talk sexual to them. They are not bearing false witness because the entire chat log is kept, the person really talked that way and really showed up at the sting house. These decoys aren’t soliciting men, the men are soliciting them. They are not dressing provocative, they aren’t even in sexual rooms. They are just sitting in common chatrooms. As for your last point about the end not justifying the means, if what they are doing isn’t allowed then NO undercover operations would ever be allowed. This is one of the grey areas that a Catholic in good standing would have to discuss with their spritual adviser and figure out what the dividing lines are for them.

 

[litllulu]

The reason things are done they way they do with the Online Special is two-fold.

1. The laws vary state to state. In some states it is illegeal to even solicite a person that is underage or appears underage online. In some states the person actually has to attempt to meet up. In other states there are no laws against what they are doing and even showing up doesn’t show intent. None of the busts happen in those states. Perverted Justice only works with police departments that call them in, not the other way around.
2. Even in states were just talking to someone that may be underage is illegal, showing up at the house with specific items shows specific intent. Not that the person was just fantisizing etc that they will claim.

I like to reiterate, this is not entrapment. The people they are talking to just sit in the chatrooms. The Perverted Justice people just sit there and never make first contact. The double trap that Scott_Lafrance talks about would never work, because you would have to hit on the person that really could be an underage person, you would then have to talk sexual, you would then have to talk ON THE PHONE to verify you are who you say you are. If you didn’t show real intent they wouldn’t proceed with you.

The only thing the Perverted-Justice people are doing is lying about age and responding sexual when the people talk sexual to them. They are not bearing false witness because the entire chat log is kept, the person really talked that way and really showed up at the sting house. These decoys aren’t soliciting men, the men are soliciting them. They are not dressing provocative, they aren’t even in sexual rooms. They are just sitting in common chatrooms. As for your last point about the end not justifying the means, if what they are doing isn’t allowed then NO undercover operations would ever be allowed. This is one of the grey areas that a Catholic in good standing would have to discuss with their spritual adviser and figure out what the dividing lines are for them.

Amen brotha:thumbsup:

 

[JimG]

Even in states were just talking to someone that may be underage is illegal, showing up at the house with specific items shows specific intent. Not that the person was just fantisizing etc that they will claim.

OK, I can understand that. But I’m still wondering just what constitutes “showing up at the house.” How close do they have to get? Like I said, I’ve seen cases where predators were arrested even when they didn’t get out of their cars. I saw one where the guy—someone actually in law enforcement—turned around and went back home, and the police came then came to his home and arrested him. So even if the predator changes his mind after backing out of the driveway and goes back inside, I’m guessing that the law has already been broken.

And what about Scott’s scenario, where he goes to the house armed with anti-porn pamphlets, bibles, educational material about the dangers of promiscuity, and no sex toys. Would that show intent to proselytize, or would he still be arrested because of the content of the chat logs?

 

[litllulu]

OK, I can understand that. But I’m still wondering just what constitutes “showing up at the house.” How close do they have to get? Like I said, I’ve seen cases where predators were arrested even when they didn’t get out of their cars. I saw one where the guy—someone actually in law enforcement—turned around and went back home, and the police came then came to his home and arrested him. So even if the predator changes his mind after backing out of the driveway and goes back inside, I’m guessing that the law has already been broken.

And what about Scott’s scenario, where he goes to the house armed with anti-porn pamphlets, bibles, educational material about the dangers of promiscuity, and no sex toys. Would that show intent to proselytize, or would he still be arrested because of the content of the chat logs?

Give me a break, Why would a grown man want to prosyltize a twelve year old at there house when the parents aren’t home? That is absurd! And why would they be engaging in “sex talk” or “dirty talk” with a minor to evangelize. Yikes. I hope there are no priests who do that! Too freaky!

 

[Marauder]

OK, I can understand that. But I’m still wondering just what constitutes “showing up at the house.” How close do they have to get? Like I said, I’ve seen cases where predators were arrested even when they didn’t get out of their cars. I saw one where the guy—someone actually in law enforcement—turned around and went back home, and the police came then came to his home and arrested him. So even if the predator changes his mind after backing out of the driveway and goes back inside, I’m guessing that the law has already been broken.

In the situations you described where the person was arrested even though they didn’t go into the house they still broke the laws of that state. In that state it is even illegal to make arrangements for a sexual encounter with someone that is underage or someone you believe is underage. So they were arrested. As the laws are written in that state, showing up in the house just shows more of the intent and more of the degree they were going in order to break the law. My guess is if the person can prove they were chickening out as opposed to figuring out it was a trap they will get a smaller judgement against them, then those that actually went into the house.

And what about Scott’s scenario, where he goes to the house armed with anti-porn pamphlets, bibles, educational material about the dangers of promiscuity, and no sex toys. Would that show intent to proselytize, or would he still be arrested because of the content of the chat logs?

As litlulu said, why would you start out by talking in a sexual nature, arrange a private meeting with a girl, etc. to proselytize a child? If you brought that stuff I am sure the cops will say that you brought something to cover up if you are caught. As was said in the earlier section, you already broke the law for arranging for a meeting for sex. If you were talking “ambigously” they wouldn’t make the arrangements. Belive me when I tell you that the actual Perverted-Justice contributors have been well versed in the federal laws and the laws of the particular states when they assist with the bust.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As I said. It was hypothetical and I dismissed it as a stupid idea.

 

[chevalier]

The only thing the Perverted-Justice people are doing is lying about age and responding sexual when the people talk sexual to them.

And here’s the question: Should people engage in such sexual conversations? I understand that if there’s no actual physical thing ever being done, it can qualify as acting and not performing a sexual activity, but still. There is some problem with it.

 

[Marauder]

And here’s the question: Should people engage in such sexual conversations? I understand that if there’s no actual physical thing ever being done, it can qualify as acting and not performing a sexual activity, but still. There is some problem with it.

That was the part that led me to think it was at least a near occasion of sin when I helped as a Human Shield with Perverted-Justice and decided to stop doing it. I am not saying I was enjoying the sexual talk, because I was grossed out that some pervert would talk this way to someone he believed was an underage kid, but I felt it wasn’t for me.

But the key is, how would ANY undercover operation work if you were not allowed to do stuff like this. If all of a sudden you had to stop when something turned into a sinful topic then the person you are trying to catch would immediately know you were an undercover person. As I said before if you are a Catholic in good standing and want to do any undercover work you would need to talk over the stuff with a spiritual adviser to figure out what line you personally should draw.