entrapment or not

You are (of course) right that OJ is in jail. If public opinion contributed-- this would be a bad thing.

(OJ's own stupidity had a lot to do with it.)

I am all for civil rights including the right to enjoy your home in peace no matter who your neighbors happen to be<grin>.

Second comment farmerman from watching the Date line show the kind of men they are entrapping for the most part are tax-paying citizens in some cases supporting families.

Now if they are a real danger to real children ruining their lives and locking them up for years is worth losing them as supporting members of society and their families but if they would not likely be a danger to children then we are cutting our own throats.

A drug research doctor for example catch on the Date Line show making many hundreds of thousands of dollars, supporting a family and doing a job that few can do that is also of great benefit to society is ruin.

Now if he just someone with a sick sexual drive that would not had been trigger but for an internet decoy acting in a manner that real girls of that age would not act what had we as a society gain?

A few minutes of entrainment on a TV show and that is it?

I would love to seem some kinds of studies that support the idea that the men being entrap are likely danger to real children.

This has to be the most clueless post I have ever read on this site. You must live in a sound proof bubble where some fairy godmother censors the world for you so you don't become too shocked. I refuse to waste my time getting data for you about child sexual abuse that is so easily available.

Bill generally shows himself to be pretty clueless (as well as barely literate). It seems not to have occurred to him that these men whose lives were ruined were out there, online, hunting up young girls in the first place. It's not as though anyone forced them to cruise the chat rooms.

I guess Bill thinks it's Ok to molest children as long as the perpetrator pays his taxes and drives his family to church on Sunday. Maybe even give the Sunday sermon.

I have to say I side with Bill here GreenWitch. He asked a fair question (the key word here being "entrap[ped]").

My question is: Is there any evidence that these programs that entrap men (or women if there are any programs that target women) do any good in reducing the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse.

I have seen zero evidence that these practices by law enforcment (and TV entertainers) do any good in protecting children. And, it is clear there are civil rights issues and possible social harm. Given the fact that the vast majority of child sexual abuse happens not from strangers but from family members or trusted friends; I think my skepticism that this is anything more than overreaction is reasonable.

So don't dodge the question...

If you want to claim that tricking adults into thinking that children are coming on to them has any effect in reducing real childhood sexual abuse, back it up with evidence.

I think sexual abuse is horrible, and that we should make every reasonable effort to prevent it.

Witch hunts are neither reasonable nor effective.

We have several instances of actual entrapment where the cop (maybe a woman, maybe a man) actually begins the discussion re: sex and sexual congress etc. There will be a case in the Fed District of PA re: a potential emtrapment . In this case, happened in Harrisburg, the individual was given a setup by police masquerading as kids. SO when the guy came out to "collect" he was greeted by the cop who posed as a kid and was arrested for assignation for sex with a minor.

We had a thread on a SPECIFIC case and , like the San Diego pastor, it wound up not going anywhere but having a bunch of people(like you on the other thread) posting irrelevant attempts at connections and people missing the point about civil rights and guarantees in the constitution.

There is no "benevolence" in shattering the Bill of Rights for whatever noble sounding reasons.

Green Witch what percent of those hundred of men who was on Date Line have any history of harming any real children?

You do not wish to know that information?

Yes children are harm however is this group that decoys over the internet trap are a high risk group for harming real children or not?

I see that people continue to ignore that men in their 30s, 40s, 50s and probably even older are visiting chat rooms which are frequented by adolescent girls. It would be pretty damned hard to entrap someone who didn't visit those sites in the first place, or who broke contact as soon as the subject of sex came up. What is a 27 year old man doing in a chat room frequented by 11 year olds? Was he there for the subtle repartee? Perhaps for the sparkling wit?

These was adult decoys acting in a manner that children are not likely to act in my opinion.

What part of my barely literate point do you not understand?

What percent of the men shown on TV have a history of being child abuser in real life?

Once more what part of that question do you fail to understand?

The part in which you base your opinion on conjecture rather than a review of the facts. The "facts" that we have from the initial post show that a man of 27 met someone in a chat room who told him up front that she was 11 years old. He made arrangements to meet her, despite the fact that she had already told him she was 11 years old.

What part of the question of what he was doing in an adolescent chat room in the first place do you not get?

Setanta I stated that they had a sick sexual drive however once more are they a threat to real children acting like real children or not?

Locking people up for having sick sexual fantasies seem pointless unless it can be shown that such people have a high record of harming real children in real life.

Being sicking should not be a crime in my opinion in itself and not for their benefit but for ours.

That Date Line show alone had take tens of millions of dollars worth of labor away from society and lock it up for a cost of ten or more million dollars more. Taken the bread winner of a hundred families or more away also.

Now it would be worth while if we are locking people that had harm children or are highly likely to harm children in the future.

That is not a given for me and doing a study would not be all that costly to find out for sure.

Ooo . . . well, if Nighline did a program on it, it must be so ! ! !

Listen, Bubba, think this out for a moment. You don't think they should be bothered unless they harm children, or have a potential to harm them in the future. If they show up in an adolescent chat room, and make an assignation with someone they consider to be a minor, does it not occur to you that they have demonstrated a potential for harming children?

Fantasy is bad enough, but these men go out of their way to meet these girls after communicating in a sexual manner with them on the internet. They are cruising for sex and many them are in professions that give them access to children. Would you want one of these men as your daughter's third grade math teacher? You are welcome to your opinions, but it's the people you would never expect who are committing most of these crimes. Dateline may take their reporting into the realm of the extreme, but maybe, just maybe it will make some creep think twice or even lock up some dentist who was leering at your eleven year old daughter while cleaning her teeth.

that Americans are willing to punish not based upon bad acts but rather fear that an individual will commit bad acts show how far our democracy has slipped. The society that punishes individuals whom have thoughts that are not wanted is fucked, it matters little if the thoughts are sexual or something else, because if we can go after one we can go after them all. Many societies have done this (china, the soviets, the nazi's) but we claim to despise THOSE folks. We are showing a propensity to do the exact same thing.

Getting back to the original post:



Like sozobe and others, I don't really understand what's going on here. The possible scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Man: How old are you?
Girl: Eleven LOL
Man: Wanna have sex?
Result: This isn't entrapment.

Scenario 2:
Man: How old are you?
Girl: Eleven LOL. Wanna have sex?
Man: Well, ok
Result: This is probably entrapment.

Scenario 3:
Man: How old are you?
Girl: Eleven LOL. Wanna have sex?
Man: Whoa, way too young!
Girl: Well, actually, I'm 28. Here's a picture of me

Man: Uh, are you sure you're 28? And a woman?
Girl: Let's meet IRL. I'll bring a friend along who's an adult
Man: That's just stupid enough to make sense to me
Result: This is idiotic. It's not even against the law. Why are you wasting my time?

I knew Hawkeye could not stay away. The rapist boy is concerned to protect the right of adolescent girls to screw the adult men they lust for. We all know that teenybopper girls lie awake at night, writhing and moaning as they dream of screwing a middle-aged man with a beer gut and a mortgage. How can we deny them?

Listen, Bubba, think this out for a moment. You don't think they should be bothered unless they harm children, or have a potential to harm them in the future. If they show up in an adolescent chat room, and make an assignation with someone they consider to be a minor, does it not occur to you that they have demonstrated a potential for harming children?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that none of them or at least very few of them had any criminal history and they are in their middle years for the most part I do not grant that the men as a group that appear on Date Line is proven to be a danger.

So is a showing that there is a history in this group of men of real life child abuse before we begin making a game and a TV show of locking them up a great deal to ask?

people can think and desire anything that they damn well please, it is only by bad acts that one can violate the law. Once you lose sight of that you are lost. You priming the pump for a return of some of the worse abuses of individuals that have taken place over the last 100 years. For a man who claims to know about history your position on this matter is indefensible, you can't claim ignorance as most people can.