Talk:To Catch a Predator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Entrapment 2 Corrupted Justice link 3 Logical Explanations? 4 Removed Criticism section 5 Wording 6 media release ?

[edit] Entrapment

Is entrapment an issue here? It seems to be an "induced" crime commited; maybe it doesn't count because the police is not directly involved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.57.197.39 (talk • contribs) .

As far as I know, no mark has ever raised the entrapment issue in court -- and if one has, then it wasn't successful. It used to be that Perverted Justice stings were not considered entrapment primarily because "entrapment" as defined in law can only be performed by law enforcement. However, for a recent sting, the contributors were actually deputized, which would seem to mean they'd be capable of entrapping while deputized. Considering, though, that law enforcement agencies throughout the country perform these sorts of stings themselves, even without PeeJ, entrapment is clearly not an issue. The reason it's not an issue is found in the Entrapment article: "For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment..." Powers ^T 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See also this "Explainer" article from Slate. Powers ^T 12:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In short, no. As has already been mentioned, the principle of entrapment only applies to law enforcement, and in addition to this, PeeJ's policies are to never make the first contact or suggest any sort of sexual encounter. However, once contact and intent have been established, the PeeJ volunteer may initiate individual chats to feign interest. theProject 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding on entrapment is that it's a crime. Yes it is usable as defense, and it only counts as a defense if police or agents of the police commit it. The reason being that it's misconduct that effectively compromises the intregrity of the investigation. If entrapment is not commited by either the police or their agents that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just means a defendant can't use it as a legal defense. However, the person who entrapped the defendant can still be charged. Still, with issues of the burden of proof it is much harder to convict someone for entrapment than it is to acquit them for entrapment; although it does sometimes happen, usually to careless law enforcement officers.

As for entrapment and the show. I suspect that fortunately or tragically depending on how you look at it, it's not that hard to find and lure child molesters without actually going out of your way with solicitations to the point of entrapping them. It's perhaps worth pointing out that like most males these guys are horndogs easy to lead by a certain extremity to their undoing.

(Edit) Oh and recalling that episode of the Boondocks "Guess Ho's Coming to Dinner". No, it is not entrapment if he doesn't tell you he's a cop. More to the point it's still entrapment even if he tells you he's a cop. (For example: "Hey I'm going to rob that Seven11." "I'm not a cop!" "Um... Didn't say you were. So, do you wanna watch?" versus "Hi I'm a cop. Do you want to rob the Seven11?") 68.48.160.243 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[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)

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] Logical Explanations?

Nearly each and every one caught in this sting tries to offer some sort of explanation...none of them seem valid. This makes me wonder...is there ANY logical explanation for why an adult would go to the home of a 13 year old that they've spoken to in a sexual manner online (other than the obvious)? I'm also wondering how safe Chris Hansen is. What if one of these guys pulled out a gun?

Well, obviously Hansen's in some danger every time he steps out -- these guys are people who have just allegedly committed a crime, after all. The security process, though, was detailed in a blog post here. The confrontation area is removed of any objects (kitchen knifes especially) that might pose a threat. You will also notice that Hansen usually asks those with their hands in their pockets to take them out. And, of course, the police are never far away.

A lot of potential predators also seem to think Hansen is a police officer too, which may work to his benefit (he would be armed and trained in the use of a gun, and criminal penalties for shooting a police officer are often much higher). Obviously all of this is no use against a potential predator bent on shooting a police officer to conceal a crime, but as the Dateline series has aimed to show, while there are some career criminals in the mix, many are just regular, even respected professionals in society. theProject 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, the Petaluma investigation saw an active-duty sniper with the Marine Corps who said that he brought his shotgun wherever he went. Police took him down immediately, before any confrontation with Hansen. theProject 01:50, 10 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) .

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)

[edit] Wording

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] media release ?

I am just wondering after watching a few episodes, how in hell do they get these guys to sign a release for television broadcast ? As far as I understand, to use images of someone on television, that person has to sign a waiver allowing for use of that footage...if they didn't then that footage would be unusable, right ? Then again, how does Cops keep producing episdoes ? Dowew 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Waivers can be signed after the fact. Those who refuse to sign waivers don't have to have their footage aired. Which maybe begs what possesses these men to submit to such spectacle. I suspect it has something to do with the particular variant of antisocial personalities that lend themselves to pedophilia. In particular, these men desire to provoke sympathy by the viewers or some segment of the viewers. 68.48.160.243 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure if waivers are required. They generally investigate all the laws on hidden camera taping before they begin the investigation. theProject 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a news investigation broadcast, hence no waivers are needed. XavierVE 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)