Topic: perverted justice- is it entrapment?
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ started this discussion 14 years ago #18,661
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 31 minutes later[^] [v] #309,046
@OP
Why did the founder of PJ destroy his hard drive? What do you think was on it?
Why haven't any of them been busted fr CP? They encourage people to send it to them.
Also, does catching a pervert who was looking for a consenting partner worth ruining many many many more lives? It isn't quite the same as catching Sandusky.
Why did the founder of PJ destroy his hard drive? What do you think was on it?
Why haven't any of them been busted fr CP? They encourage people to send it to them.
Also, does catching a pervert who was looking for a consenting partner worth ruining many many many more lives? It isn't quite the same as catching Sandusky.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #309,047
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,252
@309,046 (B)
Species with longer times to sexual maturation typically enjoy a survival advantage to those with shorter life cycles, and they're usually higher up the food chain as a result.
Our compulsion to devour pedophiles is simply nature at work.
Species with longer times to sexual maturation typically enjoy a survival advantage to those with shorter life cycles, and they're usually higher up the food chain as a result.
Our compulsion to devour pedophiles is simply nature at work.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,255
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,266
It's entrapment by definition. The whole thing is just stupid, what is the point in sending a man to jail, that means everyone that depends on him is displaced, his children, his partner, his employer, he gets publicly humiliated, and for what? For trying to arrange sex with a child? It wasn't even a child, it was a "decoy" (I never understood that whole deal either). No victim no crime. It's good entertainment, but so obviously not virtuous. You may think arranging consensual sex with a child is gross, but is it really, morally wrong? Honestly I don't believe so.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,268
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,270
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,276
@previous (E)
No, there's like laws and stuff.
I'm not claiming anything.
Ask a judge, i'm sure they'll explain it better.
No, there's like laws and stuff.
I'm not claiming anything.
Ask a judge, i'm sure they'll explain it better.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,277
@309,266 (E)
> It's entrapment by definition.
No it isn't. Entrapment only applies to conduct by law enforcement agents (at least in the U.S.). If the chatlogs or other evidence is turned over to police after it has been collected by civilians, and the police in no way encourage the person to meet with the child, then it isn't entrapment.
It would be entrapment if some police officers acting in their official capacity as law enforcement agents coerced some adult into meeting with an underage person for ostensibly sexual reasons, provided that originally, the adult had little to no inclination to meet up for those reasons.
> It's entrapment by definition.
No it isn't. Entrapment only applies to conduct by law enforcement agents (at least in the U.S.). If the chatlogs or other evidence is turned over to police after it has been collected by civilians, and the police in no way encourage the person to meet with the child, then it isn't entrapment.
It would be entrapment if some police officers acting in their official capacity as law enforcement agents coerced some adult into meeting with an underage person for ostensibly sexual reasons, provided that originally, the adult had little to no inclination to meet up for those reasons.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 34 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,279
@309,266 (E)
> what is the point in sending a man to jail, that means everyone that depends on him is displaced, his children, his partner, his employer, he gets publicly humiliated, and for what? For trying to arrange sex with a child?
Would you say the same thing if he actually had sex with a child?
> what is the point in sending a man to jail, that means everyone that depends on him is displaced, his children, his partner, his employer, he gets publicly humiliated, and for what? For trying to arrange sex with a child?
Would you say the same thing if he actually had sex with a child?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,280
A lot of these cases are children who are ages 13-14. Personally I think a 14 year old has the ability to decide for him/herself whether to have sex or not. I see no problem with 13-14 year olds consenting to sex with older people.
However, in these cases where the "predator" will black mail the "victim", or offer protection of some sort if the victim provides sexual favors. I think that's kind of fucked up. But that'd be fucked up if it wasn't a child.
However, in these cases where the "predator" will black mail the "victim", or offer protection of some sort if the victim provides sexual favors. I think that's kind of fucked up. But that'd be fucked up if it wasn't a child.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,281
@previous (I)
I think 14 is a bit low, but current sex laws are extremely arbitrary and often do more harm than good. You can get legally grouped in with serial child predators for life by fucking a 17-year-old, 364-day-old girl.
I think 14 is a bit low, but current sex laws are extremely arbitrary and often do more harm than good. You can get legally grouped in with serial child predators for life by fucking a 17-year-old, 364-day-old girl.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,282
@309,279 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It really depends so much. If he raped a 6-year-old, that is a lot different to giving oral sex to a consenting 14-year-old.
@309,280 (I)
I agree. No problem with it as long as the child wasn't blackmailed, coerced or whatever. 14-year-olds are aware of what they're doing, they may regret it at a later date, but so what?
It really depends so much. If he raped a 6-year-old, that is a lot different to giving oral sex to a consenting 14-year-old.
@309,280 (I)
I agree. No problem with it as long as the child wasn't blackmailed, coerced or whatever. 14-year-olds are aware of what they're doing, they may regret it at a later date, but so what?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,283
@309,281 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
Well they are arbitrary in the sense that biologically, psychologically, etc. there isn't a significant difference between someone on the day of their 18th birthday and the day before, but it's not arbitrary in the sense that legislators just picked any age they felt like. There is a big difference between someone who is 18 and someone who is 12, and since the U.S. government cannot feasibly tailor the law to suit every single instance of sexual contact between and among minors, there are some rough cutoffs and potential inconsistencies. Most states do try to accommodate that concern with "Romeo and Juliet" laws so that two 14 year olds having sex isn't usually illegal (unless the parents decide to pursue legal action), but at the same time, a 28 year old person having sex with a 14 year old is still illegal.
Well they are arbitrary in the sense that biologically, psychologically, etc. there isn't a significant difference between someone on the day of their 18th birthday and the day before, but it's not arbitrary in the sense that legislators just picked any age they felt like. There is a big difference between someone who is 18 and someone who is 12, and since the U.S. government cannot feasibly tailor the law to suit every single instance of sexual contact between and among minors, there are some rough cutoffs and potential inconsistencies. Most states do try to accommodate that concern with "Romeo and Juliet" laws so that two 14 year olds having sex isn't usually illegal (unless the parents decide to pursue legal action), but at the same time, a 28 year old person having sex with a 14 year old is still illegal.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,316
don't forget that the perverted justice people have been in possession of cp. they encourage the distribution of child pornography. They should be murdered and raped.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,318
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,321
@309,316 (B)
There is no "justice" in "perverted justice". They don't stop any children from getting abused, they just incarcerate innocent men for attempting to arrange consensual sex with a fictitious barely underage individual. Retarded.
There is no "justice" in "perverted justice". They don't stop any children from getting abused, they just incarcerate innocent men for attempting to arrange consensual sex with a fictitious barely underage individual. Retarded.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,334
@309,281 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
It seems arbitrary, yeah, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Can't have vague laws about these things.
It seems arbitrary, yeah, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Can't have vague laws about these things.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #309,338
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If anything, they're too vague as it is. They allow judges to twist the law to suit their own twisted sense of justice. Most judges are pretty good, but all it takes is that one psycho judge with his head up his ass to pervert the laws. It also allows angry prude moms to pursue legal action against boys who would otherwise be in perfectly normal relationships. Put the psycho judge and the psycho mom in the same room and some 15-year-old kid has his life ruined because his girlfriend sent him a picture of her tits.
If anything, they're too vague as it is. They allow judges to twist the law to suit their own twisted sense of justice. Most judges are pretty good, but all it takes is that one psycho judge with his head up his ass to pervert the laws. It also allows angry prude moms to pursue legal action against boys who would otherwise be in perfectly normal relationships. Put the psycho judge and the psycho mom in the same room and some 15-year-old kid has his life ruined because his girlfriend sent him a picture of her tits.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,391
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It should be illegal for all persons under a specific age to have any type of sexual relations whatsoever. I'm not saying what such an age should be, but it should be cut and dry same as drinking. NO SEX BEFORE AGE X.
Making exceptions when both parties are minors is fucking retarded. If an 18 year old sells alcohol to a 16 year old does he get away with it simple because he's not 21. Fuck no!
It should be illegal for all persons under a specific age to have any type of sexual relations whatsoever. I'm not saying what such an age should be, but it should be cut and dry same as drinking. NO SEX BEFORE AGE X.
Making exceptions when both parties are minors is fucking retarded. If an 18 year old sells alcohol to a 16 year old does he get away with it simple because he's not 21. Fuck no!
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,392
@309,338 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Uh, how are these laws too vague? I think it's pretty damn clear what is illegal and not.
Uh, how are these laws too vague? I think it's pretty damn clear what is illegal and not.
Stealth replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,423
@309,046 (B)
> Why haven't any of them been busted fr CP? They encourage people to send it to them.
Cops the DA - Judge - Have CP from a case. Should they also be busted?
Private Eyes hired to work on CP cases. Should they be busted?
Now if you want a shock? Go to the FBI/DOJ website as if you have located CP and want to report it. If you follow the steps as I have....You will discover that YOU will be referred to a private organization. Trying to go directly to the FBI or DOJ and bypassing the refereed NCMEC will result in a email and I have a very nice one thanking me - YET Telling me to follow the required steps.
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
Mission and History. (a private, (501)(c)(3) nonprofit organization which was created in 1984.)
They also operate under a pile of mandates from the US Congress which includes "Operate a cyber tipline to provide online users and electronic service providers an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in the areas of--
(i) possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography
(ii) online enticement of children for sexual acts"
This means THEY have files of CP.
> Why haven't any of them been busted fr CP? They encourage people to send it to them.
Cops the DA - Judge - Have CP from a case. Should they also be busted?
Private Eyes hired to work on CP cases. Should they be busted?
Now if you want a shock? Go to the FBI/DOJ website as if you have located CP and want to report it. If you follow the steps as I have....You will discover that YOU will be referred to a private organization. Trying to go directly to the FBI or DOJ and bypassing the refereed NCMEC will result in a email and I have a very nice one thanking me - YET Telling me to follow the required steps.
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
Mission and History. (a private, (501)(c)(3) nonprofit organization which was created in 1984.)
They also operate under a pile of mandates from the US Congress which includes "Operate a cyber tipline to provide online users and electronic service providers an effective means of reporting Internet-related child sexual exploitation in the areas of--
(i) possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography
(ii) online enticement of children for sexual acts"
This means THEY have files of CP.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,426
@previous (Stealth)
Christ what are you dense or something? The police have CP because they are using it to investigate crime. There is no reason for those bullshit anti-scum retards to be negated from the law just because they are doing their immoral nonsense. It just isn't right.
Christ what are you dense or something? The police have CP because they are using it to investigate crime. There is no reason for those bullshit anti-scum retards to be negated from the law just because they are doing their immoral nonsense. It just isn't right.
Stealth replied with this 14 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,441
@previous (E)
You just jelly because the Org u b angry with offers candy to entice the perp. Life has traps. Have mice? Set a trap with cheese.
Wiki on this:
In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime had it not been for inducement or persuasion on the part of some government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. For example, if a defendant had purchased illegal drugs from an undercover officer, he may be found not guilty if it is determined that the officer initiated the transaction or aggressively pressed the accused to complete it.
Seems to me simple and I have watched only a few of the TV episodes. Sum scum bucket wants a child and finds one from the net and makes the trip to a house to make the move on the child/teen.
Its not rocket science to put cheese in the mouse trap and trap a mouse.
You just jelly because the Org u b angry with offers candy to entice the perp. Life has traps. Have mice? Set a trap with cheese.
Wiki on this:
In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime had it not been for inducement or persuasion on the part of some government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. For example, if a defendant had purchased illegal drugs from an undercover officer, he may be found not guilty if it is determined that the officer initiated the transaction or aggressively pressed the accused to complete it.
Seems to me simple and I have watched only a few of the TV episodes. Sum scum bucket wants a child and finds one from the net and makes the trip to a house to make the move on the child/teen.
Its not rocket science to put cheese in the mouse trap and trap a mouse.
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,512
@309,426 (E)
If you don't solicit/seek out CP, but receive it anyway, it's not "really" a crime if you either report it to the police. Extremely unlikely to be prosecuted (but if it is, it's an affirmative defense).
If you don't solicit/seek out CP, but receive it anyway, it's not "really" a crime if you either report it to the police. Extremely unlikely to be prosecuted (but if it is, it's an affirmative defense).
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Stealth replied with this 14 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,516
@previous (M)
Hey I took 2 years of law just for the fun of it at UCLA years ago and learned one truly great thing. Law and common sense mean for the rest of my life I use top level legal types when necessary.
Buttttttt I do know this much. IF You keep CP on your computer? File system and tyme stamps will show you have illegal content and hey if you want 2b butt fucked in prison ya got one hell of a chance of getting what you want.
A few here know the story about the tyme I clicked on a web site (forum) and then clicked on an ad that headlined that forum. One click and the montage was truly horrible and illegal. Discovered the reporting procedure and ended up with phone call from FBI. No one told me to be sure to delete temp files. I sure made sure I did. At the very least look up how many people have tried your affirmative defense - depends on State - Country -
Just looking at CNN I C a booking photo of someone who has an affirmative defense - Even if the Perp gets off of Murder - he will end up broke for life paying the attorney bills.
Hey I took 2 years of law just for the fun of it at UCLA years ago and learned one truly great thing. Law and common sense mean for the rest of my life I use top level legal types when necessary.
Buttttttt I do know this much. IF You keep CP on your computer? File system and tyme stamps will show you have illegal content and hey if you want 2b butt fucked in prison ya got one hell of a chance of getting what you want.
A few here know the story about the tyme I clicked on a web site (forum) and then clicked on an ad that headlined that forum. One click and the montage was truly horrible and illegal. Discovered the reporting procedure and ended up with phone call from FBI. No one told me to be sure to delete temp files. I sure made sure I did. At the very least look up how many people have tried your affirmative defense - depends on State - Country -
Just looking at CNN I C a booking photo of someone who has an affirmative defense - Even if the Perp gets off of Murder - he will end up broke for life paying the attorney bills.
Anonymous M replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,554
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #309,556
@309,423 (Stealth)
The difference is that those organizations aren't trying to satisfy a sexual kink. Thu aren't some dude in his mom's basement or his bedroom. Those other organizations have oversight.
Also, I've used the cyber tipline before to report sexual abuse (dude admitted to findit a tape of his brother-in-law shooting his seed all over his daughter's face. He thought it was cute she said "I love you daddy." the story seemed like his fantasy, but i reported him nonetheless). I would never aid perverted-justice.
Perverted-justice often goes too far. They're standards and practices are diagusting. They used to encourage people to destroy the lives of the families of the people they tricked.
The difference is that those organizations aren't trying to satisfy a sexual kink. Thu aren't some dude in his mom's basement or his bedroom. Those other organizations have oversight.
Also, I've used the cyber tipline before to report sexual abuse (dude admitted to findit a tape of his brother-in-law shooting his seed all over his daughter's face. He thought it was cute she said "I love you daddy." the story seemed like his fantasy, but i reported him nonetheless). I would never aid perverted-justice.
Perverted-justice often goes too far. They're standards and practices are diagusting. They used to encourage people to destroy the lives of the families of the people they tricked.