Dr. Venkman wrote:So, someone who has sex with a six-year old is less culpable than someone who kills a rival drug dealer or shoots the guy banging his wife?

My argument is not that the child rapist (and mind you, we're talking statutory rape here with an extremely willing partner, not violent, forcible rape) is less culpable. It's whether the viability of the threat justifies the excessiveness of the tactics used to entrap people and obtain convictions, and I don't think it does.

Like I said, show me proof that Internet-associated child rape or abductions are a significant threat and I'll agree that the tactics are worth catching anybody who would act on the impulse to have sex with an underage person under coercion.

steve wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Ok, These dudes say I am bringing booze condoms and I'm gonna fuck you to what they think is a kid.

You realize that this whole scenario plays out this way because the cops pretend to be willing kids, right? That if there wasn't a "willing" "kid" there, then none of this would be happening, right? They create crimes in order to arrest people, they do not stop crimes from happening.

You seem to presume that all this goes on all the time anyway, then okay, do some policework, find those situations and interrupt them. That might actually be stopping a crime. This bullshit is just arresting people.

Do you believe that removing these people from the street does nothing to prevent these crimes from happening? Thank christ there aren't "willing kids" involved. This time.

Yes, I feel that in many cases these guys would never have acted on such an impulse if there wasn't another adult engaging them in adult conversation the way an adult would do, trying to push their buttons. And I believe that televising these conversations and posting the sexually explicit chat sessions on the Internet actively encourages that activity.

Go visit the Perverted Justice website and see if you can stand to read through one of those chat logs without viscerally wanting to puke. What kind of person do you suppose would actually want to read through that kind of material?

Marsupialized wrote:Maybe they have a mailing list where you can send cards and letters to the wrongly accused innocent men who troll chat sites for children to fuck all day long.

must be third or fourth time you've pulled this one

still embarrassing

muzorewi's daughter wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Maybe they have a mailing list where you can send cards and letters to the wrongly accused innocent men who troll chat sites for children to fuck all day long.

must be third or fourth time you've pulled this one

still embarrassing

I'd be embarrassed too

Colonel Panic wrote:

Dr. Venkman wrote:So, someone who has sex with a six-year old is less culpable than someone who kills a rival drug dealer or shoots the guy banging his wife?

My argument is not that the child rapist (and mind you, we're talking statutory rape here, not violent, forcible rape) is less culpable.

Well, duh. I'm not talking about that. Forget about the eighteen year old with a sixteen year old stuff for a second. That's not what you had originally said. I'm talking about rape. The rape of an innocent child. Which is, in my opinion, a world away from vehicular fucking manslaughter or accessory to murder.

Col. wrote:It's whether the viability of the threat justifies the excessiveness of the tactics used to entrap people and obtain convictions, and I don't think it does.

The willingness of these creeps to participate in this type of behavior is plenty viable.

Col. wrote:Like I said, show me proof that Internet-associated child rape or abductions are a significant threat and I'll agree that the tactics are worth catching anybody who would act on the impulse to have sex with an underage person under coercion.

The proof is in the pudding, my friend. They show up. They're ready for love. Provbably not the first time, either. Come the fuck on!

Show me some statistics that it's a serious threat against innocent children, and I'll agree with you.

To me, it all looks like a bunch of hype.

Colonel Panic wrote:Show me some statistics that it's a serious threat against innocent children, and I'll agree with you.

To me, it all looks like a bunch of hype.

I don't know what else you need. They show up at the fucking house! You guys seem content with allowing the rapes to go on first. I honestly don't understand the logic. My head is fucking spinning.

I have no problem, constitutionally or otherwise, to protect kids from rapists first and ask questions later.

I have a problem with people being actively coerced into flirting with the idea of doing something illegal, then being arrested and prosecuted as if they'd actually committed a crime.

I think it's extremely telling that the majority of these charges do not stick, but the guys' lives are ruined nonetheless. They often lose their jobs and their marriages and are forever branded by everyone they know as a pedophile, when they haven't really done anything illegal.

Dr. Venkman wrote:I have no problem, constitutionally or otherwise, to protect kids from rapists first and ask questions later.

That's funny you say that, because the first thing I noticed when I saw the show in question is that it provides a road map to kid fucking for a marginally intelligent pedophile.