Pedophile Gets Busted

[SaLiVa]

Pedophile

It's safe to say these guys are everywhere... Sick bastards.

[Captain_Wang]

He looks like a paedophile though, I know it's strange but you can kind of tell.

[Panacik]

Not sure... Is that link work safe or not?

[Captain_Wang]

Fairly yes, nothing bad is shown, it looks like a news report or not dissimilar. Like watchdog or something.

[Aaron Veteran]

That was from a special the other night called "To catch a predator" or something similar. They set up these guys and arrange meetings to bust them on camera. It is amazing to me how many guys they nab and how quickly they can set up these meetings (sometimes just hours after first online contact). Another scary thing is this show was the 6th installment!

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

He looks like a paedophile though, I know it's strange but you can kind of tell.

I disagree, and that is from personal experience. And yes, it seems they are everywhere :(

[Japlabot]

Must be a set up, didn't even look the slightest bit surprised.

[SaLiVa]

Must be a set up, didn't even look the slightest bit surprised.

I thought that too... Either very bad acting, or he was trying to keep his cool.

[Aaron Veteran]

Must be a set up, didn't even look the slightest bit surprised.

No, it is a legit news show that has aired about 6 installments of their stings.

[vincent]

Why can't these guys get sent to Iraq...

[DAaaMan64]

Line 'em up and shoot 'em, no second chances.

[Captain_Wang]

I disagree, and that is from personal experience. And yes, it seems they are everywhere :(

Sorry I didn't mean that in general, I just meant with this scumbag. Sorry, didn't mean to touch a nerve :pinch: .

P.S I would genuinely vote in favour of castrating serious paedophiles.

[kombolcha]

did you guys see the one where the guy brought this 4 year old son with him?

[goodcase]

NBC's special. I saw one of the first ones when they were cathing guys who went to little boys houses. One of the people was a rabbai...its disgusting.

After the interview with that one guy they go out side and they immidiatly get arrested.

[Toology]

Yeah, its a Dateline report. They were actually working with the local law enforcement this time so they could arrest the pervs instead of letting them leave like the first installment. Sick b*stard looked scared s*itless when the host came out.

did you guys see the one where the guy brought this 4 year old son with him?

That guy has got to be one of the worst. I don't doubt that he abuses his son either.

[SaguratuS]

Time to play devil's advocate, with everyone screaming "pedo's need to burn alive!"...

I'm asexual (simply not interested in anything), which is why I can express a neutral point of view on this topic.

Someone who goes out to seek a partner where mutual consent isn't established is a sexual predator. A "pedophile" is not someone who tries to take advantage of your kids.

Why does our society consider reproduction to be a taboo at these ages?

Let's say you have a teenager, 17 or so, who happens to be interested in 13 year old kids (but hasn't, and won't ever "take advantage" of any situation). Should this kid still face the wrath of society? What if it's a physical trait, not always a choice, much like heterosexuality / homosexuality?

Let's say this kid has some amazing design talent, and creates photorealistic renders of minors engaging in sexual activity, who then posts them publically (along with proof that they're renders). Is it wrong? Moreso, should it be illegal to distribute such images, and why?

Meanwhile, here's a couple of quotes from page 1 in this thread.

It's safe to say these guys are everywhere... Sick bastards.

Why can't these guys get sent to Iraq...

Line 'em up and shoot 'em, no second chances.

...I just meant with this scumbag...

P.S I would genuinely vote in favour of castrating serious paedophiles.

Edit: If you wish to argue, debate, flame, question, or talk to me in greater detail, please do so via aim/msn (available in my profile). Unfortunately I'm unable to be around neowin as much as I'd like

Edited May 16, 2006 by SaguratuS

[Autoexec]

I'm not sure where your coming from there Saguratus.

I mean a 4 year age gap of course isnt so bad but when you have 30 odd men preying on 13 year olds its a completley different matter.

Im not particularly sure your 17/13 comment has any relevance....

[SaguratuS]

My reasoning being that the age difference would technically make him a pedophile, and seen as one for that matter. People are harsh when it comes to this, and if a person is "technically" a pedophile, that's all they need (and want) to put a nail in the coffin. Haven't you heard about the kids taking pictures of themselves getting charged with child pornography? If that weren't wrong enough, let's say you had some fun with technology as a kid and had some explicit pictures or videos of yourself. Later on, you distribute them for whatever reason. You will be charged with a felony. Why is this?

According to a 2005 study by Internal Affairs, "young people aged 15 to 20" were the largest demographic group of those convicted of child pornography possession. [4] This increased incidence may not indicate proportional desire, but rather the idea that the younger group may more frequently pursue such images under the perception that they're too young to be prosecuted for it, as well as general trends for disregarding law and consequences among the immature. (Someone needs to rethink this last surmise, it's a facile explanation for the specific paraphilia.)

With the age of photorealistic cg, we're running into a very harsh topic here. Do we ban such material without justification, just because of what it is? Let's say our talented cg artist decides to make a 3d model from scratch of a minor to use in a photorealistic scene, and omits no details. This artist then makes the model public, for use and manipulation in other projects. Should this person be arrested?

The US has deemed "simulated" cp to be legal in 2002. How would you view a person who produced simulated photorealistic cp?

Edit:

Browsing through a wikipedia article...

In New Zealand any material that promotes or supports the sexual exploitation of children or young people, or tends to promote or support it, is considered 'objectionable' and is illegal. The definition can apply to text (including fiction), art, cartoons, still images or moving images. It can also apply to images of adult models who appear to be younger than their actual age. Few other countries have such broad definitions of child pornography.

Possession of child pornography is an offence punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. Distribution of child pornography is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. These penalties were introduced in 2005, following widespread concern that New Zealand's penalties were too lenient. Previously, penalties were a NZ$2,000 fine for possession and 1 year's imprisonment for distribution.

Yes, that means that a 5 minute sketch or doodle on some scratch paper could send you off to jail for 5 years in NZ. Give it to someone? Distribution.

Where do you draw the line here? 20 words could easily constitute as "something which supports or promotes the sexual exploitation of children or young people".

Edited May 16, 2006 by SaguratuS

[Autoexec]

It looks like they have the law very well covered in my opinion.

You cant have loopholes or they will just be exploited. The laws in place make sure that anyone doing wrong and some not doing anything wrong are dragged into court. At this point you find that the 13 year old with pictures of himself is put back into school and the 30 year old trying to cover his ass by keeping his kiddy pix on his 12 year old sons laptop is sent to jaill.

[OrganicPanda]

so someone making photorealistic imagery of minors in compromising situations isnt a whacko :blink:

[SaguratuS]

It looks like they have the law very well covered in my opinion.

You cant have loopholes or they will just be exploited. The laws in place make sure that anyone doing wrong and some not doing anything wrong are dragged into court. At this point you find that the 13 year old with pictures of himself is put back into school and the 30 year old trying to cover his ass by keeping his kiddy pix on his 12 year old sons laptop is sent to jaill.

Using such reasoning, detailed depictions of minors in any media for any reason should come with 5 years of jailtime. Luckily, the US isn't so strict, but if laws similar to those in NZ were to go in, things would become rathor chaotic with the "point a finger at me and I'll sue" attitude seen in the US.

so someone making photorealistic imagery of minors in compromising situations isnt a whacko :blink:

Compromising situation isn't defined. You'll have a lot of wrongful oppression when it comes to science and computer graphics. Besides that, what makes such a person a "whacko" to begin with? Would you call someone who sketches nude woman a "whacko"?

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

Time to play devil's advocate, with everyone screaming "pedo's need to burn alive!"...

I'm asexual (simply not interested in anything), which is why I can express a neutral point of view on this topic.

Someone who goes out to seek a partner where mutual consent isn't established is a sexual predator. A "pedophile" is not someone who tries to take advantage of your kids.

Why does our society consider reproduction to be a taboo at these ages?

Let's say you have a teenager, 17 or so, who happens to be interested in 13 year old kids (but hasn't, and won't ever "take advantage" of any situation). Should this kid still face the wrath of society? What if it's a physical trait, not always a choice, much like heterosexuality / homosexuality?

Let's say this kid has some amazing design talent, and creates photorealistic renders of minors engaging in sexual activity, who then posts them publically (along with proof that they're renders). Is it wrong? Moreso, should it be illegal to distribute such images, and why?

Meanwhile, here's a couple of quotes from page 1 in this thread.

Edit: If you wish to argue, debate, flame, question, or talk to me in greater detail, please do so via aim/msn (available in my profile). Unfortunately I'm unable to be around neowin as much as I'd like

The bit I have put in bold, I do not understand. Predatory paedophiles, those who carry out paedaphilic behaviours, do take advantage of children.

This is obviously just my opinion, children are too young to make informed and reasoned decisions about sex. Their understanding of what is right and wrong sexually and morally and even their preferences, are underdeveloped. This makes them vulnerable to abuse and easy to manipulate as they don't have a strong sense of what they want/agree with.

I think society has issues with children and sex because of the things I have stated above. Also, from an evolutionary sense, it doesn't make sense for children to be having sex. They aren't supposed to be sexually attractive because they can't reproduce yet.

Obviously by age 13, most girls are quite able to reproduce, and girls as young as 9 are married off in some places but most Western societies wish to preserve and protect that childhood innocence. 13 year olds are still usually very naive, in Western society at least. Anyway I'm just rambling now so I'm giong to give it a rest!

Edited May 17, 2006 by Persephone

[dotmike]

Yeah, I've seen quite a few of the Dateline installments and am so glad they are getting these sick people away from the computers and in jail. Now there's even a site (Corrupted-Justice) that is against the site that works with Dateline (Perverted-Justice) saying that Perverted-Justice's methods of catching these pedophiles are illegal. That's sad that there are people who are basically trying to help these people from getting caught.

[SaguratuS]

I fully agree, predatory pedophiles need to be dealt with. My issue comes around when people are being punished (very severely at that) for "thought crime".

Regarding dateline's methods, some controversy could come around. Essentially, they simply have people working for dateline soliciting and enticing people. Afterall, they need to pull more than just a few to have a show. I suppose it could be attributed to going around offering free drugs, and busting anyone who takes them.

That's sad that there are people who are basically trying to help these people from getting caught.

People standing up for American rights, it's horrible. Just because they do it doesn't mean they want to protect pedophiles.

[Toology]

Regarding dateline's methods, some controversy could come around. Essentially, they simply have people working for dateline soliciting and enticing people. Afterall, they need to pull more than just a few to have a show. I suppose it could be attributed to going around offering free drugs, and busting anyone who takes them.

People standing up for American rights, it's horrible. Just because they do it doesn't mean they want to protect pedophiles.

Do you consider undercover drug busts controversial? The average American doesn't. If it wasn't an undercover cop, and in this case people from Perverted Justice, then it would've been a child. The act of merely soliciting drugs, prostitutes, underage-sex, etc. are crimes. As they very well should be.

And those people are not standing up for American rights and liberties. No American has the right to walk away from justice because they mistakenly solicited undercover agents instead of a real child. What is the law supposed to do or say? "Oops! Good luck, maybe next time you'll get an actual 13 year-old to utilise for your depravity?"

Edited May 17, 2006 by Toology