Just dropped in to spread the joy- have you seen this? (laughing)

[raphy]

Oh, to clarify one possible objection you might have: Yeah, raph and I happen to be friends. But if you think I wouldn't unleash on him with both barrels if he pissed me off, you'd better think again. Just ask him.

*raph winces in painful memory*

Hell hath no fury.. Really....

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

I don't think you'll get any argument, raphy, that child molestors are the lowest form of life on the planet. Not from me anyway.

What I do object to is the ad hoc nature of this 'organization' put together without any training or any real oversight. If I dump my girlfriend, for example, and she gets pissed she could put my name up there with no proof other than a doctored IM transcript. Or what if I wanted to do the same thing to my landlord? My boss?

Considering the emotional nature of the charges, any refuting would be shouted down and the 'perpetrator' would be publically pilloried, without any evidence whatsoever.

The fact that the site is so evasive about the nature of their relationship with law enforcement also gives me pause.

While the intent may be commendable, I think the execution and implementation of this particular program are seriously flawed.

I didn't read the rest of the responses in totality, so maybe this was covered.

No, on that site you cannot just post anything up. If you read through thier forum or contact them in any way, they will tell you that only their authorized contributors are able to post conversations....not just anyone. Only about 5-6 "trusted" people. And while it is possible that one of these people could fake a conversation....when you look at all of the supporting evidence that shows up surrounding these conversations (including IP traces) I think a fake would be easily spotted.

On that note.... I agree with taking some of this situation into the public's hands. I am in total agreement in making this kind of information public. If you are out there giving out your information in an attempt to seduce a minor...then you are committing an illegal act and you no longer are afforded the rights to privacy that the rest of us who aren't attempting to bugger a 12 year old enjoy.

As many know... I am the mother of a young child and I can tell you one thing for sure...if anyone EVER hurt him.... I would be the first one screaming for vigilante justice!

~WOK

 

[Madame Manga]

I took a good long look around that site and ended up registering for the message board.

I used to think that the police could handle all the bad bits of life and keep the vulnerable safe from harm. That's what they are there for, right? Well, maybe. Under certain circumstances when all the ducks have fallen into a row, the cops will nab the nasties and save the day. We hear about those cases all the time.

But the vast majority of criminal or near-criminal acts are never discovered, prosecuted or punished. The police make general conditions somewhat safer (social pressure is much more effective than force) but you cannot, in my opinion, depend on law enforcement *as an individual*. For instance, if you have a stalker hounding you, you will not get a personal bodyguard from the local department. They will tell you to call 911 like anyone else. Until an actual crime has been committed, they will do nothing. You are responsible for your own safety in circumstances like that, and you will have to take what measures you think necessary, up to and including arming yourself with intent to kill. That's not vigilantism, it's common sense. I will never abdicate my right to self-defense just because the government happens to cover a few percent of my ass, statistically speaking. There are just not enough police officers to make a difference, and if there were, we'd have a police state. Citizens are not sheep.

The owners of that site, in my opinion, are operating with care and forethought. They aren't waiting to act until a crime has occurred, but are providing an ounce of prevention. I saw no evidence of entrapment in the logs I read--there are plenty of wolves out there that will bite at anything that looks like a juicy bit of jailbait. I hope they throw a healthy scare into a few of them.

MM

 

[gauchecritic]

Personally I have grave objections to free speech as practised. Censorship, to me is a requirement of civilisation. Preferably by society. Just don't ask me who the censors would be or who would watch the watchers.

Accusations of ganging up: me alone there, blame me, that's how I saw it. In my defence, I only saw it after the name calling began and the epithets from all and sundry started flying at one bloke because he held the opposite view of words on the screen compared to visceral emotion. Speaking of which, even after he (and several others) had attempted to explain that very circumstance still the emotive mud slinging continued.

I dare say if Sancho hadn't pressed his arguement, then this thread could have ended any time. As it should. Now. Before people start argueing with me about argueing. The biggest waste of time ever.

Gauche

Invective? pissed it.

 

[Pure]

Madame Manga said,

//The owners of that site, in my opinion, are operating with care and forethought. They aren't waiting to act until a crime has occurred, but are providing an ounce of prevention. I saw no evidence of entrapment in the logs I read--//

As others (wornout keyboard) have pointed out, not just anyone can post. There's an inner circle.

However, we don't know if they have any training, esp. legal, and in general if they know what they are doing. They are self-selected. So you and I could set up just the same thing, say, and expose incestuous porn writers.

I visited another site linked to PJ, and it was Julie Posey who was a private detective doing the same thing, except, armed with transcripts she went to the police. Her methods seem better.

One point, and I don't know the answer, is, How many charges and convictions have ensued? Isn't it possible that 'exposing' on the 'net nips a potential case in the bud?

As to the entrapment issue, consider these excerpts: in my lay opinion, they would seriously compromise the 'proving' of intent, since they are also arousing it (but read the whole transcript if you want):

(Butterzboi is the fake kid; "visitingtop" and "nycvisitor" are one authorized PJ person, under two names.)

http://www.perverted-justice.com/index.php?archive=Vistingtop36 ....then....Nycvisitor66


Vistingtop36: what do you get into?
BuTtErZbOi: i luv sukin but have only been fuked 1 time an it really hurt
Vistingtop36: he didn't do you right..obviously
Vistingtop36: so you wanted to meet me?
---
Nycvisitor66: so what do you wanna do? you pretty open?
BuTtErZbOi: yeah
BuTtErZbOi: i want to try fucking

----

So apart from all the issues of how evil these folks are, the issue of the effectiveness of the site, is an open one.

MM, I don't accept your analogy of getting a bodyguard to make up for 'chinks'. That is self defense. What Butterzboi is up to would better be called, imo, going out and looking for 'trouble'. Since many pervs are smart, bungling could be costly, if indeed convictions and 'getting them off the streets' is thought to be worthwhile**.

Best,

J

"Pure" aka "Scarlet Vixen".

While it's too much to expect of everyone, I expect those with wit to look at the points made, and not merely chortle about an alternate internet screenname.

** Whether it's worthwhile, for the PJ folks, is open to question: From their "site philosophy":

Our philosophy is to hit the most opportune areas for these sorts of perverts [regional chat rooms], then to flip the table on them, shine a light on them, and watch them scurry deeper into the recesses of the 'net, minimizing their chances of running into an actual minor online. That's our philosophy behind what we do, hopefully it's clear enough for all to understand it.

{My bolding, pure}

 

[raphy]

I dare say if Sancho hadn't pressed his arguement, then this thread could have ended any time. Gauche

And you are so absolutely right, sir.

 

[Pure]

Wornout Keyboard said,

On that note.... I agree with taking some of this situation into the public's hands. I am in total agreement in making this kind of information public. If you are out there giving out your information in an attempt to seduce a minor...then you are committing an illegal act and you no longer are afforded the rights to privacy that the rest of us who aren't attempting to bugger a 12 year old enjoy.

As many know... I am the mother of a young child and I can tell you one thing for sure...if anyone EVER hurt him.... I would be the first one screaming for vigilante justice!

It seems that Perverted Justice, 'outs' the person, then turns stuff over to the police. The 'outing' is the punishment for the near-crime, as it were.

Madame Manga in her posting notes how the police never deal with the 'near crimes' and approves, apparently, of the 'punishment' meted out by PJ (Xavier and co.)

Note that, having exposed the person, PJ opens the possibility of flight (and/or hiding) and destruction of evidence, as the Scotland Yard detective, and the Atkinson woman from the British National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children point out, below. The NSPCC is well known for its work in preventing and 'fighting' online abuse, as a visit to its website will reveal.

So, wornout, I suggest that the 'method' of PJ may be lacking; it appears that the offenders you're worried about likely to relocate, try again, and evade 'real' punishment-- going to prison-- for longer.


http://www.danpedo.dk/forum/read.php?i=5938



---------------------------------------------------
from the Times
-Vigilantes name 'paedophiles' on the internet

By Stefanie Marsh and Adam Fresco

[Scotland Yard]
Detective Superintendent Peter Spindler, the head of the [paedophile] unit, said: “We condemn any kind of vigilante activity but we will be investigating the claims on this site.”

Progress is likely to be slow, though, with police overwhelmed by the 7,272 names of British subscribers to child pornography websites passed to them by the FBI as part of Operation Ore.

Mr Spindler said he was concerned that the Perverted Justice website threatened to undermine efforts to find and convict paedophiles. “Posting the names and phone numbers of criminals — if that is what they are — on the internet gives them the opportunity to destroy evidence.

“There are cases of people fleeing the country; websites such as these expose people but it undermines any chances of a follow-up or conviction.”

Xavier, who uses the pseudonym for fear of reprisals, argues that naming potentially harmful men encourages them to seek help and says he has received messages of support from police. One of the website’s ten volunteers is a reserve police officer.

“The resources aren’t there and these people are not getting busted or even detected for what they are doing,” he said. “I set this site up because I wanted to say, ‘Look, you can’t do this, we can find out who you are and there will be consequences’.”

Child protection groups in Britain expressed concern that the number of predatory men seeking children on the internet was beyond the grasp of police, but said vigilantism was not the solution.

Liz Garrett, of Barnardo’s, said that a lack of resources had left detectives unable to investigate internet crime properly.

Christine Atkinson, of the NSPCC [National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children], said that vigilante activity risked driving sex offenders underground. “This website could put children at more risk,” she added.

September 22, 2003

J
pure
scarlet vixen

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

So, wornout, I suggest that the 'method' of PJ may be lacking; it appears that the offenders you're worried about likely to relocate, try again, and evade 'real' punishment-- going to prison-- for longer.

Or...more likely....never get caught at all...never exposed at all....nothing.

I suggest reading their site a little more thoroughly and looking at the right of response. You will see in it that it looks like approximately 1/2 of those caught speak directly with PJ regarding counseling in their area. You would never get that through other methods...because as they say in their own site...the police are not pursuing regional chat rooms (only sex chat rooms)...and so no...you wouldn't create an environment where potential evidence would be lost since there would otherwise be little or no investigation into the case to begin with (you cannot lose what you would not otherwise have).

And again...read their sight more thoroughly...their people do have some legal training and the support and advice of lawyers which they employ. They aren't just going at it willy-nilly.

I hate it when people make comments without reading all the way through the site. No offense directly to you, Pure... I have no specific beef with you... I just don't like having to regurgitate stuff that is there for anyone to read on their site.

~WOK

PS~ Also.... Don’t make me have to pull out the legal definition of entrapment. I will just pretend that you were caught up in the moment when you wrote that because CLEARLY someone not working for a government agency cannot (by definition) commit entrapment. No matter what they do. It's not possible on planet reality. You can only commit entrapment if you are under they employ of a governmental agency. PJ is not...nor do they claim to be.

 

[Pure]

Hi WOK,

Thanks for your reply,

Or...more likely....[pedophiles] never get caught at all...never exposed at all....nothing.

I suggest reading their site a little more thoroughly and looking at the right of response. You will see in it that it looks like approximately 1/2 of those caught speak directly with PJ regarding counseling in their area.

Where does this number 1/2 come from? The explanations I read contained a variety of excuses like moment of weakness, drinking etc. Is there any reason to trust the 'apology' offered, given what is known of pedophiles' inclinations?

I think a hour or two at a site is adequate for an impression; reading their mission statement, etc. I read a couple transcripts, also. But if you've spent days there, maybe you can help out us who know much less.


You would never get that through other methods...because as they say in their own site...the police are not pursuing regional chat rooms (only sex chat rooms)...and so no...you wouldn't create an environment where potential evidence would be lost since there would otherwise be little or no investigation into the case to begin with (you cannot lose what you would not otherwise have).

And again...read their sight more thoroughly...their people do have some legal training and the support and advice of lawyers which they employ. They aren't just going at it willy-nilly.

I hate it when people make comments without reading all the way through the site. No offense directly to you, Pure... I have no specific beef with you... I just don't like having to regurgitate stuff that is there for anyone to read on their site.

~WOK


It seems you're saying, something (by way of consequence) is better than nothing; the police won't look into these things etc. Would you agree they are more a self-contained, 'investigate and punish' approach--curbside justice, as it were? Do you have any info on how many of the 'exposures' ever lead into court? How many have led to court cases? Anyat all?

I agree they seem systematic, not 'willy nilly'. OTOH I know of no evidence of any training, legal or otherwise, on the part of Xavier or the 10 or so helpers. Do you? Have any ever ended up testifying in court? To what result?


PS~ Also.... Don’t make me have to pull out the legal definition of entrapment. I will just pretend that you were caught up in the moment when you wrote that because CLEARLY someone not working for a government agency cannot (by definition) commit entrapment. No matter what they do. It's not possible on planet reality. You can only commit entrapment if you are under they employ of a governmental agency. PJ is not...nor do they claim to be.

This, on the face of it is correct, in many definitions. However in looking at the cases described I see no cases of 'vigilante' entrapment, as it were. Do you know of any law in this area?

Here is one definition which might apply:

http://www.lawspirit.com/legalenglish/handbook/crimlaw04.htm#X

A. Entrapment generally: The defense of entrapment exists where a law enforcement official, or someone cooperating with him, has induced D to commit the crime.

The cases are long before it was possible to go on the 'net as a citizen pretending to be a kid receptive to sex. So as to avoid prejudging the legal issue, I will simply say that in the one transcript I quoted from (out of about three examined) there did seem, at certain points, to be clear inducement. Do you agree or not? The legal effects, I don't know.

Do you agree that the PJ folks seem fairly UN interested in getting the cases to police and into court? My impression is that they have their own system of justice, amounting to public exposure as punishment. I suspect one effect is to create much more careful pedophiles. The transcripts show astounding naivete, as in 'call up a teen and make a date to fuck her/him.'

I can't refute your claim that, upon exposure, many abandon evil or get counselling, shape up to normal, and never offend again; that these people would never end up in court; that this punishment (or consequence) is better than nothing. OTOH, the law enforcement official and the child welfare person I cited, seem skeptical. And you've produced no evidence to support the claim, except the brief statements of those caught. What followup data do you have?

In any case, you raise some interesting points, and if there's clear relevant evidence, maybe you will be so kind as to do me and others a favor of citing it, or saying where on the site, it is. As I said, I am more favorably impressed by Julie Posey's efforts to feed into police investigations.

J.

 

[Madame Manga]

Thanks for saying it for me, WOK. It's all there on the site, and a good readthrough will be far more informative to anyone than speculation and assumptions.

Self-defense must be pre-emptive, not reactive. Some things are better accomplished by legions of amateurs than by a few overworked professionals. The nasties are out there doing their dirty deeds no matter what--girding for battle and engaging is not the same as "looking for trouble". You can't sit around and wait until they show up on your doorstep, or your neighbor's.

Edit: Yes, Pure, getting them arrested is NOT the main point. Shame is a good thing.

MM

 

[Guest]

PURE - SCARLET VIXEN - "IT" - CHICKENSHIT

Why is anyone still paying attention to this person?

Once I called it a liar and it became quite annoyed. Now I see it is a moral coward.

SV has only two pages of posts so it was easy to see what it has been doing. As SV it took the chicken-shit route to make snide remarks about me, but thinking we had a newbie I welcomed it and gave an explanation about my Shakespearean interests. FYI, it also posted as SV to the 'christian bdsm' and 'feminazi' thread, and though I won't waste time researching it, I'm sure it posted as pure too.

Now it expects us to still care what it says. I am non-plussed. I have 'wit' aplenty, but not for the likes of it. My god, people, it appeals to law? What the fuck?

Perdita (the one and only)

Perdita said, "One does not "induce" pedophilia. Your analogy is stupid. A person who enters a chat room of children and speaks to someone who is impersonating a child is NOT induced, simply tricked. NO ordinary child seduces a grown-up either."

The issue of inducement to commit a crime is a live one. There is no actual child in the scenario, so the agent would be doing the inducing. How: Well, saying things like (hypothetically) "I'm 13 and I'm lonely. Can I see you?"

If the troller is an amateur, I think the chance of straying over the line and thus hurting or torpedoing the case is greater. Obviously an FBI agent is going to be more careful.

J.

[added 11-12] aka 'pure'

Quelle horreur, an alternate internet screenname. Good detective work, raphy, noting the J's, the I's, same topic, same thread, same evening. Definitely add 'cybersleuth' to your CV.

I know of no laws against another name/identity, barring fraud; or literotica rules, except for fraud and damage to the system; or moral rules, except, Don't mindfuck your friends.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

(Hi Trova

Ok. The whole "let's not scare the pedophiles" bit is an asinine and gladhanding exercise in apathetic aw-shucksism.

Golly, you say they might go underground? They might be even harder to catch?

Aw, gee- in that case, maybe we ought to just ignore them and let them do what they want! You know, so we can watch it happen. Yeah, that sounds like an awesome fucking plan: Mission Incomprehensible.

"Yeah, but don't you think they might still pursue kids??"

Uh, yeah. They will. Count on it. This is not a benign philia, and it is chronic. There are treatments for pedophilia, but barring that, to date there is only one cure...

mlle zapatista

 

[Pure]

To the one and only perdita,

who says,

//As SV it [pure] took the chicken-shit route to make snide remarks about me, ...

[Scarlet Vixen {pure} said]
ms perdita has memorized the works of Shakspeare //

Besides an alternate screenname, I was a "moral coward" in suggesting the depth of P's knowledge of Shakespeare, and referring to an ability to quote him at will.

I shall live with that guilt, forever, Perdita; please accept my apologies. It was definitely a clumsy attempt to compliment you. It was morally reprehensible to have done so, under an alternate screenname. In all screennames I salute your knowledge of Shakespeare.


J.
"It"
"Pure"
"Scarlet Vixen"

 

[OldnotDead]

Gee, I had been away from this thread for a while and was surprised to see all the new postings. I would like to expand on the ideas Madame Manga and WOK mentioned regarding Police, Prosecution and Shame.

A lot of civilised society depends not upon the actual enforcement of law as much as the possibility of enforcement of law to help deter a variety of unnacceptable behaviors. While a significant portion of people behave 'well' just because it is the right thing to do, an equally large number maintain their good behavior because the shame of getting caught is too great. Anyone that has lived in a small town understands this component all too well.

Many believe the anonymity of big cities is one of the reasons they have dispraportionate crime. Whether or not this is true, and to what proportions is really beside the point. What is indisputable is that when citizens decide to get involved in crime prevention it works.

Police, as pointed out earlier, are incapable by themselves of preventing and solving all crime. They are dependent upon the support of their fellow citizens. Neighborhood Crime Watch areas are one of the formal expressions of this.

Germane to this thread, Neighborhood Crime Watch is not premised on catching and prosecuting and jailing. It is premised on prevention. Comparable to a better lock, or security system, the whole idea is to make an area less attractive as a target and to reduce the likelihood of crime. But the 'natural' symbiotic relationship between Neighborhood Crime Watch and the Police was not always so.

There have been some historical conflicts between those who would set up aggressive crime prevention programs and the Police. Concerns of vigilantism and citizens arming themselves to the detriment of others were usually the biggest problems. The most famous conflict I know of were the red bereted group led by Lisa and Curtis Sliwah in NYC. Determined to make the subways and ghetto neighborhoods more safe, the police were not happy with the Sliwah's 'gang'. Yet the debates that ensued led to better neighborhood patrols, MORE cooperation, not less and, eventually to a reduction in crime. Of course the police also point out that more arrests, more prosecution and improved law enforcement were a big factor. And they are right. I believe that the publicity the Sliwah's brought to the problem helped focus all parties on working on the problem.

The anonymity of the internet poses problems to law enforcement that are both new and old. Just as two individuals of similar stature and general appearance, clothed the same, can confuse witnesses to a 'real life' crime, the obfuscation of screen names, ghosting and other strategies, can make the 'evil doer' harder to catch.

Locally we were recently faced with the ballyhooed success of an arrest of an individual perpetrator that had attempted to execute the infamous Nigerian Bank Account scam. Less than a week later, the prosecuting attorney had to admit to the press that person arrested was released and that their would be no prosecution. The charges were not 'dropped', there just was not enough evidence to go forward with a trial.

The sad part is that the person that instigated the investigation which subsequently led to the arrest had actually worked both state and federal agencies to bring the person from Canada and place them where they could be arrested. So it was not a question of lack of cooperation.

The good part is that with the publicity, more people now know about the scam and hopefully there will be fewer victims.

And I really think that is what the PJ site is really all about. Yes, it may drive some deeper into the anonymity of the internet. But at the same time, it may heighten, just like the Sliwah's did, the amount of discussion over a very real problem. A problem that is best prevented through adult involvement at the most local level of all - the family.

You see, in all the discussions on this thread, we have had little talk about the non perpertrator side of the conversations. Where are these children having their unobserved conversations with these adults? Are they home? In school? At the local library?

Most parents do a good job of monitoring their kids friends and activities. We want to know who they are playing with. We want to know who is supervising. But for some reason, as soon as they go on the internet we are suddenly 'snoops' if we want to know with whom they are conversing and where. I do not buy into that and no parent should. The same concerns for children's well being should extend into the virtual world as much as the real world.

And it is not just the children's safety. I do not want my children to be 'sources of information' about our lives to the outside world. Early on we tell our kids to not talk to strangers. As they get older, we help them understand that, yes, you can be social in a public setting, but you also do not give away personal information. they need to learn the same cautions and intelligent behavior as they learn their way around the cyber world.

For the sake of the children, remind your friends that the internet is no place to give up all the safety procedures that we set up in real life.

 

[Guest]

Pure, just fuck off, please.

You are the most witless thing I've ever read on the AH. You are intellectually amoral. You possess no depth. You are disliked aplenty.

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Mlle said,

//Aw, gee- in that case, maybe we ought to just ignore them [pedophiles]and let them do what they want! //

No, leave it to the police and FBI who have experts doing the pretending; _their_ compiled transcripts, arranged meetings, etc. can actually lead to prosecutions and jail time, not merely shame and (likely) flight.

Julie Posey, (url at PJ), also has an approach tied in with law enforcement, police investigation and prosecution.

J.

----
Mlle in full rhetorical flight:

(Hi Trova

Ok. The whole "let's not scare the pedophiles" bit is an asinine and gladhanding exercise in apathetic aw-shucksism.

Golly, you say they might go underground? They might be even harder to catch?

Aw, gee- in that case, maybe we ought to just ignore them and let them do what they want! You know, so we can watch it happen. Yeah, that sounds like an awesome fucking plan: Mission Incomprehensible.

"Yeah, but don't you think they might still pursue kids??"

Uh, yeah. They will. Count on it. This is not a benign philia, and it is chronic. There are treatments for pedophilia, but barring that, to date there is only one cure...

mlle zapatista

 

[raphy]

Originally posted by Pure
Quelle horreur, an alternate internet screenname. Good detective work, raphy, noting the J's, the I's, same topic, same thread, same evening. Definitely add 'cybersleuth' to your CV.

Don't mind if I do. You're just pissed that you fucked up *grins*.. Retreating into the depths of sardonic sarcasm is fairly meaningless.

Originally posted by Pure
I know of no laws against another name/identity, barring fraud; or literotica rules, except for fraud and damage to the system; or moral rules, except, Don't mindfuck your friends.

That's okay then, since you don't appear to have any friends.

edited, because I speel guud.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

That's okay then, since you don't appear to have any friends.

Except Scarlet.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Sure, aren't we all our own best friends?

P.S. You ain't one to talk, Eva, baby...

-Victor Ward (Johnson??)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Too bad there's no swimsuit competition, baby.

 

[Black Tulip]

Something odd.

Because I wanted to catch up, I read some threads as a whole, including this one.
I have two points to get of my chest.

1.
The discussion in this thread turned in the same direction as a thread some time ago about incest. Sanchopanza introduced the thought police there as well. It strikes me as odd that this is the third time that I read his name in a thread and afterwards there's a heated argument going on in no time. I have not checked it out, so it could be coincidence but it seems to focus on academically debating instead of stating an opinion or a believe.
Am I making sense here?

2.
In that other thread I gave as my opinion that everybody is free to think what they want. Yes, I do believe that. But then I was talking about adults who have fantasies about adults. There is equality there.
Here I think two important elements were overlooked (by Sp):

* In relationships between children and adults there never is equality. Having fantasies about sex with children means controlling someone, not having pleasure with another. And in my opinion, that is sick and not acceptable. It's an immature powergame.

* The moment an adult joins a chatroom for children he is out of fantasy and into acting. Kids there did not ask for someone to shove his cyberdick in their faces. When you start a conversation with sexual overtones in a chatroom for children you're in the wrong.

Freedom of thought is wonderful, but some thoughts damage freedom!

 

[Pure]

Old not dead said in part,

Police, as pointed out earlier, are incapable by themselves of preventing and solving all crime. They are dependent upon the support of their fellow citizens. Neighborhood Crime Watch areas are one of the formal expressions of this.

Germane to this thread, Neighborhood Crime Watch is not premised on catching and prosecuting and jailing. It is premised on prevention. Comparable to a better lock, or security system, the whole idea is to make an area less attractive as a target and to reduce the likelihood of crime. But the 'natural' symbiotic relationship between Neighborhood Crime Watch and the Police was not always so.

There have been some historical conflicts between those who would set up aggressive crime prevention programs and the Police. Concerns of vigilantism and citizens arming themselves to the detriment of others were usually the biggest problems. The most famous conflict I know of were the red bereted group led by Lisa and Curtis Sliwah in NYC. Determined to make the subways and ghetto neighborhoods more safe, the police were not happy with the Sliwah's 'gang'. Yet the debates that ensued led to better neighborhood patrols, MORE cooperation, not less and, eventually to a reduction in crime. Of course the police also point out that more arrests, more prosecution and improved law enforcement were a big factor. And they are right. I believe that the publicity the Sliwah's brought to the problem helped focus all parties on working on the problem.


Yes, I remember the 'Guardian Angels.' I believe they did some good, though they did have some training so as not to use excessive force--or any at all, most of the time. They focussed attention on a problem. As with PJ, their relation to prosecution, etc. may be or have been tenuous.

It's true that whenever one sees vigilantism, people are upset with the police and courts. Yes the police fall down in some areas, or are stretched thin. In the larger picture, PJ may well stimulate increased efforts, with more sophistication, to control the internet against those with criminal purposes. The FBI iirc has dozens of agents posing as kids; maybe there should be hundreds. That way follow through is insured.

The debate shouldn't be about whether thoughts and 'wants' are wrong or illegal. (Nor even, as Black Tulip mentions, about immoral chatting.) It's an overt act, a criminal one, to go to a meeting arranged with a minor for sex. Where that is set up by law enforcement, an arrest is possible. If it's merely the PJ folks and the local television, the 'perp' runs for cover; indeed in one transcript, iirc, he ran away, then re-contacted the 'child' to arrange another meeting.

I notice PJ has a link to the "Counter Pedophilia Investigative Unit": that strikes me as a better way to go in that the directors' names are given. It's aboveboard, not this mysterious "Saint" or "Batman" scenario from TV; the virtuous person no one knows, who polices himself. ** I have already mentioned Julia Posey's efforts, which she undertook, herself, as a licensed private investigator.

Yours was a thoughtful posting. You demonstrate that the issues can be discussed calmly, politely, and in depth. Thanks.

J.

** Added 11-15. Hell, we even know the name of the FBI director, and the CIA heads, though not, of course, of undercover agents. To Sliwa's credit, he and his wife were out front, even on TV, and could be _seen to be_ sincere, decent people, of good background, even if the practicalities of interfacing 'citizen patrols' and policing were difficult.

 

[destinie21]

Oi. I did not want to get into this but here we are. Yes it is wrong to fuck kids. No it is not wrong to want to. Those who say it is wrong to want to are obviously over-emotionalising the topic in hand. You cannot condemn somebody for their desires, exactly the same principal as the fucking Spanish Inquisition. Thoughts and desires are amoral only actions are moral or immoral. If you think that desires or thoughts can be morally judged then I'm not sure what the fuck you think about a lot of things - bring in the thought police? jail people for deviant thoughts?

God I wasn't even going to post here but jesus I feel provojed into it noe. So as per my usual I'm going to rant and probably rave some too. Sancho I have to say I *want to slap you for the comment quoted above. Yes it is wrong to have thoughts of fucking or molesting minors. It's wrong because desire is not something that's easily controllled add to that that if an adult thinks he/she is speaking with a child whether the person turns out to be a child is irrelevant as they say "It's the thought that counts"

It's not my style to put my business out on front street but I will tell you this things happened to me when I was a child that no child should have to deal with and it all cantered around someone else's fantasy.Adults who prey oh children should be punished even for wandering into chatrooms and having sexual conversatons with a child. Molestation isn't just physical contanct in fact in most cases the physical contact stems from emotional molestation and trickery. The predetor in question generally builds a rapport with the would be victim so I say cut them off at the pass .

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Black Tulip-

Kudos. You're right on the money on all points; mainly that by entering a kid's chatroom you have already made an ACTION.

People seem to forget, in their ever-righteous quest for personal freedom, that their "freedom" sometimes compromises the freedom of others. It's the cigarette smokers' method.

mlle


P.S. I couldn't help but note the color/flori-fauna aspect of your name.

 

[Black Tulip]

God I wasn't even going to post here but jesus I feel provojed into it noe. So as per my usual I'm going to rant and probably rave some too. Sancho I have to say I *want to slap you for the comment quoted above. Yes it is wrong to have thoughts of fucking or molesting minors. It's wrong because desire is not something that's easily controllled add to that that if an adult thinks he/she is speaking with a child whether the person turns out to be a child is irrelevant as they say "It's the thought that counts"

It's not my style to put my business out on front street but I will tell you this things happened to me when I was a child that no child should have to deal with and it all cantered around someone else's fantasy.Adults who prey oh children should be punished even for wandering into chatrooms and having sexual conversatons with a child. Molestation isn't just physical contanct in fact in most cases the physical contact stems from emotional molestation and trickery. The predetor in question generally builds a rapport with the would be victim so I say cut them off at the pass .

Destinie, do you mind my butting in?
I'd like to take care of the cutting off.
Ah, to cut. Hand me my axe!