These two programs on MSNBC are played out: "Perverted Justice" and "Lock-up."  I think the network is being cheap and lazy.  They re-run each episode over and over and over again.  The themes, dialogue, structure, setting, and even the camera work on these programs is utterly predictable.  If I'm channel surfing late in the evening, I don't even stop at MSNBC anymore.  I don't know what's going on at that network, but if this is the best they can do at 10:00 p.m., it's time for them to clean house and hire new talent.

Anybody with me here?
???

These two programs on MSNBC are played out: "Perverted Justice" and "Lock-up."  I think the network is being cheap and lazy.  They re-run each episode over and over and over again.  The themes, dialogue, structure, setting, and even the camera work on these programs is utterly predictable.  If I'm channel surfing late in the evening, I don't even stop at MSNBC anymore.  I don't know what's going on at that network, but if this is the best they can do at 10:00 p.m., it's time for them to clean house and hire new talent.

Anybody with me here?
???

Thank you.

Wondering just how long MSNBC was going to milk this series. Seen it once and was amazed, now they're showing "Behind the Scenes" versions and what not. What next "Perverted Justice Bloopers"?  ::)
Enough is enough, you can only watch this stuff once or so and even then you start to feel dirty.
Don't know whats worse, watching these pervs prey on little kids, or watching MSNBC (piously) chastising and busting them.

Thank you.

Wondering just how long MSNBC was going to milk this series. Seen it once and was amazed, now they're showing "Behind the Scenes" versions and what not. What next "Perverted Justice Bloopers"?  ::)
Enough is enough, you can only watch this stuff once or so and even then you start to feel dirty.
Don't know whats worse, watching these pervs prey on little kids, or watching MSNBC (piously) chastising and busting them.


I wonder how many people are monitoring Chris Hanson: "Any guy that obsessive is covering something up.  He's gonna make a mistake, and when he does, I'll be right there to catch him!"
:D

I can't speak to "Lock Up" as I have never seen that show. However, "Perverted Justice" needs to go, and for none of the reasons you mentioned.

I could type for a while on this, but I'll leave these two links for now:

http://www.chatmag.com/help/17022004_pj.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2897389

In short, involving Perverted Justice to help catch predators makes about as much sense as asking the Animal Liberation Front to help with an expose on the meat packing industry...

Ant

I was taught never judge a person by their looks..'Perverted Justice' sounds like it's  encouraging it!
Fools!

I've never seen Perverted-Justice myself(good thing, I'm not missing anything).

I also just got done reading those links by chatmag and democraticunderground.

That definetly is entrapment.

Here is my favorite post about PJ from democraticundeground:

This show is SICK. I've always had a problem with this particular show; one of my own personal 'fantasies' regarding it is to realize who they are while chatting online, get them to come to me, and then proceed to show the camera the chat log and screenshots of the user profiles when the conversation began and at the end.

"You're a bunch of dangerously sensational, disingenuous ****wits," I'd then say as I slammed the door in the camera's face.

These revelations about the show's ethics- or, rather, the lack thereof- don't surprise me in the least; in fact, I saw this or something like it coming from a mile away. Any time you demonize a segment of criminal society by keeping a list, you increase the probability that something like this will happen.

Didn't a guy just kill himself when he found out this show was coming for him?

It's sick and sad. We need to be treating murderers and thieves and other classes of criminal like this as well- or we need to stop doing it to sex offenders. If we don't, this kind of **** will most certainly happen again.


Police can get into trouble if they do entrapment. Although it's not always the case, my grandfather told me about some older guy who got asked by some woman on the street if "he wanted to go out on a date"... he said yes, turned out to be a cop and he got arrested. The thing about it is that no request of money for sex happened, he got arrested right afterward. That sounded like entrapment, which is just as bad as PJ(especially since neither got in trouble for it).

The people from Perverted Justice need to be taken to court over this crap they're doing. They've done too many things that are against normal law procedures.

I can't speak to "Lock Up" as I have never seen that show. However, "Perverted Justice" needs to go, and for none of the reasons you mentioned.

I could type for a while on this, but I'll leave these two links for now:

http://www.chatmag.com/help/17022004_pj.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2897389

In short, involving Perverted Justice to help catch predators makes about as much sense as asking the Animal Liberation Front to help with an expose on the meat packing industry...

Ant



One thing I agree with for certain: We must teach our children and teens about the dangers of online predation.  Teenagers especially underestimate danger--whether it's downing a full bottle of gin or drive at 100 mph.  Teens like to experment.  They like to push limits and see how much they can get away with.  One way of figuring out the limits is to transgress them and get hurt.  However, surviving alcohol poisoning and surviving rape are worlds apart.  Twenty years later, you laugh at how stupid you were to go on that drinking binge.  You never laugh about getting raped.  It hurts you forever.  The horny 14-year-old does not understand the consequences of tempting the predator.  This is nothing new, the Internet is just a new hunting ground.

"Perverted Justice" is not about warning kids.  Not really.  You know what I think explains its success?  The Id of the adult male would like to go out and bang a 14-year-old.  The Superego of the adult male says, "Ahem, we don't do do that.  We're not sickos, right?" So the Ego nods in compliance.  But the Id is still gnawing away with forbidden desire.  Thus, when the adult male sees the other adult male getting busted because he let his Id get the better of him, he--the viewer--feels deeply vindicated:  I don't get to do that, so he shouldn't either!  Thus, it plays on the sexual frustration of men.
::)

My mom thinks they're doing a good job and doesn't think it's entrapment.

She also said that it's possible for computer forensics to find if PJ people did alter any of the conversations.

Now, I hate predators as much as the next person, but I'm more skeptical about the media.... I don't believe everything that they say or show.

I'll bet it's all a set-up...ALL of it. 

There's footage out there of Chris Hanson yucking it up with the "predator guy" and the "sherrif's deputies."  It's just a question of somebody leaking it to YouTube!
::)

I'll bet it's all a set-up...ALL of it. 

There's footage out there of Chris Hanson yucking it up with the "predator guy" and the "sherrif's deputies."  It's just a question of somebody leaking it to YouTube!
::)


It does make you think. Would the police really let a bunch amatuers(posing as vigilantes of sorts) help them and have a news man interview the guy? It doesn't really make much sense(especially with the show being on TV, I know predators do watch TV). What if they caught a violent maniac who didn't care if he got taped attacking Chris Hanson and the police?

I actually got to watch some of it last night(there are a few comical parts in it, but I still feel it's nothing worth watching otherwise).

I'm also wondering if some of these guys(some of them who got caught have watched the show every week) actually go on there with the intention of getting caught on the show?

I know that question is a pretty dumb one to think of(especially with the type of punishment that goes along with being a sex offender). But think about it for a minute... Even with the type of crime it is, these people are getting exposure on TV. It might not be too far fetched that some of these people want to do this just to get to brag that they were on TV. That being said, if they feel that's the only way for they can get on TV, they are really dumb and/or mentally ill.

The only crime committed is thoughtcrime.
The "predator" thinks he is talking dirty to a young teen; he thinks he is sending pornography to a young teen; he thinks he is going to the home of a young teen to do god knows what; however, the entire time he has been dealing with imposters. 
Chris Hanson asks, "What would have happened?"

I don't like felony crimes based on the purely subjunctive. 

Well then, what about intercepting murder-for-hire plots?  Isn't that the same?  Almost.

The difference is one of severity and certain intent.  Conspiracy to commit murder is felonious intent without equivocation.  That is, you hand an undercover cop ten grand and say, "I want my wife dead by dawn," you cannot plausibly argue you were only "Playing around." 

On legal principle, sending pornographic images to an undercover cop you think is a 13-year-old is the same, but if there was no minor involved, I don't think the perp should have to serve jail time.  Probation.  No felony on record.

Murder-for-hire should require a prison sentence even if the hitman is an undercover cop.  Lewd and lacivious intent toward a minor is simply not as severe as first degree murder by contract.

That's when the Bill O'Reilly-types get all indignant:
"So you're saying a child has to get hurt before we can put a pedophile in prison?"
Yes.
If you start putting people in prison just because you think they're likely to do something, then you've got a slippery slope.
"Come here, kid, come here!  You wanna buy some really good weed?"
Gotcha!  Intent to purchase a Schedule I controlled substance!

Chris Hanson and his crew are guarded.  I'm sure they have their ways of determining if a suspect is armed.  If the suspect intimates violence, they probably stop the cameras right there and restrain him. 

A lot of this has to do with profiling.  They've staked the guy out for a long time before he gets invited.  This is conjecture, but law enforcement probably ascertains from the chat logs if a "predator" is going to be dangerous.  They probably know quite a bit about the guy before he gets the address.

There have been "predators" on the show who have figured out what's going on before they even get to the front door.  The deputies arrest them anyway. 

How do they keep getting "predators" to fall for it.  I figure it's because compulsion overrides rationality.  In our cultue, an adult who wants intercourse with a 14-year-old is not psychiatrically well.

That's assuming, of course, the whole thing isn't faked.

Even before PJ, I saw a documentary about some vigilantes who were doing the same thing as Dateline does.  I agree, this kind of sting should be conducted by law enforcement, not vigilantes. 

The Nickelodeon Channel is going to run their version of Perverted Justice, where they catch the kiddies using the bathroom but not washing their hands afterwards.

Another version will trick the kids into running with scissors.

Chris Hansen will confront the offendors, of course.  ;)

The Nickelodeon Channel is going to run their version of Perverted Justice, where they catch the kiddies using the bathroom but not washing their hands afterwards.

Another version will trick the kids into running with scissors.

Chris Hansen will confront the offendors, of course.   ;)

Cookie Jar Justice
???

The only crime committed is thoughtcrime.
The "predator" thinks he is talking dirty to a young teen; he thinks he is sending pornography to a young teen; he thinks he is going to the home of a young teen to do god knows what; however, the entire time he has been dealing with imposters. 
Chris Hanson asks, "What would have happened?"

I don't like felony crimes based on the purely subjunctive. 

Well then, what about intercepting murder-for-hire plots?  Isn't that the same?  Almost.

The difference is one of severity and certain intent.  Conspiracy to commit murder is felonious intent without equivocation.  That is, you hand an undercover cop ten grand and say, "I want my wife dead by dawn," you cannot plausibly argue you were only "Playing around." 

On legal principle, sending pornographic images to an undercover cop you think is a 13-year-old is the same, but if there was no minor involved, I don't think the perp should have to serve jail time.  Probation.  No felony on record.

Murder-for-hire should require a prison sentence even if the hitman is an undercover cop.  Lewd and lacivious intent toward a minor is simply not as severe as first degree murder by contract.

That's when the Bill O'Reilly-types get all indignant:
"So you're saying a child has to get hurt before we can put a pedophile in prison?"
Yes.
If you start putting people in prison just because you think they're likely to do something, then you've got a slippery slope.
"Come here, kid, come here!  You wanna buy some really good weed?"
Gotcha!  Intent to purchase a Schedule I controlled substance!

Chris Hanson and his crew are guarded.  I'm sure they have their ways of determining if a suspect is armed.  If the suspect intimates violence, they probably stop the cameras right there and restrain him. 

A lot of this has to do with profiling.  They've staked the guy out for a long time before he gets invited.  This is conjecture, but law enforcement probably ascertains from the chat logs if a "predator" is going to be dangerous.  They probably know quite a bit about the guy before he gets the address.

There have been "predators" on the show who have figured out what's going on before they even get to the front door.  The deputies arrest them anyway. 

How do they keep getting "predators" to fall for it.  I figure it's because compulsion overrides rationality.  In our cultue, an adult who wants intercourse with a 14-year-old is not psychiatrically well.

That's assuming, of course, the whole thing isn't faked.

Even before PJ, I saw a documentary about some vigilantes who were doing the same thing as Dateline does.  I agree, this kind of sting should be conducted by law enforcement, not vigilantes. 


Well said.

I wonder how many people are monitoring Chris Hanson: "Any guy that obsessive is covering something up.  He's gonna make a mistake, and when he does, I'll be right there to catch him!"
:D


It took almost four years, but he made almost precisely the mistake you predicted.

Chris Hansen, 51, has been having an affair with a 30-year-old journalist.

Good on him for having decent taste in women and for keeping his fun between consenting adults, but at 51 and 30 (and with his paramour looking like a younger clone of his wife), he's still technically guilty of a social faux pas for dating outside the "half your age plus seven" rule.

Congrats, Max, on a prescient call.

It took almost four years, but he made almost precisely the mistake you predicted.

Chris Hansen, 51, has been having an affair with a 30-year-old journalist.

Good on him for having decent taste in women and for keeping his fun between consenting adults, but at 51 and 30 (and with his paramour looking like a younger clone of his wife), he's still technically guilty of a social faux pas for dating outside the "half your age plus seven" rule.

Congrats, Max, on a prescient call.


I don't give a fig about the half plus seven rule.  It's running around his wife that's "perverted." 

MSNBC still hasn't come up with any more creative programming for the weekend.  It's now reruns of "Lock Up," "Perverted Justice," and tabloid specials about somebody offing his old lady!
::)

It took almost four years, but he made almost precisely the mistake you predicted.

Chris Hansen, 51, has been having an affair with a 30-year-old journalist.

Good on him for having decent taste in women and for keeping his fun between consenting adults, but at 51 and 30 (and with his paramour looking like a younger clone of his wife), he's still technically guilty of a social faux pas for dating outside the "half your age plus seven" rule.

Congrats, Max, on a prescient call.


I wonder if Chris Hanson's girlfriend lived down the street from him 20 years ago and he was secretly perving on her when he was 31 years old and she was 10...  :o :o :o