What do you think of publicly exposing people who solicit children online?

[psychopomp]

I just found a site where people committed to impersonating vulnerable kids work to expose people who solicit them online. Usually, after arranging a meeting they notify either law enforcement or, on one occasion I read about, the media.

They post the offender's photo, chat log, telephone number and hometown if they can get that info. The site has this disclaimer under each record:

Disclaimer: This information is made available for the purpose of informing the internet community, creating awareness for parents, and deterring individuals such as this. Our claims of "truth" with this file are limited to two areas, that the screen name in question had the conversation above, and that in files post-September 1st, 2003, that the phone number included in the file was used during the commission of this chatlog. The only person with the authority to remove this file is admin@<__________>.com.

Anyone who attempts to use this information to commit a criminal act against another person can be subject to criminal prosecution or civil action. <__________>.com condemns the attempt, use, or even thought of physical violence, extortion or harassment against the individual above. Such actions are not in the spirit of what <__________>.com is all about and would put your own personal safety at risk.

I am hesitant to give the link to the site because I have not made up my mind on their tactics. I was shocked, though, to see the faces of so many normal-looking people there. It got me thinking; how sick is our society that our men want to seek out kids?

They also post convictions...








On second thought, here it is

http://www.perverted-justice.com/
WARNING some records of conversations graphic

[Dookus]

1. I've read the site

it's interesting.

But I would draw a distinction - they generally are not propositioning children - they're propositioning adolescents. Wrong nonetheless, but they're not hitting on 5-year olds.

[psychopomp]

3. I've read some impersonating 12 yo's

Technically they are all children in the eyes of the law.

[troubleinwinter]

22. Say, WHAT???!!!!

You draw a distinction? Between the solicitation between propositioning a child and a(adolescent) CHILD??!!!

WTF?!

[fooj]

23. Mind-boggling if the kid was six! What distinction would be drawn?

OMG! :banghead:

[devilgrrl]

2. I figure that most people who solicit children online...

are hard rightwing Republicans, so I'm all for publicly exposing them.

[troubleinwinter]

21. I am practically !#$**%$ speechless.

"I figure that most people who solicit children online
are hard rightwing Republicans, so I'm all for publicly exposing them."

You surely CANNOT mean what your post appears to say.

Who gives a shit what political party a pedophile belongs to???!!!!!

This is purely insane.

I am truly stumped for words, I am so shocked.

[Scout1071]

4. When I was in the bar/market part of Bangkok, I saw plenty

of American engineer-lookin-types at the bars with their "dates." Of course, none of them looked a day over 16 and these guys would be there buying them drinks, with their pocket protectors and cigarette stained beards/mustaches. Absolutely disgusted me.

[WillowTree]

5. Approve of turning any info over to authorities.

Don't approve of taking it upon themselves to publish info online or anywhere else without a conviction. Among other things, doing so could hamper investigation and/or prosecution.

[Ken Burch]

7. Great potential for setups and ratfucking in it to

(and let me make it clear, I used "ratfucking" in a strictly metaphorical sense, you filthy perverts...)

[psychopomp]

9. Could you explain what you mean?

Are you against this type of tactic?

[Ken Burch]

12. I have concerns about it because it could be used, by politically

motivated law enforcement officials, to falsely discredit political opponents.

You could arrange for someone to email child pornography to a Democratic presidential candidate as an attachment with an innocuous name, and then have the cops waiting to bust the candidate or someone on his staff before the attachment could be deleted.

There's also the possibility of simply having people "leak" false allegations against individuals the police wanted to discredit.

I hate child porn consumers(and producers)but this approach does have a great potential for abuse.

So I guess you could say I have reservations.

[psychopomp]

13. Thats not their MO

Check the site, if you like, and then let me know what you think.

[Ken Burch]

14. Well, if it's not, I'm ok with it.

[psychopomp]

8. Good points

I found it quite educational from a sociological perspective and to actually see the faces of those involved really hit a nerve with me. I suppose what bothers me is the vigilante aspect of it all. However, in this case I am inclined to let that misgiving take a back seat to protecting the weak.

[lonestarnot]

6. My seal of approval here with previous posters note conviction first!

[Cleita]

10. I've never been in favor of setups or stings.

Something is just stinky about it. As much as I would like to see these guys exposed I don't think this is the right approach. Since this website seems to be known, I think the police should take over from here on out.

[Senior citizen]

11. Many convicted pedophiles have admitted to similar crimes

for which they were never caught or convicted. When a pedophile is arrested, it is not uncommon for other victims to step forward.

It usually takes a while for a pedophile to get caught and convicted. So those who say that they should not be outed before they have been convicted, are sacrificing the welfare of a whole lot of kids.

The problem is so wide-spread these days that it would be impossible to catch all pedophiles. Anything that helps protect kids sounds like a good idea to me.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. What I think is

maybe instead of publicially outing them is you can go to a local policeman/woman and tell them your concern and ask if they can look into it. What if you're wrong? :shrug:

[ragin_acadian]

16. whoa,

before anyone rubber-stamps the work of perverted justice, check out this site:

http://corrupted-justice.com/

basically, the argument i have heard against perverted justice is that with a picture, an ip address, and an instant messenger, you can manufacture enough evidence to nail anyone you might have a problem with. - kind of like filling a trash bag with household garbage, including a letterhead/torn up mail from the guy across the street (or at work)that you don't like, throwing in some half burned joints or an old bong for fun, and tossing it onto a highway for the police to go through when they find litter on the road.

there are some state agencies that are taking steps to combat potential sex predators, and homeland security too (didn't they catch a boyscout leader a week or two ago?) so i say leave the dubious vigilantism to the authorities.

[uhhuh]

17. I've checked both site now, and agree with you

There is the danger of set-ups, and also, due to perverted justice's hesitation in conacting law enforcement, it gives pedophiles the opportunity to destroy evidence if they see that they are listed as a "bust" on their site.

According to corrupted-justice.com, perverted justice has also used underaged "baiters" to get some of their busts. they also do have very graphic, sexually explicit conversations posted which anyone of any age can view, along with explicit webcam images.

This material could easily be viewed by minors, and could also be used as wriiten materials for pedophiles to use to fantasize with.

I don't see this as useful, unless they wait to post their 'bust' after the legal system has dealt with the case. They also shouldn't exploit minors in order to protect them.

[psychopomp]

18. Interesting

From the site you ref'd, the "facts" on "perverted justice":

Facts:

There are very few real facts that can be confirmed about the site perverted-justice.com. The secrecy surrounding the site does not allow for any public openness and that leaves very few avenues for confirming information. The following things have been confirmed by the sites daily activities.

Your phone number and address are posted for public view. You likeness will be posted if it can be obtained. Personal information of your family, neighbors and your workplace will be posted in the 'follow-up' forums.

Calls to your family, your home and your workplace are encouraged in the follow-up forums.

Corrupted-justice.com has found no evidence to suggest that PJ is an accredited organization, registered entity; for profit or charitable organization.

Corrupted-justice.com has found no evidence to suggest that PJ is endorsed or supported by any child protection/advocacy organization.

Corrupted-justice.com has found no evidence to suggest that PJ is endorsed or supported by any legal department, branch, state or federal law enforcement agency.

Corrupted-justice.com has found no evidence to suggest that PJ is endorsed or supported by any institute of higher learning, including any member accredited teachers or professors.

Corrupted-justice.com has found no evidence to suggest that PJ contributors and other volunteers have certification of any kind.

Readers of PJ are not allowed to view the pictures the baiters use in the chat. You have to wonder whose children are featured in these busts.

PJ members convince you to see the light by telephone harassment, stalking, sending flyers to your neighbors, harassing your employer and family, and have even used DMV information to aid them in their harassment campaigns in their follow-up forums. All the while stating that they do not condone harassment of any kind.

http://corrupted-justice.com/facts.html

Interesting point about the use of children's photos in the bait ads. Still, the question is of justice and whether it is being served in this situation. I don't have a ready answer but I don't think the secrecy surrounding p-j is much of a criticism.

[ragin_acadian]

24. good point. i got the tip on both sites from a friend.

on another note, there is a police chief in tennessee, (i read an article, can't think of where it was) that poses as a fifteen year old girl online, finds guys in chatrooms, then invites them to a specific place in tennessee. when they show up, he busts them. from what i read, it seems to be rather effective.

the thing is, if they aren't connected with the police/advocacy organizations, what is to prevent anyone from posting the phone number, address, ip, and photo of the high school jock that always gave them a wedgie in the lockeroom? yikes.

i'm not trying to debunk the site, just trying to put a little perspective on what perverted justice could, or could not be, considering what is at stake with how they operate.

[enki23]

19. what's to stop someone from just making the shit up?

or embellishing it? what do you want to bet at least some of the participants get feeling a bit competitive once in a while, going for the big pervert score. can't find a big enough pervert, make a minor pervert look worse. edit the age you quoted after the fact. whatever.

not that some cops, political operatives, whatever, can't do the same thing, given the motivation to do it.

i have a feeling we're seeing the future of at least a few serious political campaigns. the mere accusation, with absolutely no real evidence, would be enough to sink a democrat. republicans, however, have the "godly" image to shield them. just like catholic priests.

[Djinn]

20. BAD idea

as people have mentioned it would be piss easy to set someone up, also how do they expose people when all they have is an email address?

this site could well be a disaster in terms of punishing those who prey on kids - any information gleaned and handed to the cops would most likely be inadmissable and the perv gets a heads up that he's being watched.