[Wizard.]

Do you agree with people who pretend to be children to catch pedophiles then record them when they’re supposed to meet the underaged person the put it on social media?

[Marsh.]

Not really.

[Withano]

Not really. Recording them sort of creates a witch hunt.

That American show where actual police are involved works well, angry vigilantes don’t really.

[RileyH]

no

[Tom4784]

I don't agree with vigilantism, no.

[Jack_]

I think we had this thread recently and no not really, it's entrapment and I get the feeling that most of them are in it for the notoriety...like 'look at me, aren't I such a Great Guy catching these nonces'

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I think we had this thread recently and no not really, it's entrapment and I get the feeling that most of them are in it for the notoriety...like 'look at me, aren't I such a Great Guy catching these nonces'

And what’s wrong with entrapping a sexual pervert?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

And what’s wrong with entrapping a sexual pervert?

It can **** up any legitimate case, leaving them out, free, and not on the sex offenders register? I mean it's a slight problem. Just a little one.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It can **** up any legitimate case, leaving them out, free, and not on the sex offenders register? I mean it's a slight problem. Just a little one.

And it can catch hundreds of pervs that wouldn’t have been brought to police attention otherwise. I’m all for it.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Redway

And it can catch hundreds of pervs that wouldn’t have been brought to police attention otherwise. I’m all for it.

Doesn't catch them though does it?

[Wizard.]

It’s difficult because technically by pretending to be a child the person hasn’t broken the law and it could harm cases against the perpetrator, I think I have actually heard that the police say not to do it.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Riley.

It’s difficult because technically by pretending to be a child the person hasn’t broken the law and it could harm cases against the perpetrator, I think I have actually heard that the police say not to do it.

It harms the case even if they were to use a real child as bait, as because of "entrapment" I understand such evidence isn't permissible in a court case.

That's how I understood it anyway.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It harms the case even if they were to use a real child as bait, as because of "entrapment" I understand such evidence isn't permissible in a court case.

That's how I understood it anyway.

There's at least one group of "paedo hunters" who work alongside Norfolk Constabulary. They're well-organised, keep records and hand over all evidence and transcripts to the police for prosecution. They are not brainless, violent chavs, they are men who have been affected by child abuse in one way or another. There are probably more groups, that that's the only one I know about for sure.

Entrapment is a sticky one anyway. To entrap someone the paedo hunter would have to approach a man and attempt to act in a way to make him commit an offence. Actually, these people hang about in chat rooms and the paedos contact them. So it could be argued that it isn't entrapment at all.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

There's at least one group of "paedo hunters" who work alongside Norfolk Constabulary. They're well-organised, keep records and hand over all evidence and transcripts to the police for prosecution. They are not brainless, violent chavs, they are men who have been affected by child abuse in one way or another. There are probably more groups, that that's the only one I know about for sure.

Entrapment is a sticky one anyway. To entrap someone the paedo hunter would have to approach a man and attempt to act in a way to make him commit an offence. Actually, these people hang about in chat rooms and the paedos contact them. So it could be argued that it isn't entrapment at all.

A police organised investigation is completely different to slapdash vigilantism.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A police organised investigation is completely different to slapdash vigilantism.

I completely agree. Sadly though, there aren't enough officers to cope with the problem. And I agree that slapdash vigilante action is always wrong and dangerous. But if they're acting within the law with the knowledge of the local constabulary, I think they're doing the public a service.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Entrapment is a sticky one anyway. To entrap someone the paedo hunter would have to approach a man and attempt to act in a way to make him commit an offence. Actually, these people hang about in chat rooms and the paedos contact them. So it could be argued that it isn't entrapment at all.

Allegedly and totally open to being denied, is a large part of the problem. The accused can claim that they were approached and the coversation altered. Also they can claim that the "hunter" was the first one to suggest meeting in person and then has omitted this part of the conversation. And when the evidence is essentially part of a witness statement and not an official investigation, there's little way to prove that they're lying.

(Also, in some cases, they're not lying and the "paedohunters" have gotten impatient and pushed for an encounter)

I'd be interested to see what percentage of these groups "stings" actually result in any sort of meaningful conviction, actually.

[Oliver_W]

I'm on the fence. If someone will arrange to meet a fake underage person, they'd meet a real underage person, and someone like that should face the law - I'm not gonna lose any sleep over crappy things happening to a paedo.
I guess the "middle ground" would be if someone recorded/screenshotted conversations, and passed them onto the necessary authorities, without making it public. That way, at the very least someone official might have half an eye on the situation, or be able to chip in if someone else reports the would-be groomer.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I'm on the fence. If someone will arrange to meet a fake underage person, they'd meet a real underage person, and someone like that should face the law - I'm not gonna lose any sleep over crappy things happening to a paedo.

Except being tricked by a member of the public isn't facing any "law" and if said person was under investigation, forms of entrapment can actually jeopardise any legal proceedings.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except being tricked by a member of the public isn't facing any "law" and if said person was under investigation, forms of entrapment can actually jeopardise any legal proceedings.

Agree with this... only disagree with them because people can go free because of their actions. I understand their point is that they're "going free as it stands anyway" but it surely wouldn't be that hard to just accost them and call the police there and then, rather than make footage of them harassing the suspect incredibly public just for likes on Facebook.

[Vicky.]

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

yeah i agree with this

[Cal.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

.

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

This

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

Me neither. It's hard to get worked up over people hunting paedophiles when those paedophiles are hunting children.

[Black Dagger]

I don't have much time for vigilante's tbh