[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.