The Punishments in 'To Catch a Predator'
 

Hi! I like to watch a show called 'To Catch a Predator' in which they catch potential people that might have sex with a person who is younger than the age of consent. It is fun and one of my favorite shows on TV. I am mostly on the predators side because my political opinion is an age of consent on 13 years old. When it is 12 years old, then I am on the police side, mostly.

However, I must ask a question. What are the normal punishments for these people? I know that it is different in different states but is it possible to sit in jail for years for contacting a 15-year old? I am pretty interested in this.

Another (this time political) question I have is this: What is the moral philosophy you should use when seting an age of consent? In Spain, it is 13 and it seems to work there. Therefore, I'm pro-13. I want it as liberal as possible. Spain is a normal western world country and I trust Spain on that issue. What do you think?

Now I found this so my first question is pretty uneccesary to answer, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of...#United_States

Usually? Prison, then rape.

Child molesters aren't well respected when locked up, friendo.

Age of consent? 18 seems fine. Have you met a 15 year old girl? They're a mess.

13 is a good age of consent? Hell my daughter is 14 and she can never make up her mind about anything, and thats a good age to trust them to decide about sex?

Glad I dont live in Spain

So if someone asked her on the internet if he wanted to have sex with her, do you think she would have said yes? I don't think so.

Jocke, just a bit of friendly advice: you probably don't know more about Shani's daughter than she does.

When I was 13 I fucked everything that moved.

And those girls are traumatized for life?

BTW, what age is extremely sick if you think that should be the age of consent? Do you think you are very sick in the head if you think that 17 is okay? 16? 15? 14? 13?

Only the first 3 or 4. The rest are ruined for life because they'll never be as happy again. :thumbsup:

1/2 + 7

Thus, the oldest non creepy 17 year old partner is 20, the oldest non-creepy 16 year old partner is 18, the oldest non-creepy 15 year old partner is 16, and 14 year olds should be fucking themselves or nobody.

Not gonna lie, by the way...your smirky 20-something picture with a beer trying to convince me it's perfectly normal to want to bone someone born in 1995 is CREEPING ME RIGHT THE FUCK OUT.

24/2 + 7 = 19. Maybe, but she'd have to be a pretty mature 19 year old. Still, probably a good rule unless you're an 80 year old fucking a 47 year old. No one wants to know about that shit.
All sorts of agreed. :expressionless:

I can without doubt say that when I was 13, I would have sex with a 20-year old if she looked nice and I would be able to say no if I didn't want to.

On that picture, I'm 18 or 19. Now I'm 19. I wouldn't have sex with a 15 year old or younger. It is legal here to have sex with a 15 year old but maybe it is a liiittle taboo. 16 is fine though.

Those who wants to have sex with 13 year olds for example exist but I'm not one of them. I'm not gay either but I defend gay rights.

This is an interesting philosophical discussion and I think we should continue it without throwing insults at eachother. I did not create this controversial topic to provoke or start a fight.

Hahah.. I thought the same thing.

That said, I'm not sure a public forum is somewhere I'd want to state my position on this. Eighteen is fine for me.

Where are the Moderators when one is needed? They close threads and ban members for the strangest reasons but are ok with old members insinuating that someone looks like a child molester?

Well fortunately I am one of those parents that does not let their child online without me sitting right there watching what she is doing and that hasnt happened yet. I have also talked to her about this sort of thing and we have watched that show together and she knows that anyone trying to talk to her that way is someone she should block immediately.

All Im saying is...she cant decide on simple things without changing her mind 12 times.....she is at NO age to be deciding on sex, thats why I think any place that has 13 as the age of consent is not someplace I would want to bringing up my child

Hehe, it's okay. I believe in their freedom of speech.

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs12/300...y_tyrannus.jpg
:confused:

Jocke, the age of consent varies from state to state in the US. In Tennessee, it used to be (may still be for all I know) for a 16 year old to have sex with someone 21 or under. It was also legal for a 14 year old to have sex with someone as old as 16. That's not necessarily the way it is in every state, but for someone over 21, the general rule of thumb is that the other party has to be at least 18.

To answer your question from you OP, the punishments vary from state to state, but you're almost certainly looking at a few years in jail. Yes, even if the kid is 15.

The US (and most of the Western World) has drawn a series of lines of demarkation between adults and children. There are several, but the big ones are 16, 18 and 21 for various priveledges and punishments. These lines have to be drawn somewhere, or we'd risk having drunk children driving around with guns drawn on their way to vote Barney the Dinosaur into office. Other countries draw the lines in different spots, but make no mistake that they're drawn.

Do I necessarily think that 18 is the perfect age for every child? No. Do I think it's a good average? Maybe. Do I think that anyone over 18 hooking up with a 13 or 14 year old is sick and wrong? Oh yeah.

If that's what you want to discuss, I'm game.

Playing devil's advocate, who's to say that these are the appropriate places to draw the necessary lines? The problem with arbitrary standards is that they attempt to codify a process that is highly individual. Some kids are like Shanifaye's at 14. Some are that way at 16. But what about a 15 year old who is emotionally and physically mature past the average for her (or his) age? It certainly happens. And how can we really draw a fixed line on this? It does seem a bit absurd that a girl who is a week away from her 18th birthday is jailbait, whereas that same girl a mere week later is fine.

I sometimes wonder if children would mature faster emotionally if they weren't coddled so much. Does a 16 year old need to be protected because she's not emotionally mature, or is she emotionally immature because she's so over-protected? Is there another side to this coin?

I'll go one farther. The girl goes to bed one night illegal and wakes up the next legal. Or she can stay up late, walk out of the room and walk back in legal. It's definitely weird.

That said, I don't see any alternative. If you're going to protect the kids that aren't ready, you've got to hold back the kids that are. It's one of the things I actually like about the Tennessee system. It acknowledges that kids will have sex, but it makes sure that they're not having sex with adults, just people who are within a reasonable age. A 17-year old can have sex with a 19-year old, for instance. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the same 17-year old having sex with a 50-year old. There is an inherent problem in that dynamic.

I have never ever ever met a mature 15-year-old. I've met plenty of 15-year-olds who think they're mature, but never one who actually is.

Mature isn't a boolean argument. Are there 15 year olds out there more mature than the average 17 or even 18 year olds? I would contend that there are, although they're admittedly quite rare.

I'm not sure I see your point there. I will agree that there does need to be some division, but I don't understand how a 50 year old having sex with a 17 year old is any different from a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old (besides the visceral 'ew' factor). If we're going to acknowledge that a 17 year old is mature enough to make the decision to have sex, how does the age of the other party factor into it?

It's pretty interesting when one thing which is legal in one country gives like 5 years in another country. This is not so interesting when it comes to saudi arabia in which they stone people for shit things or something like that but I mean normal countries which we can relate to. Yes, I see it as "we and them".

Different countries/cultures have different values. That simple.

My dad's boss is from England, and when he and his family moved tot he US for good, I helped them move from their temporary apartment to a house.

When I got there on the day I was helping, first thing they said was that I could have a beer from the fridge. I said that I was only 18, and they asked why that mattered. They were floored when I told them the legal drinking age is 21.

(Note: no comments on the fact that I turned down beer at 18 please :p)

Not quite as extreme as the age-of-consent issue (let alone the "stoning" :D), but it is still the same point.

Well, yeah but I think that sex is as dangerous for all ages all over the world. I think the limit is perfect at 13 in all countries. When it comes to alcohol, it should be different in different countries. I think different limits are very important.

That's remarkably inconsistent. Drinking magically requires more parental supervision than sex?

I was watching a show the other night on the Discovery Channel "Taboo" is was covering the topic of child marriages in India. It is not uncommon (as i learned) for children to get married as early as seven years old. That seems pretty distorted to me, but venders selling live puppies on the street for consumption (common in China) seems distorted to me. Jocke you have explained your view pretty well, but when you say you are on the side of the predators, can you explain that? I dont want too put words in your mouth.

Well, the central question is: "Why is there an age of consent?" There are two lines of thought:

o People below a certain age are, in general, not mature enough to engage in sex. They aren't capable of making a rational decision about it, so we should prohibit it by law to discourage it.

- Personally, I think this sort of control should mostly fall under parental control, but, under a certain low age(13), parents allowing their children to engage in sexual activity probably need the axe.

o Second, an older person who is more mature and experienced can easily have undue influence over a younger person. IE, older guys have more experience talking the panties off of girls, and are good at talking girls into things they might later regret. More immature people need to be protected by law from older people who may prey on them.

- I agree with this concept quite a bit more. While people mature at different ages, you have to pick a standard. Preferably one that's easy for a horny, possibly slightly intoxicated, guy to understand. "if $age < 18 then $jailbait = True" is a pretty good one. If you don't have a hard-and-fast rule, you either have to let adults sleep with children, or you end up with nebulous debates in court, which is never a good thing.

Is it sad that all I got out of your post robot is that you like PHP too much? :)

Ew, just ew!
YoOu think it's ok for someone old enough to be a parent to the other to be screwing with them?
If so, give me a call, I'll be in Tennessee all weekend :D

PHP ~*sucks*~.

That was pseudo-perl, thank you very much. :-)

Hmmm ... I was 22 when I met the person who became my wife. She was 17 at the time ... although I didn't know it for a while. She was not living with her parents.

I'll let her know that our relationship was "creepy."

BTW ... we're still married and I'm 39 now.

The problem here is sort of relative to the society in which we live. Sex is taboo here. If we were more honest about it and talked to our children at an early enough age then we wouldn't have most of the messes we have.

Is a 13-year-old person old enough to have sex? Some might be--depending on how they were raised. I've known some very mature 13-year-olds. Some of them had been sexually active and handled it quite well.

Is a 23-year-old person old enough to have sex? Some probably aren't--depending on how they were raised. I've known some very immature 23-year-olds. Some of them handled the whole sex thing like it was the end of the world.

Now, in order for us to have a civilized society, we have to have certain rules. I don't agree with all of the rules, but I live by them until I can work to change them. Will I work to change age-of-consent laws? No. I have no problem with them except in certain very extreme cases (17-year-olds going to jail for getting a BJ from a 15-year-old f'rinstance).

I also think shows like "To Catch a Predator" should be cancelled. I'm all for free speech (100% for it in fact) ... but these shows are just hideous. Have you ever noticed how <i><b>mean</i></b> American television is? Everyone is just so mean ... but that's a different topic for a different thread.

Well, I continue to see 17-year-old girls who are very physically attractive. I also see 50-year-old+ women who are very physically attractive. Sucks to be me I guess.

Where in Tennessee did you say you were staying? :p

The other point is that this 18 year old limit wasn't always the case in the US. Maybe because people are living longer and are more successful if they put off having kids, it has become a societal norm. But my Grandparents met and started dating at 14 or 15 and lived their entire lives together.

The issue of consent and kind of the subject of this post was treated rather extensively in this thread: Linky
Ages of consent are legal fictions and by definition are not supposed to reflect reality but give give a parameter that rule everyone based on what the legislator at the moment of writing the law considered to be "normal". That's how in the US they very oddly came to decide that at 18 years you're able to kill people in a war and have sex on camera for the entire world to watch it but you can't have a beer until you are 21, cause you're not mature enough at 18 to control your alcoholic impulses, stupid if you ask me, but that's the way it is and I think that's what it should all come to in the end. As long as the law is one, you must obey it or attain to the consequences. You don't agree on what the law says? Try to change it, there are many ways to do so, but if you break it, whether it seems stupid or not to you, you will have to pay.

I didn't say that. I said that for example legal drinking ages or alcohol monoply may vary from country to country but age of consent shouldbe the same everywhere.

I don't think it is ethically wrong to have sex with a 13-year old or older if it is consenting.

Why wouldn't it? As long as the younger isn't to young.

There's that visceral reaction I mentioned.

I did say I was doing the whole devil's advocate thing. I'm making arguments for some things I don't necessarily agree with, based on the premise that a balanced discussion is better than one person defending himself against everyone else. It's more productive this way, dig?

If you want to know what I really believe, I figure mostly what's been said; age-of-consent laws aren't necessarily perfect but they do serve a useful function. It's an imperfect solution to a complex problem. Most complex problems don't have perfect solutions and I'm okay with that.

And yet, I still don't see the difference. If we're going to say that a 17 year old is old enough and mature enough to have sex, the unspoken assumption that goes along with that is that said 17 year old is wise enough to make informed decisions on the matter. If we take that as granted, then, how does the age of the partner factor into it?

Girls older than 17 can still be taken advantage of and there are plenty of girls younger than that who are smart enough not to fall fo any 'tricks.' And what about the boys?

See, this is just it. People are trained by the society that they live in regarding what's right and wrong. We tend to think that a 50 year old having sex with a 17 year old is wrong, because that's what we've been told. This, in turn, becomes so ingrained that it leads to an instant visceral reaction to any such situation. Regardless of that, I'm still not sure I understand why it's wrong. Is it somehow better for a young woman if she gets pregnant from/catches an STD from/regrets having sex with a 19 year old than if it's a 30 year old? The potential consequences here are the same. We trust both parties to make an educated decision on the matter. So where does age figure in?

If we take an average sampling of youths aged 13 to 17 and attempt to gauge how many of them are emotionally and mentally prepared to enter into a sexual relationship with a partner, I imagine the result would be somewhat linear, with a higher number being ready as we get to the older individuals. The appropriate age of consent, I would imagine, is the age at which the majority of individuals are capable of handling the emotional (and often physiological) consequences of having sex. My uneducated guess would put that somewhere between 16 and 18, but who knows? Maybe most 15 year olds are wiser to the ways of the world than we give them credit for.

(Now, about that phone call...)

I agree with the overall "meaness" shows have become. The whole backstab your peers to win at any cost theme is absolutely terrible and scary of it potential reflectiveness of our society.

With "to Catch a Predator" I really did even know it was an ongoing show. I thought it was just one special a journist had done (forgot which one 60 min, Nightline, etc). The one I did see showed men who had been conversing with what they thought was a 13 y/o girl online, ask if their parents were going to be home, and drive out to their house. These guys were showing up with drugs, alcohol, pockets full of condoms, one guy even stripped nude as soon as he walked in the door. Three of them had children they left in the car. I cant help but think these guys were scumbags. Perhaps entrapment (if thats what this was) is bad, I cant say that nationally humiliting these people was bad thing (except for the pain it may have cause their families).

Maybe younger than 17 is accpetable WITH PARENTAL CONSENT, or if the teenager is one of the cases that legally sperated themselves from their parents, and lives on their own. In this area I think having a standard is fine as long as there is potential to intermittently review instances on a case by case basis with a reasonable perspective.

In the same theme of what Maritan is stating; if an adult is considered 18 then who is considered more of a child molester for persuing and engaging sexual acts with a 13 y/o the 18, 30, or 50 year old man? Btoom line the guys on that show never mentioned if it was OK with the parents, infact they were sneaky about it. First I would hope to have educated my daughter enough not to do that kind of action online, secondly perhaps stings like this saves lives. Because if I caught a man doing that with a child of mine< I would probaly end his life and end up in jail myself.

There's a flip side of an argument I've never seen before, it's always been "defending gay rights is a slippery slope to allowing pedophilia."
If you think something is strange, you can always ask one of us. The worst that can happen is that we say it's none of your business.
The medical community has concluded based on years of observation that during certain stages in development, sexual activity can cause long-term or irreparable psychological harm. Putting the age of consent at 18 establishes a bit of a buffer zone; the majority of people who have reached age 18 are either mature enough to make decisions about their sexual actions, or at least developed enough that they will not suffer psychological harm. There are frequently "Romeo and Juliet laws" that allow for a certain age difference across or below the 18 line because during mid-to-late adolescence, sexual activity with those of approximately the same age is not generally harmful while sex between someone in that age group and someone significantly older is highly likely to be coercive or otherwise harmful.
Stop nerding up the thread, nerds :p

Am I completely lost? Anyone else, does this somehow make sense?

None at all.

I personally have never been to jail, but Ive known a few people who have, plus my sister is a prison warden (at Highpoint, a men's prison) - so Im not totally ignorant: and I've never heard of anyone getting raped in jail.

Im sure it happens, but I think it is a bit of a myth that it is so widespread. My uncle spent a lot of time inside, and he said nothing like that ever happened to him.

And I am not in favour of child molestation of course, but the self righteousness of the people who make this shows is a hideous thing in itself.