Rarely has a television series captured my imagination like Dateline NBC and Chris Hansen’s – To Catch a Predator. They team up with a vigilante group called Perverted Justice and local law enforcement to set up traps for anyone dumb enough to believe that a teenage girl on the internet wants him for sex, and morally weak enough to drive over to take up the offer. Chris Hansen then enjoys verbally ass-kicking the obviously intellectually weaker opponent on national television, after which police officers take the suspect into custody in an exaggerated ‘GET DOWN DOWN DOWN…’ parade perfectly suited to the camera.
The first time I watched it, I felt sick seeing so many men in ‘predatory’ roles towards minor girls. Of course, I thought of them as predators cause that’s what the title of the slickly choreographed program called them. Had I not followed up with research and a lot of thought, that’s probably the image that would have stuck with me. But I did think, and I did research…
How do we define a predator? A predator is one who is inclined to predate and who will actively pursue his victim(s). The pertinent question in this instance to establish predatory behavior, is that would these men, in the absence of the enticement from the decoy, seek and hunt down a 13 yr old and seduce her for sex? In other words, would they have committed a sexual act with a minor in the future had they not been on that chat site on that day?
The answer to this is in most cases is "maybe" at best, and "unlikely" at worst.
Reading the chat transcripts often shows that the sexual conversations were initiated and led by the decoys. The invitations to ‘come hither’ were often thrown by the perverted justice agents. Some men, who didn’t pick up the bait, were engaged in week-long chat sessions to build trust, and repeatedly extolled by the decoy to come visit for sex. Almost sounds like the agents were being predatory in nature. In any case, transcripts such as these left serious doubt in my mind whether those men would have pursued a minor for sex without the persuasive skills of perverted justice ‘agents’.
So since we don't know whether these men would have committed any crime, were it not for the decoy, how ethical is it for NBC to dismantle their lives on national TV? If the men were merely arrested off camera, and due legal process followed, it would make sense. It is the law that should decide a punishment for a suspect, not the media. Now, even if the DA doesn't press charges against an entrapped individual, his normal life is finished. Labeled ‘Predators’ in front of several million people, including their families, friends and co-workers and we don’t even know if they have committed a crime that will lead to a conviction in a court of law. I now believe that NBC crossed the ethical line here, and that its motives were financial.
Why didn’t NBC give those men an opportunity for a trial before broadcasting them as predatory sex offenders? Who appointed NBC as the gatekeeper of morals? The media cannot bypass the judicial system and inflict punishment on people before the courts have tried those people. Doesn't doing so destroy the concept of due process? If they wanted, couldn’t NBC wait for the verdicts against the individuals and only show us the faces of the convicted and delete the footage of those acquitted? Of course, that would mean delaying the show by a year or so, meaning less money in the bank NOW. At the very least faces could have been blurred pending trial ala ‘Cops’, but that wouldn’t quite have the impact on ratings would it? Hmmm…. Ethics vs Money,,, Ethics vs Money …… tough call eh?
“I believe that these sickos are guilty, so it’s ok for NBC to ruin them”
NBC and some others probably believe that “due process be damned, these men deserve to rot in hell and so it is ok to dismantle their lives on TV”. To them I ask, “what if tomorrow the evangelist channel spins off a series enticing gays out of the closet and broadcasting their faces to the country”? After all, the evangelists believe that the gays deserve to rot in hell. How about a feminist channel enticing men to cheat by using hot decoys and then broadcasting their faces to the country? Some people believe adulterers should rot in hell too.
Point is that I believe it should be illegal for NBC or any news channel for that matter to malign anyone before a legal conviction. I know there are lawsuits pending against NBC, and I hope they come through with guilty verdicts and set a standard for all journalists – you are news bearers, not newsmakers and definitely not magistrates capable of delivering punishment.
But what of the greater good and deterrents and all that good stuff?
I do not subscribe to the argument that since some of the men may have been real predators and since the children may be overall safer now, so it is ok to destroy lives of some other non-predatory men too. The punishment must befit the crime in every instance, and no innocent should ever get punished, and we are all innocent till proven guilty in A COURT OF LAW, not in Chris Hansen’s circus. Medieval societies often punished large groups of people under suspicion, guilty and innocent folk clubbed together, to deter the real criminals, to set an example. Do we really want to revert to that model? It sounds all good till you are at the receiving end of such a charade.
The Devil is always always in the details….
Blanket policies were nice 500 years back. What place do they have in a progressive, enlightened society that strives to resemble a causal model? The devil is always in the details and it is very convenient and foolish to gloss over them.
Cause and Effect – the effect should be driven by the cause. In this case, each cause or each act of an adult driving up to that house for minor sex, is different. The transcripts are different, the histories of the men are different, their individual plans and motivations are different. Which is why they will receive separate trials and separate verdicts or acquittals. The point is, how then for all their separate cases can NBC preempt due judicial process and hand out the same damage – a lifetime of shame and castigation?
I get this a lot – ‘You are saying this because you are not the father of a teenage girl. Put yourself in the parent’s shoes and then see if you have any sympathy for these predators. I would recommend castration for these people’.
Yes, in a hypothetical world, I would absolutely want to thrash the living daylights out of an adult individual visiting my 13 yr old for sex. And that is why I could not sit on the jury of his case. And that is why judges reject cases when there is a conflict of interest, or personal emotion involved. An emotional person cannot make a logical judgment and we're talking about a logical analysis of the situation, not an emotional or personal one.
If the makers of a judiciary put themselves in the victim’s family’s shoes while writing down laws, ‘revenge killing’ would be Article 101 of every judiciary. Consider this - if a psycho 13 yr old makes a totally fake allegation at you, for molestation, however outlandish her claim is, will her father not want to kill you? So should he be allowed to do so? Should people judge you on the basis of her claim? Or do you want courts to decide?
Point I am trying to make is that emotions have no place in penning down law and deciding what is ethical and what isn't. Context - journalism ethics for NBC. So when you find yourself trying to determine which side of the fence you sit on with respect to this issue, if you want to reach the rationally correct solution put emotions aside and then analyze it. Otherwise recognize that your decision is emotionally driven, and while you are fully entitled to it, it probably has no place in any logical or legal discussion of the matter.
