posted
I don't watch much TV. The TV I do watch is mostly shows either bought on DVD or downloaded and I'm pretty particular about the shows I watch. I avoid reality television like the plague. I had no idea it was getting this bad:
quote:In November 2006, a camera crew from “Dateline NBC” and a police SWAT team descended on the Texas home of Louis William Conradt Jr., a 56-year-old assistant district attorney. The series’ “To Catch a Predator” team had allegedly caught Mr. Conradt making online advances to a decoy who pretended to be a 13-year-old boy. When the police and TV crew stormed Mr. Conradt’s home, he took out a handgun and shot himself to death.
“That’ll make good TV,” one of the police officers on the scene reportedly told an NBC producer. Deeply cynical, perhaps, but prescient. “Dateline” aired a segment based on the grim encounter. After telling the ghoulish tale, it ended with Mr. Conradt’s sister decrying the “reckless actions of a self-appointed group acting as judge, jury and executioner, that was encouraged by an out-of-control reality show.”
I'm really glad that someone is taking that show to court, because that's just sick. I though reality television was bad enough when survivor first appeared. I hoped it would vanish quickly and quietly -- didn't really believe it would, but I hoped. As time's gone on, it's just gotten worse and worse though.
It seems like a ridiculously small percentage of the shows on television these days actually aim to tell a story. They're mostly one bizarre reality show after another. Some of them like Project Runway seem to be mostly harmless. Others like the above mentioned To Catch a Predator are beyond the pale.
Now I'm about the last person who'd be in favor of using law to reign in free speech in anyway. Even in the case of Television. That's a path too dangerous to tread down. But something needs to reign in the networks. Something needs to make them put on better stuff. But what? What could we do to get rid of Humiliation TV?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was also that show where a woman admitted that if this guy offered to, she would leave her husband to be with him.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The intentions behind "To Catch a Predator" seem to be a bit more noble than those of "Survivor".
Granted, the intention of any television show is to make money from commercial advertising, so I'm probably streching the imagination when I use the word noble.
I'm curious though (and I ask this with no ulterior motive or hidden agenda), what about "To Catch a Predator" do you think is beyond the pale?
Naturally, you might expect some to say that the people humiliated by that show deserve to be. What would your response be to that?
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or more to the point, how do you know in a world of soundbites and outakes that the show is doing anything right? After all, it's all spliced together to provide entertainment, not news.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couldn't they be charged with negligent unintentional manslaughter or some such? Or breaking and entering if they actually entered the home without permission?
The media, or Hollywood I guess in this case, have no powers of any kind, no legal powers I mean. If they do this and get it wrong, they should suffer consequences for it. And even if they got it right, the man shouldn't have died over it, and if it can be proved that their actions directly caused him to kill himself, I think they're partially responsible.
Humiliation is one thing, incitement to suicide is something entirely different.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in most instances on To Catch A Predator, how do you really get it wrong? The men are chatting online with someone they believe is a minor and sexual acts are discussed and/or sexual photographs are sent. They aren't arrested for this behavior and I don't remember any episode where pictures and the identities are revealed unless they show up to the house. Their arrival signals intent and they are asked to bring certain items to ensure that they have sexual purposes in mind and aren't just there to tell the child to stop behaving in such a manner.
Who's to say that the man committed suicide out of humiliation rather than shame?
As for my personal feelings, I don't know how I feel. I'd like to think that its unnecessary because parents should already be aware of the dangers of the internet and had these important talks with their children. But then again, I know that it isn't the case and maybe its good to shock the sense into some parents (though, its seems the already knowledgeable parent is more likely to watch than the other.)
It seems unnecessarily scandalous, but if you can search sex offenders online, then why not post their names and faces on television? Maybe its time for society to head away from conventional punishments and onto more creative and effective means. As the show goes on, more and more predators are aware and worried about the potential that they're speaking to a bait or a cop. Maybe it'll even stop a few.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Or more to the point, how do you know in a world of soundbites and outakes that the show is doing anything right? After all, it's all spliced together to provide entertainment, not news.
How does one even trust the news? That too is put on television for entertainment. Those programs live and die by their ratings, and therefore commercial advertisement dollars, don't they?
So here's another question. How is "The News" different from the genre dubbed as reality television?
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree that reality television sets up cameras and a crew and, in most cases, invites people of their choosing to say unscripted things in front of those cameras. I guess you could call that creating events.
Then again, I was once in an unscripted interview (at least my parts were unscripted) with a local camera crew and it wound up on the news. Not reality television.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Child predators are horrible people, and should be punished for their crimes by the legal system.
TV programs shouldn't become vigilantes who entrap people and ruin their lives by putting them on public display. I don't approve in any way of what the people they catch are doing, but I don't think they should be allowed to turn themselves into the entire justice system.
It's frighteningly close to "The Running Man", which is a fun movie, but not something which I think we should support in reality.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the arrests are handled by local law enforcement and the baits are set by an organization whose purpose is to document the activities of predators and then turn those records over to officials.
I guess my question is whether these sting operations occur outside of the show's sponsorship? Is the problem then that these operations are documented and then televised? Is the problem that evidence is presented on the show though the majority of the cases have not been ruled on at the time of an episode's airing? A guilty before tried-type scenario?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the kind of crime where a person is convicted by the public, and their life is never the same again, without the benefit of due process of law and the protections and safeguards and rights of people accused of other crimes.
This show circumvents the legal process, by making sure that these people are known as child predators, regardless of the outcome of their trial.
We all wish that child predators were punished for their crimes, and kept out of society so that they cannot harm anyone, but I think it's vitally important that we don't start making exceptions for crimes that we find particularly offensive, or we may as well subvert the entire legal process and just do what we like to anyone we feel may be guilty of something.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's prudent to blame something like suicide on the actions of a TV show's production team.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: This is the kind of crime where a person is convicted by the public, and their life is never the same again, without the benefit of due process of law and the protections and safeguards and rights of people accused of other crimes.
This show circumvents the legal process, by making sure that these people are known as child predators, regardless of the outcome of their trial.
Do you think you may be adding more on to the legal process than was ever originally intended?
Due process prevents people from facing imprisonment, fines or capital punishment. I don't think it ever had the responsibility of protecting reputations.
Anyway, I'm not actually advocating the show, or the way they go about doing what they do. I honestly came to this thread without a pre-formed opinion, and I'm interested to see what everyone has to say on the topic.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Due process prevents people from facing imprisonment, fines or capital punishment. I don't think it ever had the responsibility of protecting reputations.
Then why can you sue for defamation of character if someone makes false accusations?
I know it's not quite the same thing but it does say to me that there is some consideration and protection for reputation in the law. Witness that newspapers have to be very careful the words they use about someone who has not yet been convicted of a crime.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also consider that the show is acting in the manner of the police, but don't have any of the legal constraints or checks that actual police have. The show can come into your house without a warrant, they can ask you to incriminate yourself on camera without having to appraise you of your right to remain silent or have an attorney, they can use their "evidence" as leverage against you to coerce you into admitting guilt for things which you may not actually be guilty.
They're the bad cop, and you don't have any protection against them. They don't have any legal responsibility to play fair, to respect your rights, to not entrap you, to not fabricate a case against you, to not tamper with evidence, because none of these terms actually apply to what they're doing.
It's horribly frightening to me, and I think if you consider the implications, it should be to everyone.
We overlook it now, because it's against child predators, which is something so horrible we're naturally inclined to think that maybe they don't actually deserve full protection, maybe they don't deserve a trial before they're proclaimed guilty to the public.
What happens when next season's show is "To Catch a Child Abuser" and takes photos of a parent spanking their child. Or "To Catch a Flasher" which takes movies of people changing clothes at the beach.
Far fetched? We've already got The Moment of Truth, which if I understand correctly, tries to ruin people's marriages and families for entertainment. We've got Jerry Springer where you can out your transsexual, prostitute cousin on national television. We've got Cheaters where you can show everyone what a scumbag your cheating lover is.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument, I'm just saying if we think it's cool to let TV become the legal system, are we going to be happy when we're the ones in front of the camera?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very grateful that I can watch my shows online now. I don't need my TV anymore--and I don't have to worry about getting roped in to watching the news or reality shows.
I saw an episode of "predator"--and I don't get any pleasure from watching people suffer. Even bad guys. I think their lifetime in jail gives them a chance to atone for their wrongs, and that this show gets in the way of that.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never watched the show, but I hope his family sues the pants off of them and wins. This kind of vigilante revenge for the sake of money is disgusting.
So are child predators, of course. But just like I don't believe that forced rape in prison is just, I don't believe this is just. This is gross.
Don't people have to sign releases before tv shows can use the footage? How does that work with a show like that? I know that everyone on the screen on COPS has to sign a release.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The show can come into your house without a warrant, they can ask you to incriminate yourself on camera without having to appraise you of your right to remain silent or have an attorney, they can use their "evidence" as leverage against you to coerce you into admitting guilt for things which you may not actually be guilty.
I'm not sure what you mean here, MC. If you're talking about the conversations that predators are having online with the decoys, you should realize that the decoys are all cleared through the local police. The show isn't doing anything but documenting that the conversations took place.
The production crew doesn't come into any of the predators' homes; they go to a third party's home and let the predators come to them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Mr. Conradt did not show up at the “sting house” — the usual “To Catch a Predator” format — producers allegedly asked police as a “favor” to storm his home.
posted
I think it is extremely naive of this show to suggest that justice is so simple of a thing that it can be dealt out through a television segment that lasts less than an hour. It is easy for viewers to sit back on their couches and watch some video footage of a predator getting caught and immediately conclude that the predator deserves whatever he gets. But this is a case where lives are on the line - justice must determine whether the life of the predator is worth destroying to potentially save other lives. That may appear easy on television, but in real life things are far more complicated than they appear on TV. That's why this stuff is supposed to be done in a courtroom, rather than in the court of public opinion.
Hopefully some good will come out of this event - and they will take this show off the air.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that technically, they havn't commited a crime yet, it seems like they are starting a vigilant system that reminds me of the MInority Report.
Also this reminds me of stories i read about when chat rooms first started people would solicite sex, for like food, then come to the door with a baseball bat or gun.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason this show bothers me a lot less than shows like TMZ or any of the endless celebrity gossip shows on E! and other channels.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does the insertion of the media in the process affect the actual prosecution of the case? How many convictions does this lead to?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: I think that technically, they havn't commited a crime yet...
They have if the way they explain the law on the show is correct: Soliciting sex on the internet with someone they believe is a minor is a misdemeanor. Showing up at the house with the intent of engaging in sexual activity is a felony.
EDIT: Regarding the original post, I believe this is why they went after the DA; although he didn't show up, he had already comitted the misdemeanor. Storming a house over a misdeamenor does seem unnecessary though.
posted
I have always thought the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" was a sham statement. It actually is guilty until proven innocent. What happens when you are accused of a crime? You get arrested, get thrown into jail, and then have to post bail to get out of jail long enough to prove your innocents.
This show only makes the process public. Now, maybe every single one of these people are guilty. Here is the problem. The police are in on the act, allowing the television show as the first contact. As was explained earlier, there is NO rights to protect against the producers and interviewers. And yet the format puts the television show on par with the police. They become participants rather than observers of the legal system. Don't tell me what they say on the show is not used in court.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What happens when you are accused of a crime? You get arrested, get thrown into jail, and then have to post bail to get out of jail long enough to prove your innocents.
That depends on the crime and a number of other factors including the available evidence. It is not a given that by being merely accused of a crime that you will be arrested, thrown in jail, or subject to a bail hearing or have to pay bail in order to be released pending a trial.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have always thought the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" was a sham statement. It actually is guilty until proven innocent. What happens when you are accused of a crime? You get arrested, get thrown into jail, and then have to post bail to get out of jail long enough to prove your innocents.
What Matt said.
Specifically, if you are accused of a crime to the point of being indicted, there is usually quite a lot of evidence against you already, making a substantial case. It's not as though the accusation in itself is the evidence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The majority of pretrial releases do not involve posting bail or bond of any kind. Many cases that do involve bail or bond involve small amounts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see public opinion (at least the majority opinion of the people on this thread ) already determining the guilt of the producers of "To Catch a Predator" based on what they read in the linked article.
Do you see this as being different from the judgement that [alleged] sex predators face from public opinion after an episode airs? If so, please elaborate.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see public opinion (at least the majority opinion of the people on this thread ) already determining the guilt of the producers of "To Catch a Predator" based on what they read in the linked article.
Do you see this as being different from the judgement that [alleged] sex predators face from public opinion after an episode airs? If so, please elaborate.
I don't agree with your premise.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that anyone has made any judgments about the guilt of the producers. I know I haven't. Rather, I have judged the morality of their actions, just as I have judged that child predators are monsters, not legally, and not individually, but as a group.
Similarly, I don't know who the producers of the show are, and I wouldn't deny them work or run them out of my neighborhood, or deny them the legal protections of due process. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: TV programs shouldn't become vigilantes who entrap people and ruin their lives by putting them on public display.
Perhaps it was presumptuous of me to assume that you made that statement in agreement with this one from the article:
quote:it ended with Mr. Conradt’s sister decrying the “reckless actions of a self-appointed group acting as judge, jury and executioner, that was encouraged by an out-of-control reality show.”
In context, that's what seemed to me was going on. By itself, I can agree with your statement. If with it comes the implication that the producers of Dateline are guilty of wrongdoing, I would question it.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's Rolling Stone so it's going to be slanted towards the skeptical, seedy, anti-crusader view. But an interesting look at how the whole thing works.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly think that reality television, in almost all its forms (excluding stuff like Project Runway, possibly) is a way for people to humiliate themselves on network TV. The difference, however, between these types of shows and To Catch a Predator, is the fact that the contestants CHOOSE to be on the show. They may think of it as "15 minutes of fame," but really it's just a chance for the general public to laugh at people.
To Catch a Predator I think is a horrible show. Like Luv2ReadProductions said, the people who are being "caught" on this show are considered guilty immediately. There's no chance for rebuttal. And, even if they did get off in court, they are still shamed by everyone they see on the street. It's public humiliation galore. I don't think that sexual predators should be treated lightly or not caught, but I just don't think anyone deserves to be publicly humiliated without their consent.
I feel the same way about Moment of Truth. Although these people choose to go on the show (which I think is possibly the stupidest thing in the world. Why anyone would want to go on that show is beyond me), they are still accused of cheating on their husbands and wives, fantasizing about other people, threatening people, basically everything bad you could have ever done in your life. These types of shows ruin people's lives. I'd like to see a statistic on how many of the marriages last after this show. I'll be the number would surprise most people.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
I feel the same way about Moment of Truth. Although these people choose to go on the show (which I think is possibly the stupidest thing in the world. Why anyone would want to go on that show is beyond me), they are still accused of cheating on their husbands and wives, fantasizing about other people, threatening people, basically everything bad you could have ever done in your life. These types of shows ruin people's lives. I'd like to see a statistic on how many of the marriages last after this show. I'll be the number would surprise most people.
I would be surprised if any marriages at all lasted after that show.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today's fervor about the evils of child molestation are missing an important fact: The victims of molestation usually have strong emotional ties to their molester, and they usually feel that they are at fault for what has happened to them. That's how molestation (usually) works.
This doesn't mean that the molester shouldn't be caught and prosecuted, but it often puts the victim in the position of having to admit their part in the relationship. Further, the victim often doesn't realize they are a victim, and they will suffer vicariously as the perpetrator is punished. This is different than stockholm syndrome, because most molesters are relatives of the victim, or close friends of the family.
I realize this show doesn't deal with the standard model for molestation, so you could say that these cases are "stranger molestation," and therefore a different case. But:
quote:Casey gabs to potential predators on the phone. "Come on over, we're not going to get caught," she says. "If we got caught, I would get into trouble, and everybody would call me a slut, and I don't want that, either. I'll pay for your gas. It's no big deal, trust me. My dad gave me plenty of money for the weekend." When the guy fails to take the bait, her voice rises in pitch. "OK, fine, whatever, lame. L-A-M-E. You're being a baby. I told you I've done it a million times!"
How is this not entrapment?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the people saying that the show is taking on the role of the police and assuming rights that they don't have, the OP says that a Police SWAT team stormed the house. The Camera Crew just went in with them. I don't see this as any different from the show Cops.
Another matter, I am of the opinion that nobody should ever be held liable for another person committing suicide. I have no sympathy for people who take that way out of a situation. Maybe if they had him chained down in a "Saw" like situation... but that obviously isn't the case here. Objectively, the show should not be held accountable for his choice. The above example of entrapment, and the police force granting the production company a "favor" by storming the guy's house MIGHT be grounds for legal action, but not the suicide.
As for reality TV in general, I don't much care for it. On the subject of Moment of Truth, however, I think the people that go on it deserve everything that happens to them. First off, you have to be a damned idiot to go onto a show like that with family-destroying secrets hiding in your closet. Secondly, if they DID still want to go onto the show with these kinds of secrets, they should probably disclose said secrets to the relevant people BEFORE they go out on stage. Thirdly, people should never be ashamed of their THOUGHTS. People are free to second-guess their own decisions no matter what. Whether it's if they should have married their spouse, to if they would still have had their kids given the choice again. I feel more sickened by the people who judge their family for said thoughts than I do for the people who think them in the first place.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of who's sicker, the idea that it might well destroy your family is still pretty grim.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I have always thought the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" was a sham statement. It actually is guilty until proven innocent.
Spoken like someone who has never been in a Napoleonic law system, where you really ARE guilty until proven otherwise.
You know, the type of system ours was created to avoid.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, I've also considered the possibility that that particular show is completely fake. I mean... anyone who's seen or heard of the show should KNOW that they're going to be asked these exact type of questions. I would HOPE that it's an easy premise for people to rationalize on their own. Or perhaps when they're selecting their contestants, they specifically go for the morons who ARE likely to ruin their lives through the lethal combination of Ignorance and Greed. I know they'd never let ME on there unless I could fake that lie detector test REALLY well, cause they wouldn't get any reaction from the audience when I answer these "hard" questions without hesitation or regret.
Edit: I might pause momentarily on some of the more abstract/subjective questions. Wouldn't wanna lose the money on a technicality. Like when they asked the one girl if she thought she was a "Good person".
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say the "Catch a Predator" show has one good purpose - I sat my then-14 year old down and made her watch it one evening to drive home the lesson of internet safety, and I think it made a pretty good impression.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) already determining the guilt of the producers of "To Catch a Predator" based on what they read in the linked article.
