PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[monkspider]

Reading the FAQ it sounds like someone has been kicked out of their house, one has lost his job, and three others have lost girlfriends over "busts" conducted on the site. All without any semblance of due process.

The allegations leveled on the site are not things to be taken lightly.

[Japher]

It ain't wrong, but it sure ain't right.

[Az]

I say: "go to the police"

[Japher]

yup, for real justice they need to get the law on their side. Good sting, bad execution.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Here's one to ponder.

What if one of those people running that site had a grudge against you? What if they decided to post a malicious entry about you?

[Gatekeeper]

That's a very good point, Laz. It's one of the reasons why vigilantism — while seemingly a good thing on the surface — can backfire horribly. It's a human thing, it seems. But, boy, when the sh*t hits the fan, it's even worse when the one powering the fan is someone in a position of influence (i.e. a vigalante site).

My advice to them is simple: Tread carefully. Their goals are admirable ... but, boy, something just doesn't feel right about it. Must be that whole "live by the law" thing I have.

Gatekeeper

[Shi Huangdi]

"I think it's a great idea, still it's entrapment."

Actually it isn't, because first off only police officer can committ entrapment- vigilantes don't have to hold themselves to the same standards cops do. Also, it's not entrapment because they always let the guy IM first.

"This one, and a few like it bother me, in that the site "staffer" pretends to be an older-man loving girl. "

Well the idea is in to stop these people, since if they did run into an older-man loving girlthey would take advantage of her. Also I think most of the cases the pedo brings up the subject of sex first.


"Why wouldn't they just proceed to hand over the information to the police?"

Because, simply chatting someone up online is not a crime.

"What if they decided to post a malicious entry about you?"

They could, but it would be dangerous for the website to do so. For one, they publicly post the contact information and screenname. If anyone else on the site knew about the grudge, they might suspect something right there. Next, the phone numbers are usually verifired by someone different- one of the females on the site usually calls the number and verifies the number is real and the guy wants to do it, so I suppose one of the verifiers would have to be in on it.

Finally, if it were false, it would be extremely likely you would see a defamation lawsuit, which would mean the potential loss of alot of $, and could destroy the website's credibility. As far as I can tell, all of the site's staff not only respect their work but are highly fanatical about it, and wouldn't want to compromise it's integrity by something like that...

[Q Classic]

If its right or wrong Really depends on their "Victims". No Problem if its the stereotypical 40y old guy wants to **** 12y old girl.
But since children is defined as anything below 18, there are cases where it would seem rediculous. Think 19 year old guy want to hook up with some 17 year old girl...

most states have "romeo and juliet" laws, iirc.

[Whaleboy]

I think its a great idea!!

Its perfectly within their rights, both legally and morally, and since one is not beating the paedophile physically, it cannot be vigilantism either. Call it prudent citizenship. Since the paedophile has done nothing strictly illegal (to my knowledge, though I know this varies, but morally of course having a conversation is fine), getting the police involved, but ruining his life by legitimate means is ok by me!

When one engages in a conversation on the internet, you are taking a risk that the person you are talking to isn't who they say they are. Part of that risk entails consequences such as these. If you want to **** little girls, then you should expect such consequences.

I dont think its driving them underground as such. Its closing an avenue they use, and will also close the route to "evening" paedo's, young men who do it for a laugh. For such people, who are disturbingly common, such an approach should encourage a drink-drive social acceptability thing, where advertising and conseqences convince people that this is wrong.

to the people that came up with this idea!

[Jac de Molay]

Its perfectly within their rights, both legally and morally, and since one is not beating the paedophile physically, it cannot be vigilantism either. Call it prudent citizenship.

How is it not vigilantism? They're essentially doing things reserved for police task forces?

Since the paedophile has done nothing strictly illegal (to my knowledge, though I know this varies, but morally of course having a conversation is fine), getting the police involved, but ruining his life by legitimate means is ok by me!

If he's done nothing strictly illegal, why is ruining his life legitimate?

[Kirnwaffen]

I'm certainly not a legal expert, but I believe that if one of the accused requested that the site remove his contact information, the site would be forced to do so, or face civil or even criminal harassment charges. Am I wrong?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A British tabloid has already done a "name and shame" of paedophiles.

As a result, at least one entirely innocent person had their house burnt down (they lived next door to the person named) and a Paediatrician was beaten up. Vigilate actions suck monstrously because people are too ****ing stupid to deal with them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Here's one to ponder.

What if one of those people running that site had a grudge against you? What if they decided to post a malicious entry about you?

This was to be my point. While I think pedophiles actively seeking sex with underage people get what they deserve, the potential for abuse in an unregulated vigilantee environment is too great.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Why wouldn't they just proceed to hand over the information to the police?"

Because, simply chatting someone up online is not a crime.

It certainly is if within that chat one arranges for a sexual encounter with what they believe to be an underage person. The article you posted mentioned this is preceisely what they were doing, and how the site got the personal information in the first place.

They could certainly take transcripts of that chat to police, and it would be grounds for charges.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Japher
Because they're vigilantee's... While I don't condone crimes, I also don't condone ppl taking the law into their own hands in a "street justice" fashion.

They AREN'T taking the law into their own hands - no punishment is meted out by them. They tell other people about what these people have said, which is their right, and other people act on that knowledge. No one goes to jail. Social repercussions for actions can not and should not be regulated.