"To Catch a Predator," Foley, and habeas corpus.

[madmusic]

Many DUers are suddenly aware of the risk to our Constitution that the denial of habeas corpus presents. This is not a sudden risk but is a gradual evolution that evolved from other threats before terrorism. BushCo no doubt thinks the country is ready for the degradation if not the out-right cancellation of some rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What would make him think so?

A post like this always has to qualify itself with a disclaimer, and that in itself should be warning enough that the Constitution is in danger. "I'm defending the Constitution, not predators" should be a matter of course, but is not.

We get a flagrant example of this in last night's http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15130487/">To Catch a Predator:

"Prominent men caught in Petaluma sting

"The latest 'Predator' investigation uncovers some prominent men caught in what police say are criminal acts. These men risk losing their jobs... and in some cases, perhaps even their freedom"

What police say are criminal acts? Is the implication that Dateline and Hanson never say that? The most prominent is the one pictured, a doctor. It is easy to reject any sympathy for these men in the same way we have no sympathy for Foley, but the doctor sting raises important legal questions, no sympathy required.

1. He didn't want to meet with the "girl" but she repeatedly encouraged him to do so, or as Chris Hansen put it, she encouraged him like a 13-year-old teen might. What? Setting aside the implication that real 13-year-old might be mature enough to rationally encourage a meet, what of the entrapment implications? We assume that the doctor, like Foley, probably has "multiple victims," but there is NO evidence of this. If the doctor would never have met without this encouragement, was it entrapment? The counter argument is that he would have met a real teen if not arrested, but that assumes real teens would engage in those conversations and follow through even if the man didn't want to. Just because we do hear of cases like this, that does not prove they are probable, or that the doctor probably would find a real victim. The difference between a chat and following through with an arranged meeting is tremendous, both legally and morally. So just because the doctor wasn't technically entrapped with the chat, that doesn't mean he wasn't entrapped in the most serious crime, the meeting, making it a felony. That the decoy had to encourage him 4 or 5 times after he said "No" is highly suspect.

2. Chris Hanson acts as an agent of the police, and interviews "http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/107/">under color of law." This truth has powerful moral and legal implications. When Hanson seeks confessions, does he act as an agent of the police? If so, is the suspect already detained for purposes of Miranda rights? (You have the right to remain silent, blah, blah, blah.) Though Hansen says "You are free to go," is that really true? It is obvious to those of us who have seen the show before that Hansen may as well lead the suspect out to his arrest by the arm. This is no trivial matter. The conservative right chipped away at the Miranda warning piece by piece until it is almost non-existent. It is debatable whether that is a good or bad thing, but should a "journalist" be in the middle of it?

3. After his arrest, the doctor immediately says he wants a lawyer, and the cop says something like, "Okay, then I cannot legally question you." But the cop tries at least four more times to get the doctor to talk. Who cares, you say, the cop is a good guy and the doctor is a predator. True enough, and the police can use and are encouraged to use lies and deceit in interrogations, but does that mean they can step on the constitution when the suspect is a monster? Yes, it does. In fairness, the U.S. Supreme Court has clouded this issue, and the continuing pressure after the doctor asked for a lawyer may or may not be legal.

So we have three potentially very disturbing issues and that may have constitutional implications: 1) entrapment, 2) journalists acting as agents of the police, and 3) denial of the right to remain silent (with the Hanson interview and with the police).

There was some irony in last night's show with the Foley clips, but maybe the clips and the show itself warn us of something larger. Maybe they are both telling us that if we keep going at this pace habeas corpus may become "just a comma" in our history.

It is not easy to separate the crime from the legal issues, but what do you think?

[BlueStorm]

1. I have seen this show last night...

and quite frankly you come up with some great questions, I feel that this show is "baiting" in some ways, such as the case with the doctor. He didn't feel comfortable with it but the decoy egged him on and thus he gave in. So the question that you asked seems applicable to this case.

Blue

[madmusic]

3. And it is a reality show.

They edit for ratings and only for ratings. It would be interesting to know what they don't want us to know, or what might be merely technicalities, like, you know, constitutional issues.

[Poll_Blind]

2. MadMusic- THANK you for posting this, I was thinking about this just...

...last night. Someone mentioned in a thread yesterday that they were off to watch "Perverted Justice", IIRC, and so I wound up Googling it because I'd never heard of the group. So I went to the site and read the very lengthy FAQ. Aside from some elements of hucksterism present at PervertedJustice.org, it seemed like a good idea and reminded me of the SlashDot articles many years ago which chronicled grassroots attempts to stop the spread of child pornography on the net.

  I went to YouTube or GoogleVideo and watched some busts. Very enjoyable. But there was something really weird and nagging at the back of my mind that I couldn't quite place. So I went back to PervertedJustice.org and sort of kicked around trying to figure out what was bothering me about them so much.

  And then, after a few minutes, it dawned on me. The same methods they were using could be employed by the government or other conservative groups to lure people into actions which are probably illegal under Patriot Act, etc.

  It goes something like this: You're on Craigslist or in a chatroom for your area and you're talking politics. One of the participants says something like "It's too bad those 9/11 bastards killed all those innocent people and Bush escaped." or "The founding fathers gave a clear line of action on how to deal with Tyranny and Bush is Tyranny" (Hell, I've said that on more than one occasion. Anyway, maybe even something like "What we need here is another Guy Falkes!" (taken from another thread, used purely for illustrative purposes).

  So, they mention something like that and you, well, you likely blow it off as hyperbole. It's politics, the root from which all hyperbole grows. Then you wind up meeting this person (I'm following the PervertedJustice model because, well, that's already been used/in place) and bam, whisked away to a dog kennel.

  Now, from the FAQ at PervertedJustice the key to the bust is the clear indication to the recipient (the "wanna-be" pedophile) that the person they're speaking to is under-age. It doesn't have to be communicated repeatedly, just has to come up once (and I assume acknowledged in some way).

  So, what's to stop it from being used in a political sense with persons chatting (via computer) as political dissidents, dropping some line which Alberto Gonzales has determined only a terrorist would make (but something subtle because, like the war or drugs, the war on terror needs arrests to prove there's a war in the first place). Then arrange to meet or, because of the patriot act, maybe it's not even important after you say something like "Yeah." or "I hear ya." in reply.

  According to the Patriot act you have just given aid to an enemy of the United States and every piece of odious legislation since 9/11 kicks in. Off to the stripy hole with ya!

  Now, the real...kicker: After a few minutes of pondering this I thought "How can I tell this isn't already being done?"

  With the secrecy of detainees and the ability to whisk even US citizens (Padilla) off into Never Never Land, who am I to empirically say that this hasn't already been happening? There'd be no way to really know because the government can do these things entirely in secret.

PB

[madmusic]

4. The logical conclusion!

Thanks for expressing it so well. True enough, we would never know, and would not even have the right to know if we have any rights left. Very scary stuff. We need a new commission on UN-American Activities.

There's nothing I can add to what you wrote. It says it all.

[Poll_Blind]

5. Thank you so much again for writing that, it reminded me of...

...my extrapolation the day before and got me to take the time to write it. I posted it as a specific thread, hoping to see what opinion is on that specific topic. I'm really interested to see opinions in either thread- your points on the somewhat questionable nature of Perverted Justice's tactics started a whole 'nother round of questioning the ethics and possibility legality of their methods.

PB

[madmusic]

7. That PervertedJustice boasts convictions means nothing.

Other than no defendant as yet has challenged the constitutionally of these Dateline stings. If someone intended to contest the constitutionality, the prosecution could drop the charges to something like Disorderly Conduct with no sex offender registration and it would still be a conviction.

The "convictions" for which Perverted-Justice claims responsibility include very few for solicitation of a minor. The vast majority pled out to far lesser charges, were for drugs or parole violations, pornography, and one for threats against Von Erck. Regardless of the negative outcome due to the group's refusal to involve law enforcement, Von Erck insists on attempting to boost the group's apparent legitimacy by making statements touting their "convictions" which are clearly inflated for that purpose.

http://corrupted-justice.com/article16.html

We don't know all the facts.

We do know that at least one federal circuit court has ruled these sting operations unconstitutional. We have yet to see what will happen if and when a Dateline case makes its way through the courts. Maybe that will be the doctor's case, and I'm frankly surprised Hansen admitted the decoy had to talk him into the meeting.

[MADem]

6. I think the terms "police say" is another way of saying alleged

The accused haven't been convicted, just charged. And DATELINE has no authority to do any 'charging' in these matters.

And while I think Bush's abrogation of law is shameful and wrong, I have a very hard time pulling that string and finding it connected to an adult doctor, who we assume has a modicum of INTELLIGENCE, getting "enticed" or entrapped by what for all intents and purposes is represented plainly to be a child.

What is the pervert doctor doing on the internet talking to someone who represents themselves as THIRTEEN in first place? The appropriate thing to say is Get offline, young lady, cut that shit out or I'll find your parents and tell them what you are doing; not talk dirty to a kid.

The doctor should have reported the post to the site administrators to get the 'kid' banned--not get 'seduced' by the 'child.' That kind of thinking is frighteningly close to a 'blame the victim' philosophy.

It's just fucking sick.

[madmusic]

8. frighteningly close to a 'blame the victim' philosophy

Even the sick are protected by the constitution. In fact, they deserve the most protection since they will be the excuse to disregard the Constitution.

And "frighteningly close to a 'blame the victim' philosophy" is frightening close to straw man and ad hominem fallacies, though they are very effective at ignoring the constitutional issues. Remember, BushCo says the left coddles terrorists for the same reason.

[MADem]

9. We are going to have to vehemently disagree with one another on this one

How you can use a strawman of your own, that of a pervert talking dirty on the internet to what he believes is a thirteen year old child, to highlight Bush's excesses with the law is not something I can wrap my head around. They are two completely different issues.

Bush can go after people doing absolutely nothing wrong without a check. Anyone putting paws to keyboard to actively type salacious and obscene commentary to someone they BELIEVE to be thirteen is a pervert who, just by typing, is crossing a moral and societal line at a minimum, and is breaking a law by attempting to entice. A doctor engaging in this sort of behavior is especially egregious, as doctors occupy positions of public trust.

I find it sick and and disgusting. I could never justify it and would never try. It's flat out wrong for mature adults of any gender or orientation to talk nasty to teenagers.

The onus for proper behavior in that circumstance is on the ADULT engaging in conversation. The minute "I'm THIRTEEN" pops up, the correct response is "GOOD BYE."

Your mileage obviously varies.

[madmusic]

10. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

And the reason we have "impartial" judges and juries is to keep the vehemence out of the equation. Laws based on vehemence are not laws at all. They are revenge at best, lynch mobs at worst. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0811-06.htm">Justice is blind for good reason.



You're 100% right that the correct response is "GOOD BYE," and how anyone could be that stupid and reckless to cross that "moral and societal line" is beyond comprehension given all the previous publicity. One guy even got caught a SECOND TIME (coming up on their next show). Does that mean all of them are beyond redemption? Maybe the doctor, rather than being their star of decadence could be an example of learning from mistakes. He seemed to have that potential.

Flying planes into the World Trade Center was far more beyond comprehension and far more harmful, but that doesn't mean we should sack the Constitution because of it. The issues are related:

1. BushCo says there is no talking to the terrorists. They are so beyond redemption that only death or prison will do.

2. It's a matter of good vs. evil, nothing else. Evil is evil and there is no changing that. But if that were true, the only logical law would be to shoot these men on sight as they leave the house, or maybe life or an indefinite sentence in prison. Just like the terrorists.

3. We should be so scared of them that we be willing to surrender our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Something very similar here.

Same story, different disguise.

[MADem]

12. Like I said, we just have to disagree--and vehemently, regardless

Strong, unequivocal laws are VEHEMENT laws. When there's no wiggle room, that's vehemence.

I don't think we have to sacrifice the safety of children, their right to be free from molestation by sick perverts, to "save" the Constitution. I think your entire construct is hugely, painfully, convoluted. You could very well call those Nahn Wun Wun terrists "enemy combatants" in an "asymmetrical military."

However, the molesting perverts you struggle to equate with those plane-into-WTC assholes aren't trying to ruin our country, disrupt our economy, or strike at us as a nation in any fashion--they are just trying to quietly fuck one innocent little kid at a time, and get away with it.

So to equate the two is just lame, gross, and false.

I think you can do all of it--protect children, punish molesters, and have a society with due process and the guaranteed freedoms of the discussed document.

As for 'beyond redemption'--when it comes to molesters, unless they are willing to undergo chemical castration and be hobbled so we can see them coming towards the playgrounds at a ponderous pace, I say lock them up. Forever. Harsh? Maybe. Too bad. Don't pester those kids, you've nothing to worry about.

We don't have the capability to 'cure' what ails them yet. When we do, that will be a good thing. Until we do, I think the rights of innocent children outweigh the rights of perverted bums who would do them harm.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmusic]

11. Another little tidbit

Santa Barbara Prosecutor Removed from Jesse James Hollywood Murder Trial
Murder victims' parents have been waiting more than 6 years for the trial
By: Matt Cota

Friday, October 6, 2006

A Santa Barbara prosecutor is kicked off of a high profile murder trial because of his involvement in a major motion picture. ("Alpha Dog") According to the State Court of Appeals, Ron Zonen will not be able to try Jesse James Hollywood for the murder of Nick Markowitz.

snip

"The most important thing we are interested in right now is for Mr. Hollywood to receive a fair trial," says Blatt. "In order for him to receive a fair trail, he needs an unbiased district attorney's office to proceed with this matter." The Markowitz family has waited more than six years for Hollywood to stand trial. Nick's mother tells Action News late today, "As much as we would have liked Ron Zonen to prosecute this final trial, justice is truly what matters."

Coincidentally, another prosecutor in the D.A.'s office was also ordered off a case yesterday by the Court of Appeals for writing a novel which a defense attorney argues was loosely based on his client.

Jesse James Hollywood's defense attorney tells Action News he will now go to federal court to try and delay the release of the movie "Alpha Dog" until the murder trial is over.

http://www.ksby.com/home/headlines/4332097.html