Friday, June 30, 2017

Parenting Dilemma No. 505-b | Is It Parenting or Entrapment #Science #Sociology

There is no quote of published science for this one since our hypothesis is this type of behavior makes more crime rather than reducing it.  For many that approach may be distasteful but the objective is to be dispassionate about it since the Rockhouse has been clear already about immersive journalism and this is not about me; I don't have any kids.

Dad uses some type of monitoring software to validate traffic going to his kids' computers, handheld devices, or whatever.  He sees some messages going to his 15-year-old daughter which elicit concern and this is the Parental Dilemma 505.b:  does he contact the gendarmes now or trap him.  (Fox News:  Oklahoma dad sets up sting operation to nab man allegedly sending sexual messages to his teen daughter)

Note:  we have the Millennial twist since much of this would have been difficult to impossible more than twenty or thirty years ago.

The Rockhouse has a confounding concern since we don't know what elicited the sexy messages in the first place.  It's definitely possible they were unsolicited; we just don't know that aspect of things.

Note:   this is not so much science as hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals but the point is more to state the case since this one has bugged me all day as to good move or bad move.

Had the Dad contacted the gendarmes at the point of discovery, ideally the man would receive proper counseling and also proper punishment if that's deemed necessary.  To consider that I would need to know if this was a first time or has he tried it before.  If so, was it successful.  All of that should come from his cellphone history.  The summation is maybe he could have been saved and I do mean this is a time when a preacher might be the best answer.

No-one believes less that any given situation requires an exorcism than the Vatican exorcists since they're extremely well-versed in psychology / psychiatry and will eliminate the need for exorcism if something is considered rationally explainable as abnormal psychology rather than demonic possession.  It's a holy ritual and they don't take it lightly.

Therefore, the Rockhouse contends a preacher may well be able to shrink the bad guy whereas cops likely cannot.  I mean the kind of preacher you would see in those ancient James Cagney movies.

Instead the Dad decided to catch the fellow in the act and we view that which followed as straight-up entrapment.  That which was one level of crime previously with online text messages, substantially escalates to one in which the bad guy will likely be tagged as a sexual predator, offender, or some such.  He may spend time in prison as well.

Be sure you understand the Rockhouse is dispassionate about the matter and the only concern is whether the bad guy is likely to be a problem in future.  In our estimation, he's a ticking bomb after prison.  That's subjective and we understand that; nevertheless, repeat offenders are the scariest of all.

We submit, therefore, the entrapment approach creates more crime rather than reducing it.

Ed:  six words ... What If She Were Your Kid?

Fair enough and I see clearly if she were my kid I would want to find that bastard and whack his head with an axe.

However, I still have to fall back from it and I don't believe, for many reasons, that hunting him down is my move.  I'll get some personal satisfaction but that's really not going to do my daughter much good since the state will whack me back and I won't be there to help her in that coming future.

Hopefully you see it is not my purpose to provoke anyone; I consider it a fair question we really haven't been all that good at answering.


Anonymous said...

In our estimation. he is already a ticking time bomb.
He is 33 years old sending pictures to a 15 year old.
Wether the pictures were elicted by the teenager is not germaine.
The father's only mistake was to not included the police in the meeting. The father is a moron as not including the police is likely to endanger the prosecution's case against this pervert
The 33 year old tagged himself as a sexual predator when he sent the initial pictures.
I will never understand you beliefs that no one is guilty and everyone can be saved.
The father had enough evidence from the initial traffic to include the police. I have no idea why he didn't maybe he is a frustrated police officer wannabe.
Not quite sure how this is entrapment. The father did not start the conversations. He came into to the situation after the man had already sent multiple inappropriate texts and pictures.
What we don't know is wether the 33 year old is charged and convicted. Nor do we know if the 33year old knew she was 15. If he knew she was 15 game over

Peas InOurThyme said...

Noooo, I'm not denying his guilt but I question whether that bomb could have been defused at a lower level with less harsh consequences for everyone.

It does make a difference to me if there was any encouragement from the girl since I don't support getting flirty online and then feigning innocence after the fact.

Nothing changes the fact the 33-year-old is a bad guy intent on bad things. There is no intention to whitewash anything.

As to entrapment, the Dad set up the time and date to commit the crime. I submit, that's a trap. I view any kind of sting as borderline legal and most only by a stretch.

Where we agree is the Dad should have called the cops from the start. He couldn't call a preacher since this isn't a Mickey Rooney movie but such things were real at one time. Absent that, he should have called the cops.

Anonymous said...

The Dad did little different than a police officer would have done.
Entrapment would be if the Dad contacted the man first and offered.
Eliminating stings means this guy is free to do as he wants and is only guilty after completing the crime.
We don't know if she knew he was 33 but it is not important as he should have walked away.
Have no idea why the preacher is involved in this scenario at all.
Certainly not a priest

Peas InOurThyme said...

I disagree on entrapment since the Dad was, in effect, helping him commit the crime.

I added the preacher because the counseling such people have received elsewhere doesn't seem to have worked or they avoided it altogether. My problem is setting up to annihilate him even before we know if he ever actually did this before. If this was leading into his first time crime then I have a major problem with it since that could have been prevented.

The difference appears to be perception since I still think he can be saved before he takes the final step. After he has done that, it may not be possible to salvage him, particularly after he has been to prison.

Anonymous said...

The courts will disagree with on entrapment. He did not help me, he allowed him.
Of course it could be prevented but only by him. He knows the rules and decided not to follow them
Oh please don't commit that crime.

Cadillac Man said...

I agree with Anonymous. Dads in a case like this one tend to act to defend and deter. His actions defend his daughter and deter this predatory animal. As a father, I know I would act first against any predatory animal if my daughter's safety was endangered. The legalities of entrapment would be of little concern. As for the police, they are trained to follow the laws regarding entrapment and should be punished if they violate them. As for the predatory animal he should expect retaliatory behavior. This is one reason why I don't own a gun.

Anonymous said...

I am sure should he be convicted, there will be plenty of retaliatory behavior

Peas InOurThyme said...

The thing I need to see is the Dad broke the law. I see that about helping or allowing but that's thin as justification. By the law in its strictest sense, the crime should have been prevented as soon as it was detected and subsequently prosecuted. The Dad decided to go beyond that so I submit he broke the law although we all see his reasons for doing it.

It looks like Cadillac Man would have gone to trap this fellow as well but he would have known he was wrong for doing it.

This reminds me of a situation in which one of the sisters was assaulted on Hosea Avenue. The boys were outraged and went off to do something about it. Fortunately, no-one was found. Alex said, "You know you were wrong in not telling me?"

I grudgingly agreed but I was resentful about it. Today I see all the more he was right. The Rockhouse will stand on the position the Dad should have called the cops right away but I can't say I would have done that if the girl were my kid.

Anonymous said...

Please let us know the law the father broke.
And list the law that states a crime must be reported as soon it is committed.
Your Hosea example doesn't fit as your boys were out for revenge not prosecution.
A better example was when two of the Hosea boys Sat in the 3rd window shooting windows of a neighbor's house with a BB gun. They owners of the house did not see the the 1st time. The following night the owners stayed in the house with no lights on and waited. Layer that night the boys shot more windows. The owners called the police in the morning allowing the boys to shot more windows that night.
The extra damage changed the level of the charge. Under your law the owners were guilty of some charge because they did not call the police that night and prevent the charge from increasing
PS my lawyer says the Dad broke no laws except the one of common sense since they could have by their actions prevented evidence from used in the prosecution. Also, he could have been armed and then put all of the family in danger or if the Dad was armed then he could have been charged if he did not have the correct permits

Peas InOurThyme said...

I ain't Perry Mason but I know entrapment is or was illegal for regular cops. So, whatever law did that is what I'll use for it.

As to reporting a law when it's committed, I'll go with common sense on that one and specifically so he doesn't commit another possibly worse crime which is what he did.

I hear your lawyer so apparently this hole exists but this really isn't so different from vigilante justice in general and that's never been a good idea.

Peas InOurThyme said...

I'm not sure what retaliatory behavior you mean. I'm sure the perv will come out of prison with plenty of retaliation in mind and you know they often do.

Retaliation against the Dad for trapping him? That doesn't seem likely.

Anonymous said...

speaking against the perv in jail.
I don't see the Dad did anything wrong other than lacking common sense

Peas InOurThyme said...

Fair enough as you've got a voice and hopefully it's clear the Rockhouse wants proper justice but we're not blind to the reality he was 33 and trying to hit on a 15-year-old. That's a perv in anyone's book.

I don't see much acceptance of the idea such people can be fixed and I'm skeptical as well but I don't see much interest in trying when the subject is deeply-tangled with justifiable rage and usually can't get much beyond that. I said from the top if she were my kid I would feel the same rage so it's a tough matter to sort.