• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Paedophile Hunter

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I have always had a problem with 'set-ups'. The person might have resisted his lower urge if he didn't get such an easy opportunity placed in his lap.

You're so right! That's the same thing I always say each time I trip an old man or woman on the curb so he or she plunges headfirst into traffic -- hell, I say, I would have resisted my lower nature if only that old geezer didn't make it just too easy.
 
I came across this in the searching for religious comments what I did want to say that your picture of the kid messed up face is inappropriate for your profile site pic, hunt awway
 
Last edited:

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Coercion is certainly wrong, but another potential problem is when the sting operation would entice someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't commit, eg, establishing a personal relationship with the target & urging the commission of a crime.

But then what's to say that this person would not have committed the same crime if the exact same situation occurred with a real child?

No matter how enticing it is, a moral person knows never to cross that line.

For example, a recovering alcoholic knows never to walk into a liquor store. In this case, don't strike up a conversation with the kid or go to places where kids are regular.

We are defined in our weakest moments. If you say you never lie, cheat or steal then no amount of anything will tempt you.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But then what's to say that this person would not have committed the same crime if the exact same situation occurred with a real child?
That would be up to the courts, who have adjudicated such things.
No matter how enticing it is, a moral person knows never to cross that line.
I agree. But the law makes the distinction about what's legal for authorities to use.
For example, a recovering alcoholic knows never to walk into a liquor store. In this case, don't strike up a conversation with the kid or go to places where kids are regular.
We are defined in our weakest moments. If you say you never lie, cheat or steal then no amount of anything will tempt you.
I agree.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
That would be up to the courts, who have adjudicated such things.

I agree. But the law makes the distinction about what's legal for authorities to use.

I agree.

I was referring specifically with having sex with minors although I didn't state it. Or anything else that constitutes as sexual in nature.

I wouldn't argue against the courts, but as a parent I have responsibilities that range outside the legal lines.

Right, that's why I linked the reference on sting operations which opened up a bit more on the legal matters.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I was referring specifically with having sex with minors although I didn't state it. Or anything else that constitutes as sexual in nature.
I wouldn't argue against the courts, but as a parent I have responsibilities that range outside the legal lines.
Right, that's why I linked the reference on sting operations which opened up a bit more on the legal matters.
I'm actually a fan of entrapment, btw.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I think what is missing from this whole debate about puberty and it's consent making properties is brain development and emotional maturity. Which, whilst tied to puberty, does not necessarily develop at the same time.
In other words a 15 year old might be highly intelligent and might even be properly physically developed. That does not necessarily mean they are emotionally mature. It is this emotional state of being that is thought to be the reason sexual encounters might result in detrimental effects on the teen/child.

Studies of the teenage brain (which is a relatively new focus) show that the teenage brain is actually unique. It is not, as previously thought, simply a young adult brain, neither is it a child's brain. According to researchers it is actually at a crossroads. At the end of childhood but at the same time not yet an adult brain..
Whilst this level of development may be beneficial (better learning retention skills to that of an adult brain) there might also be inherent vulnerabilities in the teenage brain compared to that of an average adult brain.

The differences are that an average teenager is (surprise surprise) usually more moody, more prone to risk taking behavior and more prone to react emotionally rather than logically or rationally. This is because of the way the brain develops.

Because the brain develops from the back first, the last thing to properly develop in adolescents is the Frontal Lobe or Cortex. This is actually part of the brain which an adult uses to properly asses danger and decide whether the risk is worth it or not. Because this is actually immature in teenagers (up until I think 15 -17 depending on the individual, could be wrong on those ages so don't quote me on that) the risks a teenager takes with regards to the usual teen antics (sex, drugs, alcohol, smoking etc) is usually seen as not as informed or properly dealt with, compared to an adult taking the same risk.
Because the last thing to develop is the Frontal Lobe, teenagers actually process the emotions of others with the
Amygdala instead. This gives them inaccurate information and as such young teenagers are usually not so great in discerning the mood of people around them. It is this reliance on Amygdala instead of the Frontal Lobe that gives teenagers that stereotypically moodiness we have all come to expect.
It has even been shown that because the brain is still developing during adolescence that what a teenager does lifestyle wise, might translate into the way their brain develops.

With regards to teens getting it on with other teens, this is normally seen as little more than experimentation and reacting strongly specifically to Biology rather than combining it with rational responses like a sober adult usually does (some teens might be rational about it, of course.) As such even in cases pertaining to statutory rape between two teenagers, even though technically against the law, there might be a certain leniency given to the right circumstances. That leniency is not afforded to an adult (age wise, depending on the country) having sex with a teenager, even if they are of consenting age. For example in Australia 16 is the legal age for consent, but anyone over the age of 25 (and anyone 18 and over if they hold a position of authority like guardian or teacher) having sex with even a 16 year old will often be charged. This is because an adult is seen as more culpable and better able to assess their behavior than that of a teenager, even if they are of consenting age. Coupled with the fact that we know teenagers are usually more prone to emotional responses than rational ones (generalizing here, of course) the adult is seen as someone who ought to know better.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
No one would, unless they cross paths with cops whose ire is raised. It would make sense for vigilantes to get some training & have some oversight.
That's sound easy, but I don't think it would ever work, humans are humans, they will stuff it up, just give them time.
 
Top