Ethical dilemma?

[Boerseun]

So, I had a chat with my sister the other day, and a quite unexpected dilemma surfaced:

 

She's a senior prosecutor in the Northern Natal province in SA, and part of her portfolio is prosecuting child abuse cases, which inludes a surprising number of kiddie-porn cases. Problem being, of course, that in South Africa kiddie-porn cases ranks very low on the State's priority list. With violent crime being what it is, a lot more resources are allocated to other cases that to kiddie porn, with the rationale that there's no blood and guts and nobody died - obviously not the Government's public stance regarding the matter, but with tight budgets, that's what it boils down to.

 

In any case, I thought about the problem, and discussed a possible solution with my sister. What we do, is take some of the evidence from her prior cases, kiddie-porn .jpg's and the like, and put it up on a website. Make the website look like a bona fide underground kiddie-porn website, and we start off with the softer stuff, making it more and more "hardcore", up to the point where the visitor is asked to pay a certain amount to get to the real "hardcore" stuff. So once the guy paid his money, he gets told that he's just been suckered, and a stern admonition as to what a sick bastard he is. Then, his IP gets recorded and the money gets paid to the child abuse prosecution squad, specifically for the use in kiddie-porn cases.

 

I thought that this was such a brilliant solution, I mean heck - you get the kiddie-porn perps to pay for prosecuting kiddie-porn cases! Saves the taxpayer a load of dough! Imagine! It's like getting murderers to pay for murder prosecutions!

 

...but here's the dilemma my sister pointed out to me:

 

The banks won't allow this, because they'll participate in fraud - the kiddie-porn surfer pays money in good faith, expecting a product, which fails to be delivered. If we did this, we'd be committing fraud, and would be up for prosecution ourselves! Regardless of the fact that the surfer was breaking the law in the first place. Also, entrapment issues comes into play. Long story short, we're not allowed to do this because it's "unethical".

 

I thought it was such a brilliant idea! Do I not completely understand ethics, or have I got the cat by the tail somewhere? Kiddie-porn perps are out there, and they are surfing the net. We might as well haul a few of them in and get them to pay for their own cases.

 

Whaddaya say? I still think we should do this.

[InfiniteNow]

Your sister is right. Entrapment and fraud. Interesting idea, for sure, but what happens once the first 4 or 5 idiots get suckered and post an alert message to others online "avoid this site, it's a government sponsored trap..."

[Buffy]

Oh c'mon, she's an attorney! As Ambrose Bierce said:

 

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.

 

Sure, if you promised more hardcore stuff would be *shown* it would be fraud, but with a little marketing and dependence on human nature, you can *easily* come up with verbiage that keeps you clean legally!

 

"C'mon big boy, PRESS THE BUTTON! You know you want 'it!'"

 

Now if you were going to *prosecute* them, this would be entrapment, but that doesn't sound like your point.

 

If you wanted to write up an unbelievably dense fine-print waiver, you could also have a click through on the credit card page that would give you license to post their name and address and phone number on a public web site listing "promoters of pedophilia."

 

Of course you're gonna have to decide whether this will all go on the plus side or minus side of your Karma, but I'd say its awfully grey St. Peter....

 

The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards, :D

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Heck, you could just be up front with the "johns":

 

You want kiddie-smut? Okay. But (1) you will have to pay, and (2) your money will be spent in an effort to eliminate this stuff and the people who want it. Which means that some day you may (however small the probability) be prosecuted with your own funds.

So, do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?

Enjoy!!!

[Boerseun]

Here's my problem with the whole thing:

 

Technically, it'll be fraud. I mean, I make a promise to sell the buyer a certain product on receiving his cash, and then intentionally fail to deliver. So, it'll be fraud. But what if the buyer already knowingly breaks the law either in

a) Ordering the stuff, or

Receiving the stuff.

Whether I deliver the smut or not, I'll be breaking the law. But the gods of happiness are on my side, because if I don't deliver to the perp, and he pays up and is out of pocket, who's he gonna tell? :hihi:

So I'll get a few months for fraud, but he'll get a few years for being a kiddie-porn buyer?

 

Can it be fraud to sell stolen goods to a fellow thief, and then not produce the goods after receiving the cash?

[Michaelangelica]

Today I heard on radio that child abuse was endemic among Aboriginal societies.

(I expect also in some 'white' socio-economic groups too.)

 

This is too important an issue to trivialise it.

South Africa has so much healing to do; and so far, has done such an awe inspiring job.

 

Good luck to you sister.

BUT

Can't she find an easier job?

[Boerseun]

Good luck to you sister.

BUT

Can't she find an easier job?

She prolly could - but who else is gonna do it then?

 

I think she's committed to the cause - something I'll never be able to do. All those poor kids will depress me to suicide.

 

I've got a lot of respect for her and what she's doing, and I'll do anything to help - even if it entails bullshitting kiddie-porn surfers outta bucks!

[Michaelangelica]

No rep i'm sorry

 

My heart goes out to you, your sister, and S. Africa.

 

Even though I don't believe in god I will pray for you and yours -both tonight.

 

Make sure she does not get "burnt out".

She needs to see a professional counsellor on a weekly basis to discuss and unload her burden.

This is a little recognised problem of the "helping professions"

Protect her.

[InfiniteNow]

Can it be fraud to sell stolen goods to a fellow thief, and then not produce the goods after receiving the cash?

Here's the thing.

 

I like your idea. I think it uses their own predilections against them. It takes a law enforcement area with little funds and boosts it's finances directly from the people they're trying to stop.

 

It's a huge incentive to work harder to get these guys, because that brings in more money, and it's a self-reinforcing cycle... more bad guys, more money, even more bad guys, even more money... until finally you run out of money because you've caught them all... which is a good thing.

 

Here's the schtick...

 

 

If the laws don't protect EVERYONE equally, then they are meaningless and are no longer laws.

 

Even if the circumvention of said law is to take child molesters or kiddie porn aficianados off of the street, and even if the circumvention of said law improves our ability to enforce these moral rules and restrictions and to make society better... the laws (even if it's just for fraud) must apply to all citizens the same way or they mean nothing.

 

 

I don't like slippery slopes, so I'll stop skiing now. :)

[freeztar]

here's the biggest problem I see:

 

So I'll get a few months for fraud, but he'll get a few years for being a kiddie-porn buyer?

 

Wouldn't you also get years (possibly more) for being a kiddie-porn seller? I don't think vigilante tactics will hold up in court, regardless of intent. It's best to let the gov't handle such things, though even then it can be tricky. Consider the Genarlow Wilson case. The alleged tape which showed underage sexual activities was passed from one official to another, which raised questions about porn distribution (even among those involved in the case). :)

 

Imho, the best vigilante approach would be to find legal pics that are on the border of legaility (barely legal stuff), and then bait them into purchsing, or even just viewing, some underage stuff (which wouldn't exist on the site) and then take them to a page showing their IP and that it has been logged. As long as you don't recieve any money, it's only deception, not fraud (I think?). Then all you have to do is email the IP list to INTERPOL or an equivalent local agency. Then leave it to them to follow the trail of proxies.

 

But actually, now that I think about it, I don't think the intent to view underage material would carry the same weight (if any weight at all) compared to possession/distribution.

[Boerseun]

If the laws don't protect EVERYONE equally, then they are meaningless and are no longer laws.

I'm not too sure about that. If a hitman botches a job, and only maims the victim, and subsequently gets fired from the mob, can he file a lawsuit for unfair dismissal? Can a drug peddler working a tough neighbourhood claim danger pay from his employer? I don't think so. All these people are making a living through knowingly breaking the law, and they must live with the associated risks - with no recourse to the law. You can't ignore the law in your line of work and then try to fall back on the law when you get your fingers burnt.

 

Same with kiddie-porn afficionados, I think. If they get onto a website promising them a lolita-fest, only to have their fingers burnt, I think they'll feel very silly and move on with their lives. Hell - a few might even quit after seeing their IP's logged. They might paranoically believe that the fuzz are gonna pop through the door any minute! So, apart from generating money for a tiny, cash-strapped government agency, some more good might even come off this.

... the laws (even if it's just for fraud) must apply to all citizens the same way or they mean nothing.

I agree, and that's where the dilemma comes in! But think of it this way, from an ethical point of view:

 

Any normal person knows that surfing kiddie-porn is illegal (at least in my country). Breaking the law, you should expect some repercussions. Unfortunately, controlling what people surf on the net is almost impossible - look at China, for instance. So, enforcing laws on the net is basically a pipe dream. Yet, there are people breaking the law (surfing kiddie porn), safe in the knowledge that no harm can befall them. So, if they go to this particluar site, and burn their fingers and lose a few bucks in the process, it might be seen as a sort of a "fine"? A penalty paid for knowingly breaking the law? This might give them an aversion to future visits to other websites, 'cause who knows - they might have to pay good bucks to see a screen telling them what bad people they are, and that their IPs have been logged. So we might even throttle visits to other sites eventually.

 

I can only see good things coming from this...

[InfiniteNow]

If you allow it for one, you must allow it for another.

 

Let's say, using this precedent, some religiot group decides that beer is bad, so they pretend to sell beer online, and once you submit your credit card you don't get any beer and they use all profits to ensure beer is made illegal. They lobby with that money, and run negative ad campaigns, and they reinvest all proceeds to making beer harder and harder to buy, and ultimately impossible.

 

Or, let's say that they tasted some really bad oxtail pokjie so they buy a few butcher shops, and when you try to buy oxtail they take your money but don't give you any oxtail, and they then ciphen all funds from oxtail sales toward the abolishment of oxtail availability.

 

Or, they don't like porn of any type, and they setup all sites like this...

 

Bastards. You best leave my visual stimuli alone!

 

The only difference is that you personally are opposed to child porn (as most of us are), so it seems okay to single it out. It's a bit like trying to limit the free speech of people who don't believe in evolution. While I whole-heartedly disagree with what creationists say and do, it's their right to say it, because speech is protected by law.

 

In the same way, the equal application of laws is itself tacit in the law, unless special provisions are outlined in the text of the law. Following this to the next step, fraud laws would themselves be fraudulent if they only applied to those who "we don't like" or with whom we "disagree."

[Qfwfq]

In most counties only magistrates can authorize deception and illegal doings where necessary to catch a crook. Are you going to tap their phones and plant bugs in their house and then justify it because of the aim? If your sister doesn't hold the power, in her jurisdiction, she just can't do it; she could only suggest it to whoever is competent.

 

Dura lex, sed lex.....

[mynah]

One of my cousins was a policeman in Soweto, but eventually had to be boarded and received counseling for post traumatic stress syndrome. He said one of the things that really got to him was the high incidence of child rape: In one particularly bad area girls usually lost their virginity before they could walk. In a recent survey, some 15 percent of South African school kids said that they have been raped. Unfortunately, only about one in 200 rapes in this country ever leads to a conviction. Although I'm concerned about it, I'm not surprised at the large number of South Africans who are turning to unorthodox means of dealing with crime.

[GAHD]

easy:

 

Pay 19.95 for acces to our HARD CORE PICTURE LIBRARY

 

"Eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-nobody-reads-this-far-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-hidden-legaltext--eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-we-own-your-firstborn-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-eula-your-mother-was-a-hampster-eula-eula-eula-eula."

 

CLICK HERE FOR ACCESS!

 

Service provided (that is a 'hard-core' picture) money gotten. Problem solved.

 

semantics are a wonderful thing.