Ask Lemmy

Vigilantism is never the answer. In pretty much every case the vigilante has far less noble motivations than they claim to have. Just look at the constant screeching about "groomers" by US conservatives.

The question is, would these people be predators if people didn't bait them into it? If they are doing this for "content" or some sense of moral judgement, then they have an incentive to push people into these things more than they originally would.

I can imagine the following scenario being common (to the point at which I wouldn't be surprised if there is a tutorial for it somewhere):

• Find someone online who has serious mental health problems or cognitive impairment.
• Emotionally manipulate them into saying or doing something nasty that they wouldn't otherwise do.
• Invite them somewhere public and humiliate then online for content.
• Congratulations! Not only have you managed to ruin someone's life, you've done it in a way that you get to feel morally superior as well.

Target some marginalised group as well, and you can also justify hatred towards them and show everyone that your group is better!

Yes, it does. (I hope it goes without saying that I believe pedophilia is wrong.) Vigilantism in general really rubs me the wrong way, but people using it for views (the same way they might use feeding homeless for views) is just really disgusting to me. Many "sting" type operations seem odd to me. Like, if someone's partner has a friend try and seduce their partner and they end up trying to cheat, but they never actually cheated in any context other than that, I think most people (or at least a lot) would agree that's a shitty test to put your partner through. I view this in a similar way.

My opinion changes a little when it's law enforcement doing it and they know the person they're setting up the operation against has actually done the crimes they're trying to catch them in. What bothers me the most is when the person that gets caught (be it for pedophilia, buying drugs, prostitution, whatever) hasn't engaged in those things before. It's very difficult to me to view that as anything other than entrapment for what was (effectively) a victimless crime. (Because they didn't actually do the thing they got caught for.)

But, regardless of how I feel about law enforcement doing it, I definitely don't like vigilantes doing it. Especially for views.

I think the thing I hate the most about these types of discussions is that pointing out things like this often get reduced to "defending pedophiles." Like, I'm sorry I don't think we should have extrajudicial beatings of people.

It reminds me of that operation where some vigilantes attempted to buy child prostitutes to save them, but over half of the children they "rescued" were abducted because of the demand the vigilantes generated. And I don't think any of them ended back up with the families they were taken from. This is a very different scenario, but it helps illustrate how careless vigilantes can cause more problems than they solve.

It feels gross that child rape is compelling stakes for TV entertainment.

That's why you don't like it. Because at the end of the day, this content isn't being produced to save kids, it's so you have something to watch on a Tuesday.

As a child, I was preyed upon by an adult.

To me, people making content doing this kind of "hunter" shit is vile. The victims are real children, and you're using them & their pain to fuel your ego and hero complex? For """entertainment"""? And they're monetizing it?? Disgusting.

If you're going to be a vigilante, be quiet and anonymous about it. And be absolutely certain about everything that had occurred.

I still wish someone had gone after my abuser, even after all these years. It would have given me peace knowing that they are no longer out there.

Vigilantism is illegal for a couple of good reasons.

Yes.

For two reasons.

First: Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Second: The police has far more resources to verify suspicions than any vigilante has. The risk of acting on false accusations or bad dats is just way too big. Also if the predator has had multiple victims a vigilante may miss that and never giving all vicitms closure or compensation.

Vigilantism is wildly unhelpful to the proper authorities, at best, you've put yourself in a position of immediate escalation with someone who is clearly able to be presumed as capable of heinous crimes of the violent variety, at worst, you've spoiled a years long investigation by showing the hand to the target that people have started to catch on to who they really are, allowing them to book it to a no extradition country.

Depending on what part of the world these people live in, the actions of these vigilantes might screw up the chance of a successful prosecution.

I'm in the UK and I remember watching a copper interviewed on the the TV asking people not to do it as a lot of the time it results in inadmissible evidence and might even give pedos chance to delete evidence. I think he also said he was aware of multiple instances of the pedo-hunters getting the wrong person at the 'sting'.

That said, I doubt these pedo-hunters really care about abused kids, it seems mostly about bragging rights and youtube views.

I think it's immoral in the sense they rarely involve, or bring their cases to police. Yeah, it sucks to get caught for the predator, but he's still out there capable of harming children.

There's an element of this that feels like it's operating under the assumption that someone will assault a different child if not the adult posing as one that makes me a little uncomfortable. It's a sort of Kantian outlook, but there's a part of me that wonders if those predators would find another target if the decoy "child" wasn't presented to them.

On the other hand, I imagine that the answer to that question is "Yes. This is an abuser actively hunting for a target." and that assuages some of the concern.

Them doing it for views and content is also upsetting, but that's the nature of living in a capitalist world. Everything, even justice, can and will be commodified and sold into a perversion of its original intent and goal.

Vigilantism, by definition, has no accountability. It's an individual, who could be mistaken, doling out their own interpretation of justice. There are always exceptions to the rule. Sure, posing as a child could illicit attention from child predators, but it could also attract someone who is concerned about the welfare of the (fake) child. I can imagine someone, abused as a child, wanting to reach out and help someone they think is in danger of falling victim to the same. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination.

However, our legal system is woefully inadequate in addressing the amount of predators out there, precisely because it hinges on evidence of an act that often has none, while going unreported for long periods of time.

I'd say, that if someone is attempting to meet up with a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual contact, and you are alerted to that, you get to beat the shit out of them, but I'd draw the line at recording and posting, just in case you were wrong. Guy gets beaten up, learns a lesson, but if he was innocent, all he did was get his ass whooped.

Look into the Snowtown Murders for a true story about vigilantes who profess to want to kill pedophiles. It doesn't end well. Only actual idiots truly believe violence is how things should work, and you really want smart people to be the arbiters of justice to the greatest extent that is possible.

It leads me to believe that the people setting the traps have a hero complex and they're most likely going to get themselves hurt or another person hurt at some point or another

Yeah I don't like it. In the same way that I don't like people filming themselves giving money to homeless people.

If we had a Justice system instead of a Legal system it may be. But there is no justice in the system when money or power start to show their faces.

The only justice left is the justice you can take yourself.

Would you rather children be used as the bait?

No

It's the same as seeing a person rob an elderly person in the street, and kicking the shit out of them.

If they didn't rob the person or have a sexual conversation with someone who might be a minor, there would be nothing to expose.

Here's my take:

the people profiting off shows and podcasts where they do this sort of thing are absolutely immoral, bordering on outright bad. Evil is a bit too intense, but you get the idea. Unless they're donating any revenue to help children, then they're shitty.

The people doing the baiting are only immoral IN MY OPINION if they are the ones to initiate things. If they sit back and passively respond while the guy starts sending dick pics and suggesting they meet to have sex, then it's not immoral in my opinion. When they go into a conversation with "I'm a minor, let's meet for [REDACTED]" then it's still wrong.

Of course, on the other side of the screen, the guy either suggesting or agreeing with meeting up is clearly always in the wrong.

Both parties involved can be in the wrong.