How to Catch a Pedophile II

I had not intended for this particular entry to be a two part-er, but David’s comments, which I generally agree with, highlight an aspect of my latest entry that I want to correct.

Please read David’s comment, which was:
"I agree with you entirely. However, there is a reason INTERPOL's step was unprecedented. And while I too like to blame the media, it's actually not their fault. Releasing the photo of the victim was an attempt to find the victim to gather evidence. I will say that releasing such a photo is a very rare thing, but it puts them on the trail. In other cases where the victim's identity is released, there is usually a reason for it and/or the victim is involved. Remember my armed robbery? They didn't identify me--standard procedure, unless, in a case like the girl, they need to find them.

"The suspect is another story. Note how I use that term. For a news station to release a photo--not a sketch or something, but an actual photo--of a suspect can put them on the hook for a lot. Same with the cops. Something goes wrong in the investigation, or trial, or something, and now you have an innocent or "innocent" person who has just has their face splashed across the airwaves as a pedophile. The lawsuit the bad guy has becomes very, very costly. Its a risky move to take, and is rarely done because usually it won't help. Furthermore, to release a photo in the context of we're looking for this person because we have proof that he did it is not talking about that person as a suspect, but as the actual criminal. In the US case, releasing his photo out of the rape video does not give him the "benefit of the doubt" required. In the EU case, I believe his photo was not taken out of actual, but rather circumstancial evidence. There's a big difference there, technically speaking, even if, yes, you are absolutely right that practically speaking it's a stupid way to tie their hands.

"So, in conclusion, the law protects the criminals more than it protects the victims. Welcome to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments ;) (or in INTERPOL's case, similar principles) and journalism ethics."

There. In a nutshell, the reason to get your legal advice from a lawyer, not an eccentric engineer. Again, I generally agree with everything said. Except that he posits that I shouldn’t blame the media here. Oh no. I disagree. But the reason we arrive at opposite conclusion on that one point is telling.

Please recall two things:
1) I write this blog to entertain more than to persuade.
2) This is -- though less clearly labeled than usual -- part seven in my continuing series on why I find the current pedophilia “crisis” an abomination.

If you go back to my original post about the Nevada case, you’ll notice that I have a large “But all I have to go on is what they tell me” clause which was intended to mean, “I do not feel fully comfortable drawing conclusions about what the police are doing from this horrible, retarded article.” As a result, though I was accusing the media and the police of working together to commit the same crime (ruining a little girl’s life), I gave the police a slap on the wrist and the media a full out spanking.

I tried to do the same thing in the Cambodia post, but less clearly. There, I gave Interpol credit for a more logical technique, while accusing the journalist of masturbating to kiddie porn and creating typos in a worthless article. Again, my fury was over the fact that, while the article strongly hinted that the law enforcement efforts were about as logical as a lard weight-loss shake, I felt I couldn’t trust my sources.

So to be clear: I suspect that the law enforcement agencies are actually working much better than the media is telling me. An example: I tore the Nevada police department a new asshole for “not checking” to see if the suspect who turned himself in was part of the established sex offender database. I’ll bet you they tried to check, but didn’t have enough information to place him in it. But the articles I’m reading SUGGEST that Nevada police were stumped as to how to turn on their PC’s. That pisses me off. So when I appeared to make fun of the Nevada police, I actually INTENDED to be making fun only of their ironic caricature, as presented to me by the media. Since the basis for this was established several posts prior, it’s my fault that this clarity is lost.

So let’s redefine my premise. Why, exactly, am I violently upset each time I see a front page article about pedophiles? Because I don’t think I should be seeing this news AT ALL.

Let me try to explain. In previous posts, I argue that the definition of statutory rape is an abomination in terms of ethical justice. I am extremely opposed to rape, but I object to an arbitrary age defining what constitutes it. Rape is easy to spot. You go up to the alleged victim and you ask them if they’ve been raped. If they say “Yes,” or if they’re not worldly enough to understand your question, that’s a rape. If you go up to a thirteen year old and ask them if they’ve been raped and they reply with, “Best sex I ever had!,” that’s not rape. Many of these articles are furious at that thirteen year old’s lover. I’m not, and I don’t want to hear about the witch hunt that will destroy their lover’s life.

In these last two cases, I agree that there was real rape committed. I don’t approve of those rapes at all. But I still don’t want them on the front page of my international news, for one simple, shared reason. I hinted at it in my original posts, but only subtly. Let me try to highlight that reason now.

The two most recent posts are being portrayed as the major news right now in Nebraska and Cambodia. Again, Nebraska. And Cambodia. Ok, so maybe they are the big stories from those regions right now. But humor me real quick. Tell me any PRIOR major news story from either Nebraska or Cambodia. Either one. Go.

…

…

…

Did you manage to think of anything? Anything at all? Do you even know where Cambodia is?

Maybe you do. And maybe you managed to think of some news too. If you did, that’s great. But I’ll bet most people didn’t. So when I see stories like this, I see three things:
1) The media has created an international witch hunt for pedophiles. You can run whole stories about them, without even a picture to back them up. They are the devils of our era. The news has taught us that they must be EVERYWHERE. They’re the modern Communists. Everyone is a suspect, and even being accused of the crime will destroy a person’s reputation forever. I would like to know how many there REALLY are. And I mean real ones. Not people who had consensual sex with an adoring lover. When each story gets front page international news, it tells me that they’re VERY rare. And thus shock news. Shock news hurts society.
2) These articles SUCK. They contradict themselves, make the police look like retarded chimpanzees, don’t back anything up with evidence, posit questionable ethical assumptions, and show up with alarming frequency.
3) They subtly teach us that places with no news have nothing but sinister news. Now, in the back of our minds, we have been taught that Cambodia and Nebraska are havens of pedophilia. Most of us can’t think of anything else interesting about them. So we are left to assume that both places are so boring, that every fifth neighbor in them stalks vulnerable children. By extension, we subconsciously learn that even rural places are havens of filthy crimes.

That’s why I blog about this. I can find nothing redeeming about these articles. They’re misleading, shocking, ethically indefensible, and make people a little dumber with each exposure.

It really is the media’s fault. There may be other parties at fault in these stories, but I (as a reader of them) am certainly not qualified to say who they are.