To Catch A Predator is a popular weekly news show on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) network. This show, with the help of an online watchdog group, Perverted Justice, attempts to nab child sex abusers who contact and trap children through the Internet. This show exposes predators irrespective of age, race, socioeconomic status, and employment status?making personal contact with minors.
In the article "Protecting Our Children from Internet Smut," Julia Wilikins, states that the issue of child sexual pornography on the Internet is nothing more than a "moral panic."
Do you think shows like To Catch a Predator contribute to this "moral panic" or are shows like this providing further evidence that this is a serious and widespread problem? Why?
One of the arguments against the NBC show is that it is a form of entrapment, since the decoys are the ones who often initiate the conversation revolving around sex. However, others believe that the ends justify the means. In the context of this show's function, do you think the ends justify the means? Why or why not? Should shows such as To Catch a Predator continue and perhaps increase their operations and reach many more locations?
Keep in mind that this response is subjective, and is only one viewpoint of many others.
It would seem that shows such as 'To Catch A Predator' can be judged from two distinct viewpoints. They all allow us to open our eyes to the world and they are all part of our right to freedom of information (to an extent). However, our right to this knowledge then comes up against their freedom of privacy (from the 'exposed' person(s) perspective). Despite the fact that, on an international level, we are all addicted to shows which reveal 'real-ife' situations, from 'Judge Judy' through to 'To Catch A Predator', there seems to be an ...
The expert determines whether the ends justify the means in a case study.