Paedophile Hunters are sweeping the nation at the moment, with over 75 groups in the UK alone. These teams set up fake child profiles on dating apps and chatrooms, waiting for online groomers to message them. They then allow the suspected groomer to develop the conversation, screens hotting everything as evidence as they go. If the groomer then instigates a meet, the hunters will go along and hold the offender there until the police arrive.

​

I wanted to get Ethan's opinions on these controversial groups, and the idea of the resulting 'paedophile' stigma in the press.

 

 

So, as a celibate paedophile, would you encourage hunter groups and the police joining forces if it meant catching more online groomers?

As a strong advocate of the rule of law and civil liberties, I oppose hunter groups. Police are often opposed to their activities too. The hunter groups often use entrapment. These crimes rarely involve paedophilia in the scientific sense, meaning an attraction to prepubescent children. Most of these teens are considerably developed physically, so the people attracted to them are mostly teleiophiles (with a primary attraction to adults). I believe it is for emotional reasons that the men are interested in girls that young.

Based on reading Michael Seto's "Internet Sex Offenders", I think online grooming is usually one of the less serious sex crimes.

 

He notes that the victims are rarely under age 13, and that if they do meet someone they know they are meeting a significantly older person for sex. Young teens are capable of acting out and defying their parents' wishes and society's rules in all sorts of ways, including sex with peers. They have considerable agency in these situations, and are not just passive victims. Girls face unwanted attention from men as they grow up (leers, wolf whistles, etc.) and it would be great if we could lessen that. This is a case where they are seeking out the attention.

 

To be clear, I think men who do it are doing something WRONG, it is rightly illegal, and they should pay a legal price. But if I was a citizen trying to ferret out crime in the world to do good, there are lots of more productive things I could imagine doing -- surveillance in search of domestic violence might be a good one (though ultimately I don't favour secret surveillance either).

 

Seto says: "One large study found no cases at all of any child under the age of 12 being solicited online. Only 5% of adult offenders pretended to be a teenage themselves. A minority did pretend to be younger than they actually were, but they still admitted being an adult... they might have exaggerated or lied about their interest in long-term romance or lied about their physical appearance or social or relationship status, but they didn't lie about their intentions. 73% had repeat encounters.”

 

Conclusion: Making it illegal for men to meet them may make sense, but the girls they are meeting knew what they were getting into. He suggests a sleazy motive for police officers in some places impersonating young teens online and luring men to meet for sex. Since child sex abuse is down dramatically, these officers need something to do, and these cases have high conviction rates to justify their jobs."
 

The girls who the vigilantes are impersonating are not helpless, naive children. They have agency in the situation, and that should be an extenuating factor (but not a full excuse).

The police themselves express reservations about the vigilantes, and I certainly think their concerns should be heeded. I suppose the vigilantes think the police aren't doing enough to combat a serious problem. I disagree, so to that extent I oppose the vigilante action. A more serious problem is children who are used for hard-core child porn. If the vigilantes joined such groups, gained their trust, and then could help get convictions of those CP makers that would be more productive. But I'm not sure vigilante action is a good idea in any area.

 

What are VirPed’s main goals?

​

My main goal is to get sympathy for celibate paedophiles, and it would be better PR for my cause if I joined society in considering online grooming a terrible crime worthy of decades in prison. But I just can't do it. Today's society may see an attraction to young teen girls as some sort of horrendous pathology, but it pays no attention to history. Even today, girls are often married off at that age in other societies, and no one thinks the men are monsters for an interest in consummating the marriage.

 

Should they carry on doing what they are doing? Should they join forces with the police?

Paedophile hunters are going after people who are doing something wrong -- trying to meet underage girls or boys for sex. (I am basing this on my knowledge of things like "To Catch a Predator", not refined to the specifics of recent local groups in the UK). It makes sense that law enforcement devotes resources to combatting this, and it's understandable that citizens who are outraged about it take action. There are worries sometimes about entrapment -- a "girl" who says she is 18 engages in prolonged conversation, including sexualized, and then suddenly reveals she is only 15 and she says "that's not a problem, I hope". If you think this girl is a real person, cutting off contact immediately could be seen as rude or insensitive (an extenuating factor, but not an excuse).

 

Should these groomers be given medical help rather than purely jail sentences?
 

I don't think most groomers have a medical diagnosis that would warrant medical help. Like other sex offenders, they might benefit from empathy training and cognitive-behavioural methods to avoid such situations in the future. And remember that recidivism for all sex crimes is very low.

 

I would say that probation for an initial offense combined with treatment/therapy would be a good solution.

​