NationStates Jolt Archive

LYON, France (May 6) - Interpol launched a worldwide appeal to the public Tuesday to help identify a man suspected of sexually abusing young boys from Southeast Asia - hoping the rare move will lead to a quick arrest.

It was only the second time that the international police agency has appealed directly to the public for help in identifying a suspected pedophile. An arrest was made shortly after the first time last October.

The suspect in the latest case is a white man, shown with gray, thinning hair in photos released by Interpol. He appeared to be in his late 40s or early 50s in the images.

Interpol said that despite two years of investigations, it and other police agencies have been unable to determine his identity, nationality or whereabouts - hence the decision to appeal publicly for information.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/interpol-searches-for-pedophile-suspect/20080506081709990002

Do agree with the Interpol's move of releasing to the media the photos of those suspected of child abuse (or pedophilia) in order to solve the cases? Do you think it's a wise move to appeal to the public?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/interpol-searches-for-pedophile-suspect/20080506081709990002

Do agree with the Interpol's move of releasing to the media the photos of those suspected of child abuse (or pedophilia) in order to solve the cases? Do you think it's a wise move to appeal to the public?I'm a bit worried, actually. I remember the amount of suffering innocents had to do during the whole "Named Shamed" crap from some British tabloid.

Here's my question: Do they commonly release photos of suspects of various crimes, or is this a special exceptino due to the nature of the crime?

If so, then it's business as usual.

If not, then it's a problem. Equal protection and all that.

I'm a bit worried, actually. I remember the amount of suffering innocents had to do during the whole "Named Shamed" crap from some British tabloid.

My same concern. It feels a bit Inquisitorial to me.

Here's my question: Do they commonly release photos of suspects of various crimes, or is this a special exceptino due to the nature of the crime?

If so, then it's business as usual.

If not, then it's a problem. Equal protection and all that.

No, this is the second time they release a suspect's picture because the first time they did, they arrested the suspect very quickly. But no, this is not standard procedure for the Interpol.

I agree, it's problematic. As I told Laerod, it feels a bit Inquisitorial to me.

How are we meant to find that? He looks like everyone!

My same concern. It feels a bit Inquisitorial to me.

It's only a problem if the words, "DEAD OR ALIVE" are under his pic.

It's only a problem if the words, "DEAD OR ALIVE" are under his pic.Not really. This isn't just about protecting someone who's suspected of pedophilia, its also about protecting the people that look like them.

Not only that but let's face it: All sorts of legal exceptions are made in cases involving child molestation. It's a heinous enough crime that people are willing to look the other way when law enforcement starts stomping on individual rights.

The long term rammifications of that scare the hell out of me. Frankly, the short term rammifications do, too.

It's only a problem if the words, "DEAD OR ALIVE" are under his pic.

Well, there's also the "inocent until porven otherwise" factor. Releasing the photo of this man might actually cause a witch-hunt for suspects and non-suspects alike. That is what's troublesome.

Well, there's also the "inocent until porven otherwise" factor. Releasing the photo of this man might actually cause a witch-hunt for suspects and non-suspects alike. That is what's troublesome.

Absolutely. And suppose we were to find out later this man is not guilty? We saw what happened to the Duke Lacrosse players when they were falsely accused of rape. Their college careers destroyed, their reputations permanently stained.

Isn't it spelt paedophile?

Absolutely. And suppose we were to find out later this man is not guilty? We saw what happened to the Duke Lacrosse players when they were falsely accused of rape. Their college careers destroyed, their reputations permanently stained.

Exactly. I think the Interpol went a bit too fast on this one by releasing the photo. The agency should've been more cautious there.

Well, there's also the "inocent until porven otherwise" factor. Releasing the photo of this man might actually cause a witch-hunt for suspects and non-suspects alike. That is what's troublesome.

I believe they have photos of him committing acts of pedophilia - hence the "We're pretty sure he did it" angle.

Haven't got a problem with that if it catches him.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7384834.stm)

Pictures showing the man sexually abusing at least three boys were found on the internet, police say.

Isn't it spelt paedophile?

In British English

In British English

And English - English.

And English - English.

Lets not start this crap.

I believe they have photos of him committing acts of pedophilia - hence the "We're pretty sure he did it" angle.

Haven't got a problem with that if it catches him.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7384834.stm)

Be that as it may, I still think the agency made a mistake by releasing the photo.

I wouldn't mind it if it said "sought for questioning" but to say it's for Pedeophile...

I mean, what if they're wrong... will interpol re-release the man's photo with an apology?

I wouldn't mind it if it said "sought for questioning" but to say it's for Pedeophile...

I mean, what if they're wrong... will interpol re-release the man's photo with an apology?

They have him on video fucking kids.

Isn't it spelt paedophile?

Not in the U.S.

I believe they have photos of him committing acts of pedophilia - hence the "We're pretty sure he did it" angle.

Haven't got a problem with that if it catches him.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7384834.stm)

Photos are evidence. That gets presented in court. You can't justify releasing the photo just because the cops are really really sure he did it. Until he's convicted, he's to be considered innocent. Period.

I wouldn't mind it if it said "sought for questioning" but to say it's for Pedeophile...

I mean, what if they're wrong... will interpol re-release the man's photo with an apology?

No, they won't, and that's the tragedy. A complete lack of accountability.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/interpol-searches-for-pedophile-suspect/20080506081709990002

Do agree with the Interpol's move of releasing to the media the photos of those suspected of child abuse (or pedophilia) in order to solve the cases? Do you think it's a wise move to appeal to the public?

No, thats an infringment of their rights.

Meh I don't see a problem with it. I mean the FBI in the states do the same thing for dangerous criminals.

Meh I don't see a problem with it. I mean the FBI in the states do the same thing for dangerous criminals.

Well, the FBI is another thing. That agency abuses a lot. The Interpol doesn't have an overt fame for being abusive though.

Well, the FBI is another thing. That agency abuses a lot. The Interpol doesn't have an overt fame for being abusive though.

What's the difference between a "Wanted" Poster and this?

Meh I don't see a problem with it. I mean the FBI in the states do the same thing for dangerous criminals.
What's the difference between a "Wanted" Poster and this?



But the FBI doesn't differentiate between categories of crimes. Interpol seems to be making an exception due to the nature of the crime, and that's wrong.

What's the difference between a "Wanted" Poster and this?

None whatsoever.

Photos are evidence. That gets presented in court. You can't justify releasing the photo just because the cops are really really sure he did it. Until he's convicted, he's to be considered innocent. Period.

If the photo says "This man is suspected and accused of paedophilia", I can't see what the problem is. Perhaps it says "This man is requested by the international agencies for being involved in certain cases of child abuse".

If the photo says "CAUTION, PEDOPHILE!", then you have a point.

Being a suspect means the authorities have all the rights to look for him for questioning. Being an innocent means that he can turn himself for a fair trial. The evidence points there is a good chance he's a suspect, even although he could be innocent. When you are innocent, it is best for you to turn yourself in, and not hide from the international world. The behavior of the accused is not helping his innocence plead.

Photos are evidence. That gets presented in court. You can't justify releasing the photo just because the cops are really really sure he did it. Until he's convicted, he's to be considered innocent. Period.

Interpol has released images from the internet of a man it suspects of sexually abusing young boys.
My emphasis.
See suspected? Yeh, that covers it. He's a suspect and suspects - regardless of crimes - often have their photo or photofit released after unsuccessful attempts to find them.

Police first became aware of the suspect two years ago from photos of him found on the computer hard-drive of a man arrested in Norway and later convicted on paedophilia-related charges, the Associated Press reports.
Two years of keeping it on the quiet, only now are they trying to use the public to help. I fail to see how it's unjustified.

No, they won't, and that's the tragedy. A complete lack of accountability.

Finding pedophiles who photo themselves in the act sure is a tragedy alright.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7384834.stm

I think the pros of this system outweigh the cons.

Lots of innocent people may well suffer due to mistakes, but it's a very effective method of finding someone. Denying law enforcement this ability would cause more harm.

Generally making the public less lynch moby when it comes to sex crimes, or violent crimes against women, would help lower the harm caused by this type of search. That's probably near impossible to do though. Maybe just put a line under the photo saying, "remember he could still be innocent", "don't take justice into your own hands", and "there will be people who look similar".

They have him on video fucking kids.

Video? I only read Photos.

and they know that only ONE person looks exactly like the person on the video? I've seen at least 5 people in Hawaii alone that could be mistaken for me (and had others mention they saw me in places I wouldn't be at.)

my other concern are for those that John Q. Public would mistake to be that person being unjustly labled Pedeophile.

I'm really getting pissed off by this whole witch hunt attitude towards paedophiles. Releasing a photo to the public is just adding fuel to the fire, there will probably be at least 10 people who's lives will be ruined by false accusations owing to this photo.

You only have to look at what happened to blacks a mere generation ago in the southern US. A black man is accused of a crime, so a mob forms to go lynch the first black man they find - after all, they all look alike. A lot of people who look vaguely similar to that photo could have their lives ruined, suffering irreparable harm, because of that photo.

Posting the photo saying that the individual is wanted for questioning might be acceptable, but that is as far as the public worldwide accusations should go.

If the photo says "This man is suspected and accused of paedophilia", I can't see what the problem is. Perhaps it says "This man is requested by the international agencies for being involved in certain cases of child abuse".

If the photo says "CAUTION, PEDOPHILE!", then you have a point.


But that's the problem. With today's witch hunt mentality, people will not differentiate between the two and that's why care must be taken.


Being a suspect means the authorities have all the rights to look for him for questioning. Being an innocent means that he can turn himself for a fair trial. The evidence points there is a good chance he's a suspect, even although he could be innocent. When you are innocent, it is best for you to turn yourself in, and not hide from the international world. The behavior of the accused is not helping his innocence plead.

True, but then he may also have good reason to believe he'd be falsely convicted. We don't know the mind of someone in that situation and that's why we can't assume anything.

My emphasis.
See suspected? Yeh, that covers it. He's a suspect and suspects - regardless of crimes - often have their photo or photofit released after unsuccessful attempts to find them.



Two years of keeping it on the quiet, only now are they trying to use the public to help. I fail to see how it's unjustified.



And if Interpol regularly released photos of convicts regardless of the nature of the crime they're suspected of, that would be fine.

But again, a special case seems to have been made here.


Finding pedophiles who photo themselves in the act sure is a tragedy alright.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7384834.stm

SUSPECTED.