The guy is a jerk. But I must ask, In what way did he break the law? Or more exactly, in what way did he hurt anyone?

Wanting sex with a toddler isn't the same as actually having it. And traveling across state lines with intent isn't the same as there having been a real kindergarten-aged kid in Michigan waiting for him. As far as I'm concerned, all anyone managed was to get him to publish certain strings of words on the internet. I consider this approach to law enforcement (i.e., encouraging people to offer to violate the law) to be much worse in the long run for civilization than the comparatively much smaller risk that there might be pedophiles somewhere in society.

I'm a parent, and I'm aware how hard it is to say this, but if we want a free society, then the police need to be restricted to arresting people who've actually been found violating others' civil rights.

Some words penned years ago by Orson Welles say it to my satisfaction: "The policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

I respectfully disagree. This law is in place because it is so hard to catch these guys in the actual act, I'm glad there's a law like this and that the penalty is so strong.

I'm just sorry they stopped him from putting a period at the end of his life.

Wrong, wrong wrong...and may I add...wrong.

The law states that intent is intent is intent regardless of whether or not there is a 12 year old boy, a sweaty 43 year old perv, or a 38 year old cop on the other end and I for one am glad it is that way.

Imagine if you will if it were NOT that way. A pedophile tried to hook up with a kid and failed because it was someone else on the PC. So he tries again, and tries again, and tries again until oh! He found a kid. YOUR kid.

Nope...put this slob away for 25 years is my take on this matter.

Well, all I can do then is reiterate: "The policeman's job is only easy in a police state."

Everyone in our democratic republic has rights, including those who break the law. This guy is only a lawbreaker by definition, that is to say, there's a law against intending to exercise pedophilia. He traveled with the thought in mind that he was about to do so, and therefore he broke that particular law. Perhaps this law is unconstitutional. Not all laws are in everyone's best interest.

And not all potential crimes are equally risky. Having some unknown number of pedophiles in society is less bad than surrendering our liberties to the so-called authorities for no better reason than that we, as parents, can't be bothered to grasp the quantitative risk of said variety of predator. Really: just how likely is it that your child, or mine, will be harmed by a pedophile? Is it significantly likely, or are parents simply too myopic to see the world with some objectivity? (For weeks after my daughter was born, I was sure that half the men I saw out in public were hatching plans to steal her, right there in broad daylight.) Is this nothing more than the same ignorant mentality by which millions regularly waste their dollars on Powerball tickets?

Tell you what; I know for a published fact that there are convicted sex offenders living within several blocks of where my younger daughter resides with her mother. Ought I go to their homes and wreak pre-emptive vengeance upon them? No. They're all individuals who've served their time in prison. I can not, and I will not, punish people for things they haven't even done. If they ever do something, then that's another story altogether.

Yes, I know there is such a law on the books. So what? I say that such a law is the resort of those who refuse to be good parents to their kids. There were child molesters in business centuries before the internet, before the telephone, before the telegraph, etc. Perhaps in those days the authorities ought to have been granted free license to enter any private home at-will. After all, anyone could be a pervert. Better to kill everyone and let God sort the good from the bad.

Too bad they caught him in time. If I were a cop I would have arrived "moments too late." :'(

I attended a 911 education seminar this March and Amber alerts and abductions were discussed.

The average pedophile (and that is what he is, whether he has proven to have done something or merely had *intent*) has molested 7 children before he gets caught.

SEVEN!!

So, the question I pose to you, is, Do you really think this kid was the first?

Anyone bold enough to arrange a meeting with a mom who would offer their 5 yr old for sex, hardly seems like a first offender to me, ESPECIALLY given his profession.

I really understand where you're coming from, but here's the facts you asked for:

There's a 1 in 4 chance if your child is female that she will be molested. I think the ratio for a male child is not quite as bad but equally startling. These are reported cases, it may be higher if we could know about unreported cases.

Let's say for argument your daughter is attacked by a molester. She doesn't have to be 5, let's say she's 12. You cannot possibly be with her every second of every minute of every hour of every day, every week, month or year, it's not possible. Her molester could be a teacher, or a doctor or any number of trusted persons...you know a Federal Prosecutor, someone well respected. In fact, statistically he most likely is (and I say he, but we all know it could and often has been a "she" that is the molester). Now let's say the authorities had a chance to stop this person from physically and mentally damaging your daughter by catching him intending to do so (probable cause), but they didn't because, the intent isn't against the law. Your daughter, I promise you, will not only not be the same person, she will never ever be "right" again. She will carry that mental scar forever. It can potentially affect every aspect of her life and no matter how good a parent, no matter how much you love her and care for her and bring her for "treatment" she will ALWAYS be affected by what has happened to her in some way. If (and I hope it doesn't) it happens to your daughter are you going to say, "sorry hon, suck it up, the guy had his rights?" I defy you to.

You know sometimes I see a tv show that has video of someone plotting the demise of their spouse on a hidden camera and the proposed "hitman" is actually an undercover officer. Should we let them go because nobody actually got murdered?

The reason I don't agree that this is against the constitution is because of habeas corpus. I.e. mistakes may be made, here's your remedy. He can certainly be arrested, the proof of guilt is always on the prosecution (this guy's a federal prosecutor, he MUST know that, that's not even law school stuff, it's common knowledge).

The constitution does not grant you immunity if there is probable cause (4th amendment). That's important, because it is exactly what is behind this case.

And, while I'd just as soon the guy offed himself (which seems to indicate to me, especially because he's a Federal Prosecutor that he doesn't have much hope of fighting this on habaes corpus or due process), it is now up to a judge to decide.

You are looking at this incorrectly.

Yes, wanting to have sex with a minor is not a crime. That is why that admitted pedophile that caught so much trouble in California was freed.

He admitted to being sexually turned on by little children. He took pictures, he ran a website, etc, etc. None of those are illegal. When an overly-protective, overly-zealous judge made a court order beyond his power basically making it illegal for the man to be anywhere in the state of California, his arrest was overturned.

Wanting to commit a crime is not illegal. Every single one of us wants to commit a crime of some sort.

Attempting to commit a crime is a crime. By traveling to the site (over state lines or next door doesn't matter) he was attempting to commit a crime and is guilty.

If I try to buy some crack, but am busted by the cops in a sting, or even buy fake drugs, I am still guilty of a crime.

If I try to kill someone but fail in my attempt, I have still committed a crime.

Basically you are mixing "desire" and "attempt"

That is not at all my point. The question is not if he is or isn't guilty of something. The question is one of demonstrating guilt in a public venue. For all I know this particular guy is also an axe murderer. Has he been shown guilty of murder? No. And he hasn't been shown guilty of child molestation. On top of that, he wasn't even arrested on suspicion of any actual such act. He was arrested purely on the basis of his intent. It's a given from the get-go that he's done nothing to anyone. All he did was chat with a detective online.

Here's what I have to say about entrapment: if the police were truly interested in making society better, they'd employ a strategy whereby the guy is discouraged from making such an arrangement in the first place. Instead, the best they can do is go online and bait people into breaking the law. (In the meantime, all the really smart perverts stay way from the internet and use whatever tactics they've been using to acquire targets for the last few centuries.) How do they know he'd have done any such thing had they not deliberately engineered a situation conducive to temptation?

All the cops know how to do is arrest people and put them in prison. That's not what I call an enlightened worldview. I certainly don't consider it the first & foremost job of the police to fill the prisons. They are employees, paid by society to do what most people should be theoretically empowered to do themselves, but for which they simply haven't the time or skill. The police should be to law enforcement what elected members of Congress are to lawmaking: our proxies.

As I've said at least a couple of times already, I'm fully aware that he broke a law. He is guilty by definition. There's a law against traveling across state lines with intent to commit yet another crime. My point is that he did nothing, and it wasn't even possible in this case for him to have consumated his intent. All he really, physically did was get on an airplane to Michigan. Why should that be a crime?

There are vastly larger issues connected with this sort of thing than the fact that we fret that there are boogeymen salivating over our offspring. As a father, one of the most regrettable things I might do is present a bad example to my kids by being silent as MY country is transformed into a police state. Boarding an airplane should not be a crime. Only the act of perversion itself should be punishable. Only the act or immediate, obvious threat thereof should be grounds for arrest. He did nothing. The law, in this case, is wrong.

So you want to abandon the fourth amendment?

I've a very difficult time accepting such an absurd statistic. It implies that child molestation is a veritably normal social activity. It implies that I personally have engaged with hundreds, or even thousands, of people who've been perved, and that by networking I am just a few nodes away from millions. That's an AWFUL LOT, and I'm disinclined trust it. What is the source of your data? What is your source's data collecting methodology? Is it robust? Is it reliable? How do they double-blind the study? How do they randomize the sampling? How are the collected data extrapolated as a trend in the population at-large? These are very critical questions. We may as easily ask how the federal government establishes the threat of terrorist attacks. And the issue is the same in both cases. Are we being had?

In my family tree there have been lots of people without police protection, without health insurance, without indoor plumbing. I think I can manage to live with some risk.

That's quite a different situation. In such a case there is an actual, specific, potential victim. In the case under discussion the target victim was a phantom.

No such thing.

You say only the actual act should be a crime. If I attempt to rape your wife or child, but fail than am I to be let free in your world?

If I attempt to kidnap your child, but am thwarted, or perhaps don't get the opportunity am I innocent? Should I be allowed to continue attempting the deed until I succeed.

If I place poison in your drink, but you don't drink any am I innocent of a crime?

How exactly do you define 10 seconds before success? 1 minute? 15? 1 1/2 hours? what is it?

Do I really have to reiterate the difference between desire and attempt. You are smart enough to grasp the difference.

So it is your belief that the guy only wanted to travel a few thousand miles to have sex with a 5-year old because of the power of suggestion of the mean-old-nasty-cop.

Obviously that isn't the case. The sting is just a way of finding people who want to commit these crimes and stop them before they succeed

YOU, as usual, completely fail to grasp the elements of my argument. I've said NOTHING to the effect that, if someone actually attempts -but fails- to violate (for example) my daughter, that said individual ought to be set free. I am saying that the guy in this case DID NOTHING, AND THERE WAS NO ONE TO DO ANYTHING TO. Get it yet? This has NOTHING to do with setting free those caught in the act. That there are laws presuming to find people guilty of boarding an aircraft alone is preposterous.

And in NO WAY have I proposed that the guy was somehow "hypnotized" into breaking the law. GO back and read what I REALLY said.

Furthermore, there doesn't need to be an organized plot in order for this country to be trashed. It only requires that bad choices in law be made and institutionalized while no one pays attention. If you've any familiarity with history then you should already know this. Civilizations do crumble.

So fine. Let's reword my premise.
I am told that your daughter will be passed out and available for me to date. I go there and she's not there, it was all a prank played on me by my roommate.

Am I innocent of a crime? I wanted to do so, I attempted to do so. I only failed because the opportunity was there.

If I wanted to sell an atomic bomb to Islamic Extremist, but find out it was a sting, or again that crazy roommate, am I not still guilty of a crime?

Per your explanation, I didn't do anything and there was no one I could do anything with. I thought there was, I was ready to do so, but failed because of a lack of opportunity.



No, you didn't say hypnotized. You merely suggested that he wouldn't have committed any crime, wouldn't have ever wanted to have sex with a 5-year old until the sting operation.

Okay, you just might have a point here. It is entrapment to some degree. Maybe the guy would have gone his whole life with nothing but the urge. Maybe he wouldn't have acted on that urge, it is only the bait dangling in front of him that caused him to lose self-control.

You would probably be correct except that he had a lot of time while traveling to come to his senses and back out.

If it was more of an immediate thing. If it was something like "hey I'm down the block from you, I have this hot little 10-year old all stoned and willing to do anything, come on over", than yeah, I can see a case where the cops' sting operation caused the man to give into temptation.

I don't see that in this case though.

Uh, no, it doesn't mean you are a potential molester, it means 25% of the women you know have probably been molested. Maybe more. It's impossible to do a double-blind study using placebos and controls. This isn't a pharmacological test, it's not a test to see if you're psychic. It's a group of people psychologically and physically damaged by the acts of someone without self control (whether deliberate or physiological). How do you propose to test that? The act itself can cause shame (unfounded, but definitely an affect) and depression and a list of problems so long I can't even put them all here (but I'll link you if you want). Can you not possibly imagine how difficult it must be for the people to even report it, never mind sit around being judged by a bunch of researchers? OMG...do you have ANY idea what rape is like? If you do, then multiply that times 1000, that's what it's like for a child.
You don't have any idea what rape is like if you're equating it to lack of plumbing.
There was a specific actual victim in this case too. That the perpetrator didn't know that is not part of intent. He didn't intend to rape a police officer pretending to be a 5 year old. He intended to rape a 5 year old who, unbeknownst to him, was a police officer. Are you saying it's ok for him to have acted upon it because his victim was pretend even though he had no idea the victim was pretend? How does your argument not have ENORMOUS holes in it? What's to say the murder conspirator wouldn't say "I knew it was a cop all along and was just playing". How is it different? In neither case is there a victim, no one is actually harmed, but the intent is there. Please explain because I cannot fathom your argument.
As for the stats:
Here's some stats for you, feel free to read throu...

There is no difference between an act memorialized on video tape and an act memorialized in a chat room, save the visual footage. Your argument is about intent, and intent is what both are about. You say no act was committed, an act was not committed in the murder conspiracy I paraphrased either, no one was murdered, but the intent to murder was there, the law can not and should not differentiate. This man did act though, he traveled to meet the child to have sex with the child as memorialized by a conversation he had with an alleged accomplice. How is that different than hiring a hit man that turns out to be an undercover officer? I don't see how you can distinguish either, no actual murder or rape is committed in either case, both cases involve law enforcement acting as a conspirator and both "suspects" are shown to have intended to commit the acts, explain the difference logically and I'll let you off the hook.

If you've read some of my previous posts then you will know that I believe this country is taking a turn to a fascist state, so I'm not one to decry it if I see a hint of it. I don't here. The guy wasn't entrapped, he made a choice. He believed he was conversing with someone who would provide him with access to an opportunity to commit an illegal act (and I even see an argument for him in this, but I personally don't believe he was doing this for any moral purpose so I won't offer a defense for him) and he acted upon that with the belief he would consummate the act. These are the points of law here. As I said, I won't offer him a defense, though I see one (shaky as it might be), but that defense would bring the "reasonable doubt" part into the point of law; however, that is not for the police to decide. The police must act on the fourth amendment of probable cause which they did in this case.

The fourth amendment provides for probable cause. Perhaps you are missing the whole point of probable cause. The law is not ironclad, if it were we wouldn't need lawyers, juries or judges. We'd just need the gallows and the exit door. It's all subject to interpretation, based on the circumstances of each case and in this case, we know only what the press is telling us, assuming that that information is relatively accurate, this guy will have his day in court and his fate will be decided. Assuming what's been reported is close to the truth, he wasn't entrapped, he had free will to not engage, to stop, to leave, to not act and even to report the situation. But he didn't, he chose to attempt to crystallize it.

If your way of thinking is correct, no one would ever be arrested unless the police saw them actually stabbing, bludgeoning, raping, pillaging, etc. We'd need video cameras on our lives 24/7 and constant surveillance just to insure we're all keeping our noses clean, now that's a police state. Nobody forced this guy to go on the internet and chat up someone in the hopes of molesting a 5 year old. He had free will to act. There is NO entrapment here. He could have left the chat, turned off his computer, reported the incident...done 100 different things to not be in this circumstance, but what he did was travel to consummate the act.

Nope, he's wrong, not the law.

This is all I have to say on this anymore: