Angry in the Great White North

From the Kansas City Star (free registration required):

Things looked bad for Jan Helder of Mission Hills when a federal jury convicted the lawyer Tuesday of using the Internet to try to entice a child into sex.

He faced a sentence of five to 30 years - but for only a few minutes.

Quick relief came from a federal judge in Kansas City. He acquitted Helder, 42, in a landmark ruling that could, if it stands, threaten federal prosecution programs nationwide that use undercover agents to trap child-sex offenders.

Helder's attorney successfully argued that breaking federal law required actually enticing a minor - not enticing a Platte County deputy pretending to be a minor.

One of those "What was he thinking?" moments. Consider how pedophiles fit no particular mold. Helder is an attorney:

Jan Pleasant Helder, Jr., 42, of Mission Hills, Kan., was charged with using the Internet in an attempt to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity in a single-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Kansas City. Helder is an attorney in private practice.

Not an itinerant but presumably a respected member of the community.

The task of finding these people is difficult, but now Judge Whipple requires that someone's child has to be dangled in front a pedophile in order to have the charges stand up in court. What self-respecting adult would sit a child down in front of a computer in order to engage a person like this in an explicit online conversation? What possible difference could it make?

Here's the law (I can only presume that this is the statute in question):

18 U.S.C. 2422 – COERCION AND ENTICEMENT

It is forbidden to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity.

It is forbidden to knowingly attempt to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity.

It is forbidden to use the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity.

It is forbidden to attempt to use the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity.

I don't see the problem. On the internet, no one knows you are a dog, or a state or federal law enforcement officer. Stings happen all the time outside of the internet, and the bait is almost never an actual prostitute or a drug addict, but an officer playing the role, in an attempt to arrest a John or a drug dealer.

Why should operations aimed at pedophiles operate under more stringent rules? Rules that no one in their right mind would operate under?

If someone did attempt a sting under these standards, using an underage person to trap pedophiles, I expect that that person could be charged under any number of laws for subjecting a child to the online predations of these individuals.

An appeal is planned.