Yet another case of entrapment

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is blatently illlegal (in my mind) to entrap someone the way the pigs do with people trying to arrainge dates on the internet with supposed underage children. This is the often heard charge of "Soliciting a Minor for Sex Over the Internet"

There is a case today that has an interesting twist and I'll tell you what I think about it.

First off, lets talk some more about this solicitation charge. I see this on average once a month and its really beginning to piss me off (though what can I do but complain?). Here's the deal. Person A has some chats or exchanges emails with someone on the internet (person B). The conversations are generally based on the belief that person B is underage. The conversations lead to a potential meeting. When person A shows up at the meeting spot they are arrested and charged and then basicly forever branded as a child molester (guilty or not).

Ok, where to begin? Person A has no real way of knowing the actual age of Person B until they meet with Person B (which ultimately never happens). So, first of all, they cannot be soliciting a minor, they are solicing somoene who is proprting to be a minor. Now should this be a crime? I wonder. Lets talk about free speach for a moment. Last I checked, it's not illegal to express ones sexual fantasies to another in an email or in a chat room (though I'm sure it will be soon). How is this situation different? Now the pigs would argue that person A believed that person B was a minor and therefore had every intent to engage in sexual relations with the minor. How can that be proven? It can't. Person A was engaging in a fantasy and as it turns out, the very nature of what actually occured proves my case: they expressed this fanstasy TO AN ACTUAL ADULT!

So, why did they go to meet? I would say they went to meet for any number of reasons. The first of which would be to establish if this person really was a minor or someone posing as one. No meeting occured so ultimately I would argue no crime occured. It's totally fucked up to me and it's infuriating that this continues. I can't see why these cases don't get argued up to the supreme court so maybe this "law" could get thrown off the books, but I know better. First off, the case would take years to get to the supreme court, secondly, the defendant would have his/her life ruined in the process.. Totally fucked up!!

Ok.. so now the interesting part about this particular case. This investingation and sting ultimately came about because this guy had a relationship with another minor. This is where I move from logic to personal moralistic opinon and say this:

I don't know the details of this relationship, but I could argue that in many cases (not all) the minor (person under 18) is perfectly capable of making sexual decisions on their own. In other cultures, sex is something that occurs naturally at puberty. The general thought is that if the body THAT GOD GAVE YOU is ready for sex, then the mind is as well.

But like I said, I really don't know the details of this particular case so I really can't comment. What I can comment on is that fucked up law. Am I the only one who thinks this way?