Naveed Shams Blog

Internet Sting Operations

Today, many Attorney Generals in many US states are running Internet sting operations to catch the so called “child predators”. Most people thus arrested are charged and convicted of the crime of “soliciting a minor.” These operations – which are solely based on political motivations – are not only anti-constitutional, but are diametrically opposite to the very basics of logic and reality. Here we will see some of these logical flaws in such internet sting operations.

The logical fallacy of these Internet sting operations becomes obvious as soon as one puts his prejudices aside and views these operations by replacing the alleged “crime against a minor” by any other potential crime. For example, one can’t be accused of “plotting and planning murder” when the alleged victim is a fictional character; or the alleged victim does not exist outside of the Internet chat rooms; and cannot be ever called to the witness stand in a trial. The defendant would logically and constitutionally have the right to ask the following questions:

“Who is the murder conspiracy victim?”
“In accordance with the 6th amendment of the US Constitution can I call the alleged victim to the witness stand?”

The logical and the factual response to these questions would be:

“There is no real victim and therefore, it is impossible to have the victim take the witness stand.”

Case dismissed! Because it is based on fiction and not on fact.

Now it is the same scenario where people are being trapped on the Internet almost daily by police and vigilante groups and accused of “soliciting a minor” when the alleged minor does not exist outside of the Internet chat rooms and is a fictional character. Obviously one has the right to ask the same logical questions here:

“Who is the minor victim?”
“In accordance with the 6th amendment of the US Constitution – which states, ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…’[http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charter s/bill_of_rights_transcript.html] – can I call the alleged victim to the witness stand?”

The logical and the factual response would be exactly the same as before:

“There is no real victim and therefore, it is impossible to have the victim take the witness stand.”

But in this case, what follows is more bizarre than the actual accusation. The case is not closed. Instead the person is often convicted of the crime, sent to prison and condemned to register as a sex-offender for the rest of his life. In essence, he is grouped together with real child-molesters and rapists. This, in reality is the modern-day equivalent of the Salem Witch-hunts of the 17th century New England.

Word Analysis

The fallacy becomes more obvious when we analyze these sting operations against the very basic definitions of the words Justice and Just as defined in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary [http://www.merriam-webster.com]:

Justice: The maintenance or administration of what is just; conformity to truth, fact or reason.
Just: Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason.

People instinctively know the meanings of the words truth and fact. However, we will analyze their definitions in detail to fully understand not only what justice is, but also what justice is not. As the above definitions explicitly state, justice must conform to truth and fact. Therefore, anything not administered in conformity with truth and fact is not justice – i.e. it is injustice. Let us see what truth and fact mean:

Truth: Fact; the body of real things, events and facts; actuality; the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
Fact: The quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

Thus, justice is the administration of things in conformity with what actually happened in objective reality.

Therefore, injustice is something that is not in conformity with what actually happened in objective reality. We are now getting closer to fully understanding the meanings of justice and injustice. Let us see what the words Actual, Real, Reality and Objective mean:

Actual: Existing in act and not merely potentially; existing in fact or reality; not false or apparent.
Real: Not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent; having objective independent existence.
Reality: The quality or state of being real; a real event, entity, or state of affairs; in actual fact.
Objective: Having reality independent of the mind; expressing or dealing with facts conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation.

So, justice is the administration of real things in conformity with what actually happened, rather than merely potentially. It must be in conformity with facts that have an existence independent of one’s interpretations, feelings or prejudices. Anything that needs to be interpreted using one’s feelings and prejudices is not justice. Since justice has to do with reality, it cannot be based on artificial, fraudulent, illusory or apparent things by definition. Thus, anything based on artificial, fraudulent, illusory or apparent things without an objective and independent reality is by definition opposite of justice – i.e. it is injustice.

But what do the words Artificial, Fraudulent, Fraud, Illusory and Apparent really mean?

Artificial: Humanly contrived often on a natural model.
Fraudulent: Characterized by, based on, or done by fraud; deceitful.
Fraud: Intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting; a person who is not what he or she pretends to be.
Illusory: Based on producing illusion.
Apparent: Manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid; not actually being what appearance indicates; a false impression based on deceptive resemblance or faulty observation, or influenced by emotions that prevent a clear view.

In other words, justice – which is based on facts and objective real existence of actual things – cannot be based on artificial things created deceitfully to misrepresent something or someone in a manner to deceive anyone from surrendering his legal rights – constitutionally given – merely on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Hopefully the reader now has a clear understanding of the meaning of the word Justice. It is important to understand what justice should be based on, and to clearly distinguish it from injustice. It is a sad fact that sometimes legislators, judges and lawyers ignore the very basic definition of justice and implement laws and rules that are diametrically opposite of this basic and clear definition.

Now, let us analyze these Internet sting operations in the light of these definitions we have just studied. In such operations, typically an adult police officer deceitfully creates a false profile depicting an underage person. He then chats with other people on the Internet giving their senses an illusion that he is actually an underage person. The officer then fully participates in exchange of sexual messages with this person and encourages him to meet the officer at some location. When the person arrives at the pre-arranged location, he is arrested and charged with “solicitation of a minor”. The judges, the juries and the prosecutors then proceed to interpret the accused person’s actions in the light of their feelings, prejudices and personal biases. There is absolutely no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what a person believed while chatting with the artificial underage character on the Internet. However, judges and juries regularly find such allegedly “child predators” guilty of “soliciting a minor”.
The whole case from start to finish is based on artificial, fraudulent, illusory and apparent things. No real minor is ever involved in such cases. Therefore, objectively it is impossible for the accused to actually solicit a minor in reality. That is the fact – a fact that can never be logically disputed by any legislator, judge, prosecutor or logician. The “minor” whom the accused allegedly solicited or attempted to solicit does not exist in actuality.

Thus, all the things inherent in the definition of justice – fact, objective reality, truth, actual and objective existence – are violated with these sting operations. To the contrary, all the things that are opposite of justice – fraudulent, deception, illusory, apparent, subjective interpretations based on feelings, prejudices and biases of “could haves” – are part and parcel of these Internet sting operations.

There is injustice going on at a grand scale throughout the United States, but people are silent about it and accepting these convictions of “internet child predators”.

It is quite interesting that the name of one of the most prominent vigilante groups that often helps police in conducting these sting operations and helps run the media circus “To Catch a Predator” run by MSNBC is “Perverted Justice”. Let us examine the meanings of the words Pervert and Perverted. These terms have popularly been used to describe anyone who, in the eyes of the general public, has any sexually deviant characteristics. However, that is just one limited use of the terms. In reality, the basic meanings given in the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary are more broad and general:

Pervert: To overturn, corrupt; to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted; misdirect; to divert to a wrong end or purpose; misuse; to twist the meaning or sense of.
Perverted: Corrupt; to alter from the original or correct form or version; to cause disintegration or ruin.

With these definitions, the term “perverted justice” literally means “corrupted justice,” – i.e. injustice – “to overturn, misuse and misdirect justice,” – i.e. injustice – “to cause disintegration or ruin of justice,” – i.e. injustice – “to turn aside or away from the generally accepted meaning of justice,” – i.e. injustice – or “to alter justice from its original or correct form or version” – i.e. injustice. I am not surprised. This is precisely, as we have seen, what is happening with these Internet sting operations. They are based on fictional and illusory stuff rather than fact, objective reality or actual existence. Thus, they have caused justice to disintegrate and ruin, and have altered its application from the original and correct form.

Logically speaking, this is the only conclusion one can draw. But I know many people – including many US legislators, judges, prosecutors and politicians – will shout and cry and call me all sorts of names because they have absolutely no logical answer to my arguments. Their responses are merely based on the illogic of interpreting fantasies and fiction as fact – irrespective of the truth – based on personal feelings and prejudices. It is all irrelevant and childish. None of them can refute these logical facts in a logical way, and so they must jump up and down and bring up emotional and prejudicial arguments to support these utterly ridiculous, illogical and unjust sting operations. They deserve no respect whatsoever by anyone who has any sense or understanding of basic logic and reality.

The Nature of Witch Hunts

So, the question is why this obviously flawed law not being challenged by the people? It is to be understood that all witch hunts are based on issues that the general public is emotional about. If the public were not emotional about the issue of witchcraft – which was said to threaten their children and their future – the politicians behind the Salem Witch-hunts would not have been able to frighten people and stir them up emotionally to support them in their witch hunts. Similarly, if the people were not scared about the terrorists and the future safety of their children, the Bush Administration would not have been able to rile them up to support its invasion of Iraq.

Since everyone is emotional about their children and since there have been cases where children have been kidnapped, sexually molested or mistreated, it is easy to frighten people about all these “wolves” out there preying on their children via the Internet. Once this fear is established, the basic logical questions are not asked, except by a few “child-predator sympathizers” or “stupid” people who “don’t care about the future of the United States”.

It was Hitler’s chief propaganda specialist who once said that once people are scared enough you can make them call a square a circle and a circle a square. There is no easier way to frighten people than by proposing a threat to their children. Once that fear is established, it is easy to make them accept that a fictional person is a real victim, and a person can be convicted of “soliciting a minor” when no real minor is ever involved. It is then also easy to make people make the only exception to the conventional wisdom that no one tells the truth on the internet: In case a police officer is lying about himself and pretending to be a minor, then those chatting with him on the Internet must assume that his lies are actually truths; if someone ever applies the conventional wisdom in this case – which happens to be true since the police officer is obviously lying about himself – then he can be convicted of soliciting a non-existing minor. This is a classical case of circular and logically flawed reasoning at its best. But who really cares when he/she is frightened by all those “wolves,” “witches” and “child-predators” lurking behind the shadows to prey on his/her future – their children.

We all know that about 2500 years ago one of the major charges against Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, was that he was “corrupting the youth” (Socrates’ Way – Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to the Utmost By Ronald Gross – New York 2002, p.170). If a great and honest man like Socrates could not survive such propaganda and had to pay with his life, what chance do ordinary people have today, especially in the face of the technology and resources available to the propaganda strategists of today?

Every politician needs to show the public that he did something special for the people so that his political power is strengthened, and, in a democratic society, he can use it to gather votes in his next election campaign. In the US many judges, Attorney Generals and district attorneys are elected officials. They need to project an image to the public that they are tough on crime and are protecting the interests of the general public. In this respect the person who can project an image of being more “pro-active” in going after criminals, will win public confidence.

Let us view some statistics regarding crimes against children in the US. Statistically about 95% of child-molestation cases occur at the hands of family members or other acquaintances of the child’s family. Of the remaining 5%, many occur at the hands of child predators who lurk by schools and parks, and kidnap children from there or from the streets. [http://preilly.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/the-facts-about-inte rnet-sexual-abuse-and-schools/] and [http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/]. There are only a handful of cases where child-molestation happened due to an internet contact.

Let us consider the example of Texas. In Texas the Attorney General’s – Greg Abbott – office launched the Internet sting operations in May of 2003. In two and a half years prior to that the number of people arrested for crimes against children was approximately 4800. During the two and a half years since the launch of these sting operations, the number of people arrested for crimes against children was approximately 5050. [http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pa ges/crimestatistics.htm]

These statistics are quite interesting. First, the number of people arrested in the sting operations by the end of 2005 was about 200. This means that the general crime rate against children did not fall at all as a result of these sting operations. 5050-4800=4850, which is about the same number that were arrested in the two and a half years prior to the start of these sting operations. Thus, if the purpose of these sting operations was to prevent crimes against children, then the program failed. Someone might try and argue that the sting operations were successful as they prevented an additional 200 children from being targeted. But that would be true only if the potential 200 victims were real. The fact is that while the actual number of crimes against real children remained virtually the same, the Attorney General’s office spent millions of dollars in pursuing, trapping and arresting people who never really chatted with or molested any real children. The Attorney General’s office received a huge budget for these sting operations – a vastly disproportionate amount considering the fact that the sting operations arrested only about 200 people – who potentially posed a threat against fictional minors – compared with 4850 who committed crimes against real children. That is a mere 4% of the total arrests for crimes against children.

Further, one would expect that those who were “preying on children” over the Internet must also be the type of people who were preying on children outside of the Internet. Therefore, at least a big proportion of those arrested in the Internet sting operations should have been arrested for crimes against children even without the Internet sting operations. However, the statistics don’t show that. The 4% surge in the number of people arrested, when comparing data for two and a half years prior to the beginning of the sting operations with data for two and a half years since the launch of these operations, is precisely the number of people arrested in the sting operations. Thus, the sting operations had absolutely no affect on the general rate of crimes against children.

Let us look at the details of sexual crimes against children in Texas before the start of the sting operations and compare them with the sexual crimes against children after the start of these Internet sting operations:

2002 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2002 – 12/31/2002)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
994
Indecency with Child by Exposure
2
Indecency with Child by Contact
815
Sexual Assault of Child
508
Total
2319
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2002.pdf]

2003 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2003 – 12/31/2003)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1139
Indecency with Child by Exposure
3
Indecency with Child by Contact
1072
Sexual Assault of Child
509
Total
2723
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2003.pdf]

2004 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2004 – 12/31/2004)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1314
Indecency with Child by Exposure
10
Indecency with Child by Contact
954
Sexual Assault of Child
624
Total
2902
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2004.pdf]

2005 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2005 – 12/31/2005)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1210
Indecency with Child by Exposure
39
Indecency with Child by Contact
1049
Sexual Assault of Child
680
Total
2978
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2005.pdf]

2006 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2006 – 12/31/2006)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1229
Indecency with Child by Exposure
93
Indecency with Child by Contact
1011
Sexual Assault of Child
708
Total
3041
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf]

These trends show an interesting picture. The Texas Attorney General started his Internet sting operation in May of 2003. The total number of convictions of actual sexual crimes against children – not including Internet solicitations – has steadily increased after the launch of these sting operations. In 2002 – before the launch of these sting operations – the total convicted sexual crimes against children was 2319. This number rose to 2723 – a raise of 404 – in 2003 after the launch of the sting operations. Then, in 2004, there was another increase of 179 (583 compared to 2002). This rate continued to rise in the next two years – 76 (659 compared to 2002) in 2005 and 63 (722 compared to 2002) in 2006. So, after the launch of the sting operations, there was sharp rise in actual crimes against children – 17% in 2003, 25% in 2004, 28% in 2005 and 31% in 2006. While the Attorney General was busy arresting and convicting “Internet Child Predators” – the witches – for soliciting fictitious non-existing children, real children in Texas continued to get sexually targeted at an ever increasing rate.

So, are these sting operations a failure? From the Attorney General’s perspective they are a huge success, not because they are protecting children – there are actually no real children involved there and the cases are based on fictional “what-if” hypothetical scenarios and the philosophy of pre-emptive strike – but because they bring huge political and financial gains for the people involved.

First, the Attorney General, the district attorneys, the judges and the sheriffs – all elected officials in Texas – have in these operations a visible element of pro-active action to “protect our children”. When a real child predator is caught – not in a sting operation but in a real incident – the case shows the public that the accused did something bad to some real child and when the child told, the person was arrested. There is no visible element of pro-active involvement by the Attorney General’s office in such a case. On the other hand, with these Internet sting operations he is able to make big news as someone who is “pro-actively going after” these “monsters” and is using pre-emptive strikes against them before they use their “weapons of mass destruction”.

If the police arrests 4800 actual child-molesters after they have committed the crime, it does very little for the Attorney General’s popularity; but if 200 “Internet child predators” are arrested, that brings the Attorney General in the limelight as a “savior”. So the “Internet child predators” – the witches of today – serve perfectly for the purpose for all those who need big news for their political careers.

Politically, these Internet sting operations serve a double purpose: One, the Attorney General can boast his success through publicizing these cases; and two, he doesn’t have to worry about answering the public about the consistently increasing rate of sexual crimes against real children. The publicity and the media give the impression to the public that the Attorney General is a hero who is pro-actively going after these “monsters” to “save our children”, so no one asks about those other 4800 cases against real children or those extra 31% real children who have become targets of sexual crimes in Texas since the launch of these Internet sting operations.

It is no wonder that in 2006 both the Attorney General, Greg Abbott, and the lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, of Texas ran their re-election campaign on the platform of “protecting our children” from these predators. They were both re-elected very easily. Just before the elections they also went to the Texas legislature and proposed the death penalty for repeat sex-offenders. Just before the elections, the Attorney General’s office also coordinated an internet sting operation with the vigilante group “Perverted Justice” – a very appropriate name for a group that does actually pervert the entire justice system – which runs a show “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC, catching witches on entertainment television. In this operation 22 “predators” were arrested – one of them committed suicide. The news was all over the TV and newspapers for a few days. What better way to win support for a re-election then to run such an operation, giving the impression to the scared public that the Attorney General is “saving their children” from all these “wolves” roaming on the Internet highway. The arrests of a thousand actual rapists and child-molesters could not have given such publicity to the Attorney General’s campaign as these 22 arrests of “predators” of fictional minors did.

So, the number of actual children attacked never goes down – and in fact, the number of actual children who are targets of sexual crimes goes up – but the Attorney General and the lieutenant governor can still win the people’s admiration for “protecting our children”. What a great concept.

Flawed Justifications

Most states that run these Internet sting operations justify them by citing a study that was done by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in 1999. One statistics often pointed out by law authorities to justify the sting operations is that, according to the study, one in five (or 20%) of the minors who logged onto the Internet chats, were solicited for sex by other chatters. “ABC News” reported it in more sensationalist terms in a report in May 3, 2006 as follows:

“One in five children is now approached by online predators.”

What the news story and State officials purposely hide from the study is the fact that at least half of these solicitations were attempted by other juveniles instead of other adults. Further, it states that

“most youth are not bothered much by what they encounter on the Internet…Most young people seem to know what to do to deflect these sexual ‘come ons.’”

This is evident from the fact that none of the solicitations reported resulted in an actual sexual encounter or sexual assault.

This is a classic case of distorting reality with statistics. The States and propagandists shout the alarm to scare people into thinking that it is a huge epidemic that needs to be controlled by funding and re-electing the State officials who are “pro-actively” working against such predators to “protect our children”.

Another justification is given by drawing analogies between these Internet sting operations and prostitution or drug related sting operations. The argument is that after all police has been running prostitution and drug sting operations for a while and not too many objections have been raised against them; these Internet sting operations are similar to other sting operations and, therefore, valid. The fact is that there are some very important differences between the Internet sting operations and the prostitution or drug sting operations.

In a typical prostitution related sting operation a female police officer, dressed up like a prostitute, stands on city corners where people often solicit prostitutes. Some person then sees this “prostitute” and approaches her and has a face-to-face conversation with her and then proposes sex in exchange for money. There I absolutely no chance of this person mistaking the “prostitute” for some lady engaging in a role-playing fantasy. Similarly, in a drug related sting operation, an officer posing as a drug-addict starts hanging out in areas where drug dealers often sell drugs. A person then approaches the undercover officer and in a face-to-face conversation offers to sell him drugs – actual drugs. There is again no chance of him mistaking the “drug-addict” as someone engaged in a role-playing fantasy.

In both these cases, there is actual face-to-face contact and verbal conversation between the alleged criminal and the undercover police officer. Further, the charges are realistic. The person is charged with “soliciting prostitution” – instead of “soliciting a prostitute” – or with drug trafficking. Also there is no alleged victim in the charges or in the indictment against the alleged criminal. In addition, soliciting prostitution or selling actual drugs are not acts protected under the US Constitution. The 6th Amendment of the US Constitution is also not violated because the police officer posing as a prostitute or as a drug addict can be called to the witness stand without any logical problems. Since the charges are “solicitation of prostitution” or “drug-trafficking”, the person who is solicited for prostitution doesn’t have to be a prostitute, and the person approached for selling the drug doesn’t have to be a drug addict.

If you are talking to any woman (or man for that matter) and you propose that she (or he) have sex with you in exchange for money, then that is solicitation of prostitution regardless of whether the other person was an actual prostitute or not. Similarly, if you are talking to any person and offer to sell him drugs, then that is solicitation for drug-trafficking regardless of whether the other person an actual drug addict or not.

When we consider these Internet sting operations, the first stark difference is that there is absolutely no face-to-face contact between the alleged criminal and the undercover police officer. There is not even any verbal communication – only written communication. Secondly, the written interaction takes place on the Internet chats where lines between reality and fantasy, truth and lies are not very clear and where conventional wisdom teaches tat people often lie about themselves on the Internet. Further, Internet is often the medium where many people engage in their fantasies as is evident from people’s personal experiences and many cases such as the one cited at the beginning of this article.

Furthermore, the charge is “solicitation of minor”. A person has to be a minor for you to solicit him as a minor. Whereas a person doesn’t have to be a prostitute for you to solicit prostitution from her, a person must logically be a minor for you to solicit a minor. You cannot go and ask a 40 year old colleague at work for sex and be charged with soliciting a minor – that is a factual impossibility. But you can be charged with soliciting prostitution if you solicit sex from her in exchange of money regardless of whether she is a prostitute or not.

Another implication of the charge is that there is an alleged minor – and therefore, a victim – involved in the case. The “minor” cannot be called to the victim stand because the “minor” doesn’t exist. In the other sting operations the nature of the charge allows the undercover police officer to appear on the witness stand without posing any logical contradictions. Because the charges are not “soliciting a prostitute” or “soliciting a drug addict”, the undercover police officer does not have to be a prostitute or drug addict. But in the Internet sting operations since the charge is “soliciting a minor” or “attempting to solicit a minor”, the police officer cannot appear as a minor victim on the witness stand because of the obvious logical contradiction – i.e. that he/she is actually not a minor. Who did the alleged criminal solicit then if he didn’t solicit a minor? How can he call the victim to the witness stand if there was no actual victim? Therefore, the problem is not only due to the violation of the rights granted to the accused by the 6th amendment of the US Constitution, but also of a logical nature.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution gives people the freedom of speech, which is one reason people in the US are able to talk freely on the Internet and engage in fantasies. In the case cited at the beginning of this article, the 40-something year old mother lied and gave her age as 18 and engaged in a sexual and romantic fantasy – without her or the man involved in it ever explicitly calling it a fantasy. But neither she nor the man involved could be charged with anything because they were exercising their rights of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The range of fantasies also includes women/men pretending to be minors having sex with older people, etc. Anyone who has engaged in cybersex has probably at some point encountered such people. All such speech is protected under the First Amendment. Suppose two consenting adults are chatting on the Internet. One of them pretends to be a minor and the other to be an adult. What these two people talk about is protected speech under the First Amendment; much like the speech between two other people – one wanting to be “raped” while the other talking about doing the “rape” on the Internet. Many people might consider such speech offensive and even sick, but it is not criminal. It is protected by the First Amendment. If not, then the police should be arresting all those people who appear on such chat rooms (or in private chats) and engage in this conduct on a daily basis.

 

 

 

Nature of Axioms

Another argument that is made is that this is the law, and so it is the fault of those who violate it – no ifs or buts. People assert that every rule and law is based on certain assumptions and premises, and the law that allows these Internet sting operations also has certain premises and we should accept those assumptions and not question the law. It is therefore, important to address this argument before going any further.

It is important that the readers understand the very basics of the nature of logical premises and assumptions that form the foundation of any logical argument. These assumptions must be based on observable facts that are undeniable. An example can illustrate the point better:

We know that 1+1 = 2 is a mathematical fact – a reality. Suppose you are a criminal investigator investigating a murder. The doctor’s report says that the murder was committed before 2 o’clock on a particular day. You originally had one suspect. The suspect claims that he was at a bar around the time of the murder. You go to the bar for further investigation. The first thing you notice is that the fastest a person could travel from the bar to the scene of the crime would still take him a little over an hour. You ask a few people. There is no one who saw the suspect at the bar around 2 o’clock, but there are several eye witnesses who saw the suspect playing pool at the bar at 1 o’clock. Now based on the assumption of 1+1 = 2, you conclude that if the suspect was at the bar at 1o’clock and it takes a little over an hour to reach the crime scene from there, the suspect could not possibly have been at the crime scene at 2 o’clock, and therefore, he could not have committed the murder.

I hope this example clarifies to the readers the role of premises and assumptions in reaching a logically valid conclusion.

Now suppose in the above example, the investigator had used another assumption – instead of 1+1=2, you used 1+1=1.5. Based on this assumption you would have concluded that if the person left the bar at 1 o’clock, he could have still reached the crime scene between 1:30 and 2:00, and therefore, could have committed the murder. You could draw this conclusion because if 1+1 =1.5 and the distance takes just a little over an hour then 1 o’clock + 1 hour = 1:30, and he could then be there a little after 1:30. So the guy is arrested and taken to trial. Should the guy have to even go through the trial just because the assumption used by the detective is faulty? We know it I faulty because it is an assumption that is not a fact or reality. Since the assumption is not factual, the conclusion is false.

This example should make it clear that assumptions and axioms must be based on facts and reality and not just on someone’s whims.

Throughout human history, states have been guilty of making faulty laws because the underlying axioms or assumptions are not based on facts, but have been invented based on personal biases and whims. States have legislated segregated restaurants, schools, buses, etc. for blacks based on the faulty assumptions that blacks are inferior to whites (for example, in the apartheid South Africa and the pre-civil-rights movement in the United States); In the Nazi Germany, it was legislated that Jews wear clothing that distinguishes then from other people because it was assumed that Jews were inherently evil; In the 17th century New England, it was legislated that Quakerism be illegal because they were assumed to practice witchcraft. And there are many more examples. In each case the reason for the existence of these laws is that the underlying assumptions they are based on are fictional and not factual. The ideas that blacks are inferior or that the Jews are evil, or that the Quakers are witches, are all fictional – they have nothing factual in them. Therefore, any legislation based on these assumptions is bound to be faulty and unjust.

There are many more examples of faulty laws that have existed (and many still do exist) in many countries. In each case the reason is that the underlying axioms or assumptions are illogical and not based on facts.

This is an important fact that legislatures, and even members of the judiciary often overlook. They debate the validity of any law based on the constitution of the country alone. But logic comes before any constitution. The authors of a constitution assume certain logical facts and do not have to spell them out in the text of the constitution.

For example, nowhere in the United States Constitution one sees the statement that “1+1 =2 and not 1.5.” Such logical facts are assumed by the authors of the constitution. Therefore, today if someone proposes a law that 1 o’clock + 1 hour = 1:30 and not 2:00, the refutation against this will not be explicitly found in the U.S. Constitution, but the law should still not pass because it is based on an illogical and non-factual axiom.

If legislators and judges of any state would first check the logical and factual validity of the axiom at the base of any proposed law and discard any law that is based on false axioms, we would never have any unjust laws. The constitutional debate should only come after a proposed law has passed the test of logic and facts.

Some Basic Facts

A simple logical and factual analysis would show that a person that doesn’t exist – or exists only as a fictional character in an Internet chat room – cannot be murdered. Period. Regardless of what an accused person is thinking, believing or planning, he cannot factually or logically murder someone who is fictional. End of discussion. This is a logical fact. No one can dispute this. Similarly, a minor that doesn’t exist except in an Internet chat room cannot be solicited. Period. Regardless of what an accused person is thinking, believing or planning, he cannot factually or logically solicit a minor who is fictional. End of discussion. This too is a logical fact that no one can dispute.

It is for these reasons that a few judges in the US have thrown such cases out of their courts. For example, in 2005,

“U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple acquitted Jan Helder… of using the Internet to try to entice a child into sex. Helder’s attorney, J.R. Hobbs, had argued that his client didn’t break federal law because the person his client was accused of enticing wasn’t a minor. The ruling came just minutes after a jury returned a guilty verdict. Helder, 42, of Mission Hills, Kan., had faced a sentence of five to 30 years.”
[Judge tosses Cops’ internet sex-sting tactics – The Columbia [MO] Daily Tribune – August 3, 2005] and http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Aug/20050803News019.asp ]

What was interesting that when this news item was reported on the Internet on www.unknownnews.org, the first comment about the report was:

“Nobody but pedophiles want to see pedophiles get away with pedophilia”

This is a classical response by people who have been brainwashed into thinking a certain way: During the Salem witch hunts many people who sympathized with the witches or who argued that the witch hunts were illogical, were themselves accused of being witches; and from the more recent times, during the heat of the cold-war with the Soviets many people in the US who had a socialist outlook on politics were accused of being “commie-sympathizers” or “commies” themselves; many racists in the US classified those whites who were fighting for equal rights for blacks as “nigger-lovers”. This is a common response of one who is brainwashed so that he cannot see the obvious logical facts, but is programmed to react emotionally to all such things that refute his factually false assumptions.

In the above report, it further states that

“Hoping to make a dent in what appears to be a widespread problem, the Platte County Sheriff’s Department has made online child exploitation a priority.” [http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Aug/20050803News019.asp]

The Sheriff’s Department identified these “Internet predators” as a widespread problem that Missouri State was not going to put up with. Once again, if we assume that the rate of Internet-related kidnappings and sexual assaults in Missouri is similar to Texas, only about 4% of the arrests in cases involving crimes against children are from these sting operations. The vast majority of cases of child-molestation, child-kidnapping, and other such crimes do not occur through the medium of the Internet. How is it a “major problem” then? The fact is – as the statistics prove – that it is not. Just a police chief or a district attorney claiming it is a major problem doesn’t make it a major problem. The statistics have to back such a claim.

The reality is that this is a manufactured problem. Even the small percentage – compared to the total arrests made for all crimes against children – of arrests made from these sting operations are made from operations where the cops literally entrap the “predator” by behaving in ways that a child would never behave in. The reasons for manufacturing this “big problem” have already been discussed – i.e., to give the appearance of a concerned, pro-active individual who has dedicated his life to “protecting our children”, so that despite what the statistics say, he is perceived as a good police officer, judge, prosecutor, Attorney General, lieutenant governor, or governor. Now he can use this manufactured persona to get re-elected and to further advance his political career.

As the statistics prove, the problem of the “Internet child predators” is not a big problem. For sure, there are a few people who are actively targeting children and other minors on the Internet. But it is nothing that can’t be handled with a little better education of our children and better security on the Internet. MSNBC’s “To Catch A Predator” claims – without any statistical evidence – that at any given time there are 50,000 Internet predators on the web in the U.S. If so many predators are daily targeting children on the Internet, then a little statistical calculation would show that they are highly unsuccessful and are basically wasting their time.

Let us assume that on a given day each of these 50,000 “predators” are targeting at least two kids each – a very modest estimate given that often chatters chat with many more people than just two on a given day. That means that at least 100,000 children are targeted each day. Over a period of 30 days (approximately, a month), at least around 3 million kids are targeted. Over a period of 12 months, at least 36 million kids are targeted. Let us see the countrywide records of how many kids per year have been targets of child-molestation as a result of Internet chats. The records would show that only a handful of cases of sexual assaults or kidnappings countrywide can be directly related to Internet solicitations. Since the cases are very few, they are not even reported separately. Judging from the news reports, we can assume that at most 10 cases of child molestation per year are directly related to Internet solicitations. That would be about 0.00003% success rate for these “50,000 predators”. Even if we assume that half of the estimated 36 million kids per year were repeat “targets”, even then 10 out of 18 million is about 0.00005%. Big problem? These potential “child predators” would have a much better chance at succeeding if they spent their time around schools and parks instead of the Internet.

Of course, MSNBC gets huge ratings for this show, and that means huge money. Therefore, it is important for them to make it a huge problem. How else can they justify this modern-day witch-hunt? In 2007, former Miss America, Lauren Nelson, also participated in hunting down these modern-day witches. Such is the case with witch hunts – every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Miss America) can act as law enforcement personals because rules and requirements of evidence for such cases have been changed so that fictitious stories are considered “evidence”; hence the media circus surrounding the issue.

A Challenge

In the end I would like to issue a challenge to all U.S. legislators, lawyers, judges, Attorney Generals and governors to have a public debate with me regarding this issue in a logical manner. Emotionally, anyone can jump up and down and dance around and scream “child predator” or “witch”- but can any of you refute the argument that one cannot solicit a non-existing minor, just like one cannot plan to kill a non-existing person?