So, in my previous post, I was asked: "Why would I want to be a friend to someone who was willing to commit a crime against a minor?"

 Fair question.  I don't know that I do.  That was the point of my previous post.  But I also don't know that I don't.  That is the point of the question.

Well, it turns out, not surprisingly - I knew this before, that things in life are not black and white.  Before my friend got involved in the shit he got involved in, I would have said: "hang all the pedophiles from the highest tree!".  But it's funny how things take on some nuance when it's someone you know.  Someone you thought you knew well.  

So here are some more things I learned from Dave's letter (read the previous post if you are lost).  The first thing goes to Dave's motivation.  He says it was not about the age of the girl.  It was about him being very lonely and having someone who seemed interested in him.  I know, this sounds like bullshit, but evaluate it in terms of what you learn below.

 Dave is sorry, very sorry.  I believe it is not just because he got caught.  I think that for these reasons.  The police seemed to have screwed things up.  Dave's lawyer told him he could easily get off on an entrapment technicality.  First of all, he was in a chat room looking for company.  He was lonely.  He was not trolling for little girls.  He found someone to talk to.  This someone did not indentify herself as underage.  She engaged him in conversation, she filled some need that he had for affection or attention, and only after they had developed on online relationship and 'crossed a line', if you will, did she identify herself as being underage.  Dave's lawyer told him that this clearly fit the legal definition of entrapment.  Dave was having none of this.  He told his lawyer not to pursue the entrapment defense, even though his lawyer told him it would likely 'get him off'.  He instead decided to face the consequences of his actions and plead guilty to the charges the DA presented him.  If he was merely sorry he got caught, I think he would have taken the entrapment defense.  

I've been in a similar place.  I was lonely and looking for company online.  Not underage company, I assure you, but I encountered many people who did not turn out to be who they initially said they were.  I probably should not have been doing that, and I did what I believe was the smart thing - when someone finally revealed who they were, if I found that to be unacceptable, I broke off contact.  What I was doing, I think was somewhat pathetic, but I was in a bad place.  What Dave did was pathetic too and also stupid because he didn't say "see ya" when this person revealed herself to be underage (which was also a lie, she was an adult police officer).  But in a way, I can understand where he was.  He had a relationship with this person that was developed under false pretenses, when he believed he was dealing with a woman, not a girl. I can see where it is hard to give that up.  Even if it's stupid not to.

Let me preface this next part by saying that I do not in any way condone what Dave did.  I do not believe that 50 year old men should be contacting underage women on line.  At all.  But I also think it is useful to examine it.  Let's say she was a 'real' person.  Let's say she was 18 years old.  Nobody would have have a problem.  Sure, it's pathetic for a 50 year old to be chasing an 18 year old girl, but really, that happens all the time.  Rich old dudes commonly have very young girlfriends.  People might look down upon this, but that is the extent of it.  I, personally, can't imagine having anything in common with an 18 year old girl, and I can't imagine having relations with someone younger, or even close in age to my daughter.  But it's not illegal.  Now say the girl is 17 years and 11.9 months old.  Then it's illegal, clearly.  But is it really that much more wrong than dating an 18 year old?  Does something magic happen on the 18th birthday?  I think 17 or 18 are both inappropriate.  The law says under 18 is illegal.  But is it really all that more morally repugnant to date as girl who is 17 years, 364 days old than it is a girl who is 18?  Do they change substantially in that day?  Yes, having sex with an 17 year, 364 day old is illegal, and having sex with an 18 years old is not.  But is there really any moral difference?  I'm asking.

Finally, there is the issue of intent.  Dave says he was in 'on line' love with this 'girl'.  He agreed to meet her.  He says he had no intention of having sex with her at this first meeting.  He just wanted to meet this person who he had built a relationship with.  I agree, this may be bullshit.  But the fact is, he didn't actually have sex with an underage girl.  Let's say we believe him.  Let's say he just wanted to talk.  He had actually been conversing with an adult police-woman.  They had cyber-sex before she claimed to be underage.  Once he found out, he still wanted to meet her. To have sex?  Maybe, maybe not.  He says she told him she was almost 18.  He says he wanted to meet with her, but he knew he wouldn't have to wait that long until she was 18 if they wanted to have sex.  He said he was willing to wait.

So let's just say this is true (is it?  I don't know).  If it was, he didn't intend to have sex with an underage girl.  

So, just for the sake of argument, let's say I believe everything he says.  I might just do so.  Dave and I have always been close confidants.  He was brutally honest about many embarassing things in his letter.  He took the rap even though he claims he really wasn't proposing anything illegal.  So if everything he says is true, then did he really do anything that justifies me withdrawing my friendship.  If everything he said is true, then it falls into the category of 'highly innapropriate' and 'disgusting', but not in the category of 'illegal'.  

So the question: why would I want to be friends with someone who was going to do something illegal to an underage girl? No, but....

 1) He wasn't.  It wasn't an underage girl.  It was a police officer.  I'm not saying this because I think it excuses him.  I'm just saying that he would not have actually committed a crime.  The worst is that he would have intended to commit a crime.  So it's the intention, not the deed,  I need to judge him on.

2) He says he did not intend to commit a crime.  Does this exuse him in my mind?  Not really.  I still think it was, at least, highly innapropriate.  But also not illegal or by societie's standards, more than being 'boorish'.

3) He is really sorry.  I believe that.  I really do.  I think he is really truly sorry, and not just because he got caught.  I'm an athiest raised as a Christian.  Even though I don't believe in God, I do believe in the messages I learned about redemption.  I think people deserve a chance to be redeemed.

 ...and this is why I'm having a problem deciding what do do.