Its obvious the man deeds to be punished for what he did, and soliciting sex from a minor is a serious crime but to give a man 90 years whether he is 90 or 19 is a bit excessive considering he didn't actually talk to a minor (in this case) and if the officer was taking part in a "two way" conversation its likely he was at least a little bit "Lead On" OI think that the officer would have to be a borderline pervert at best to sit there and pretend to be a young girl pretending to want to have sexual relations with another man... Don't get me wrong I feel very strongly about exterminating child molesters, but you cant give a person a 90 year sentence for "Chatting" and someone that actually molests someone 5 or 10 years that's just a slap in the face to victims all across the country. Some of these laws were created with the best of intentions but they sometimes do more harm than good, a rational person (possibly even a child) realizes that this 90 year thing is excessive and it could actually prevent a victim from coming out because of it. Kind of like the whole "sexting" thing its out of control A girl takes a snapshot of her "puppies" and sends it to her boyfriend, they get in argument, he sends it to her friends as a get even caper (I'll agree its a little distasteful and disrespectful) and all of a sudden he is trafficking "Child Porn"... Society is so twisted at this point in time I'm not sure we can ever get all the knots out of it...
You are correct in many ways.I was the first to say this guy needed to be punished,taken off the streets,but I'm not so sure 90 years for attempting to commit a crime is exactly justice.
No one,especially me,is taking the side of internet predators or child molesters.I think when they're caught,like this man was,they need to be punished and monitored when they eventually get out.
What we have here is the result of two decades of lawmakers trying to get them selves elected on a law and order platform.You have to be"tough on crime",and that's all well and good,except when it gets to the point that laws and punishment turn absurd.
Each election,the candidates must be"tougher on crime"than their opponents,the legislature must be"tougher on crime"than the previous session.Lawmakers are supposed to do what?Make laws.They keep going,keep running with the ball,until we can get some pretty silly stuff on the books.Of course,no one wants to oppose,as that would make you"soft on crime"and you might not get re-elected.
The simple definition of justice is when the punishment fits the crime.I think something like 10 years would be closer to justice for attempting but not actually pulling off the crime.For this guy,that's as much a death sentence as 90 years.