...the evidence is this case is quite apparant...
I do not disagree with most of what you wrote, except the 1 sentence above. The original debate had to do with allowing a separate person to go free before trial.
His case was reviewed and the system determined to allow him freedom till trial. If you disagree with the decision we cannot cry to change the system. However, we are lucky to live where we can change our judges. Of course that requires adults to vote at local elections, which they never do.
In this case the man is probably guilty, should be locked up forever since he is not curable, but that has nothing to do with my points in this debate.
You state the evidence is apparent, and he should be locked up. Our system requires 'real' evidence not apparent evidence. Look at the real situation here- A man went to a diner, he had no illegal contents in his possession, he did not approach any children in the diner, he did not participate in any lude public behavior. Until they prove he is the man on the other end of the computer (which I am sure they will) they technically have no reason to hold him. Even after they prove he was the man on the other end of the computer, they still only have 'intent' to commit a crime. Yes, we do arrest on intent, but the standard for imprisonment is the same as if there was a real victim. At this point there is no victim in this crime, and arresting / holding a citizen on purely apparent evidence and intent is the same slippery slope the 'witch hunters' found themselves at the bottom of, 400 years ago. Of course they stood in circles, with their children, watching a human being be burned alive, based purely on 'apparent' evidence. Humans have not evolved much from that point, but we are lucky our form of government has evolved forcing the witch hunters to be kept in check.
I have faith our system will work, and this man will be punished, but it will be on real evidence, presented in an open trial.