Skip to main content

For A 45-Year-Old Fat Guy, She's Pretty Attractive

An interesting item today from Newsday, known worldwide for having more "I Blame Bush" content than any other newspaper, seems to indicate that New York is currently so free from crime, that authorities can now go ahead and prosecute people who have only contemplated breaking the law.

Jan Kabas, a 53-year-old attorney from Jericho, New York has pleaded guilty to “first-degree attempted disseminating indecent material to minors,” which apparently carries with it anywhere from 16 months to 4 years of prison fun and excitement. But the truth shows that he never, according to the letter of the law, did any such thing.

Seems that Mr. Kabas, when not committing bank fraud, likes to kick off his shoes and spend a relaxing evening chatting with 13-year old girls on AOL. One in particular caught his fancy, and he spent the next month and a half wooing her in the chat rooms. Ah, but much to his chagrin, the young lady with which Mr. Kabas was conversing for six weeks was in fact an undercover investigator (who was not an agent of the police department, by the way) charged with the responsibility of hunting down pedophiles and bringing them to justice.

I’m not sure exactly how a grown man “pretends” to be a 13-year old girl online, but I’m pretty sure it involves frequently using those graphical emoticons and uttering the phrase, "Skool sux!"

In any case, after exchanging six weeks of “sexually explicit emails,” Mr. Kabas and Deep Operative “Hello Kitty” arranged to meet. Only when Mr. Kabas arrived at the prearranged place, instead of being met by a dorky teenager with braces and bubble gum, he found himself staring down the barrel of a class E felony.

Look, I am fully aware that attempting to use the Internet to lure 13-year old girls into your loving arms is both universally stupid and utterly repulsive, (even though the media and society in general seem to have no problem with the sexual objectification of minors). But in Mr. Kabas’ defense, if we apply the rules of logic, then no actual crime was committed, and thus, he should be exonerated. Perhaps slapped in the face a few times for being absolutely dim-witted, but exonerated, nonetheless.

Let’s look at the facts: The Nassau County District Attorney’s office, in association with the Long Island chapter of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (which sounds suspiciously like a vegan organization), set up a sting to catch people with Lolita complexes. However, they did this using misdirection, deceit and entrapment. Mr Kabas wasn’t actually chatting with a 13-year old girl, he was chatting with a 45-year old fat balding guy who was masquerading as a 13-year old girl. Even in the ever-restrictive America, I’m pretty sure there’s no law against two middle-aged homely men having cyber-sex. Regardless of Mr. Kabas’ desire to have sexual relations with a teenager, the fact remains that there was never a teenager in the first place. It’s like meeting with an illegal arms dealer in a back alley, and paying him $1000 for a briefcase that turns out to contain three pounds of cherry licorice.

So, the statute under which Mr. Kabas was indicted, “first-degree attempted disseminating indecent material to minors,” is not logically applicable, as there was no actual minor to which to disseminate anything! She was the figment of the imagination of the DA’s Office and a dishonest construct used to entrap an admittedly stupid individual.

The miserable reality of it all is, that in actuality, young children are being abducted and, sadly, sexually molested. Their assailants should be caught, bound with razor wire, strapped to the bumper of a 1972 Chevy Nova, and then dropped into the Grand Canyon. It behooves a decent civilization, and even the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children, to use every resource possible to bring these criminals to justice. But in this case, all they succeeded in doing was making a criminal out of a man who, in essence, did nothing criminal (unless you count that bank fraud thing).

Yes, I realize that his intent was to meet with and have sex with a child. It’s blatantly obvious that he has multiple problems, the least of which is not being able to keep himself out of court. But this is not justice, at least not according to the statute under which they indicted him. If Nassau County wants to see him behind bars, then the least they could do is prosecute him for crimes that he actually, physically committed according to the superior laws of logic.

Overzealous Mortals.

Comments

Moni said…
Then how do law enforcement agencies deal with annonymity issues on the net?

How does physical evidence which is physical, yet not; be prosecuted? He was online with someone he presumed and for all intent purposes was a 13 year old girl. Sock it to him baby! That's what I say.

Btw your blog is intelligent, and acidic...very lovely. Good job. :)
Valannin said…
Thank you. And good question. I believe that the guy in question crossed the threshold and gave up his right of privacy the moment he showed up at the meeting place with the intent of having sexual relations with a minor. But that's not what they are prosecuting him for.

They want him in jail for distributing obscene materials to a minor, and I contend that he did no such thing, as a minor never existed. The case, on the merits of logic and a technical loophole, should be dismissed. The only evidence they have against him is based on deception and entrapment; not what the Constitution would consider justice. When a people give up their freedom for security, they deserve neither.
Moni said…
"I see," said the blind man. Spot on then.

Popular posts from this blog

Reason # 1147 To Enroll Your Kids In Private School

Here's a brief story I'd like to relate while it's still fresh in my mind; typically, my articles are 3-4 pages, and quite frankly, it's far too hot to create such a magnum opus tonight. So, I offer you an ultra-condensed version of a disturbing event which took place this past Friday.
Actually, to set the stage, we have to go back to the previous Friday, when the Superintendent of our District happened to be visiting our school. To explain why he was there, I'd have to go over the one-page cap I've set for myself for this article, so suffice it to say that he was trying to do in late May what he should have been doing all year long – namely, his job.
While he is visiting, a student decides it would be a real hoot to throw a glass bottle out of a third-floor classroom window. And since the universe is not without a sense of humor, the bottle travels along a trajectory which terminates at the windshield of a brand-new car parked on the street outside. A car t…

All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions (W. B. Yeats)

Something occurred to me as I was having a conversation with a friend today, (she’s definitely one of the Outcast by the way), when she mentioned that I wasn’t very “open-minded.” The phrase “open-minded” is perhaps the most aggravating and deceptive American axioms ever invented. Why? Because it’s a trap. The only reason people see others as not “open-minded” is because they are not in agreement about a particular subject. If someone says, “I don’t think the U.S. ever put a man on the moon,” I’d disagree, because there’s tons of evidence to the contrary. But then I’d be met with the dreaded “you need to be more open-minded!” Well, shouldn’t they have the same level of open-mindedness? Of course not. Because in their lexicon, “open-minded” means “believing any old bit of nonsense as long as it goes against tradition.” Cold, hard facts scare these people, so they hide behind the gilded shield of “opinions.”

To be honest, I don’t believe there are any such things as opinions. There are f…