Entrapment of would-be Internet predators should bring warning

Editor:

//

Letter writer Richard Hogue (June 7) responded to my June 3 letter with his totally legitimate views, but by his own statement he had not read Barry Paschal's May 27 column to which I was responding.

His letter stated that I was "criticizing" Paschal's position. That was not the case. I was in agreement with the editor, simply adding the moral dimension to the situation under discussion.

The moral aspect of entrapment may well be open to interpretation and it can therefore be open to contentious discussion. The legal aspect, which was the original issue discussed by Paschal, should be adjudicated in a court of law. I find it hard to believe that a sitting judge would oversee the imprisonment of citizens strictly based on the belief that they have a propensity for criminal behavior.

In deference to Hogue, I would suggest that entrapment could indeed be a deterrent to child predators. The police could apprehend the predator as they did in the Adam case, but he should be warned that he is on their records and if apprehended again will be publicly named and prosecuted. Most child predator Internet trollers, out of fear, would keep their fantasies in their heads and off the keyboards.

Gene Rickaby

Martinez