Jan Helder - Sympathy for the Devil?

I've been struggling with how and whether to address Jan Helder's case on my blog. Jan has wound up as a locally and now nationally infamous person, because of a criminal case against him. He was charged with criminal enticement of a 14 year-old girl, and a jury convicted him of that charge on Tuesday. Judge Whipple, though, threw out the case on what many would consider a technicality - the defense argument that the law requires that the person entice a minor, not an adult male deputy pretending to be a minor. Yesterday, however, a state prosecutor filed charges arising out of the same matter.

The problem arises from the fact that I know and kind of like Jan. I've known him for probably 10 years or more now, and he's smart, funny, and likeable in an obnoxious way. When I first knew him, he was a Rush Limbaugh-type republican, always willing to engage in political conversation, and he provided a witty, well-informed opponent. Jan has always been a bit full of himself, and capable of being a bit of an asshole. Prior to the past few months, the Jan Helder anecdote I would have called to mind first was the story about him mouthing off to a redneck in a traffic tie-up, and the guy getting out of his car, approaching Jan's massive BMW, and punching him in the face (I have no idea if this story is true or not, but it's an anecdote someone told me a few years ago). That's classic Jan - big mouth, ability to piss people off, but, at the same time, kind of vulnerable. At heart, though, I've always liked the guy.

So part of me hasn't wanted to post because I hate to add to the attention paid to him. Given the fact that he's been the subject of a segment on Bill O'Reilly, and of countless news articles, I suppose that excuse has evaporated.

First off, let's look at the law. Frankly, as I understand it, I think Judge Whipple is right. If the law says you can be found guilty for enticing a 14 year-old, and you entice a 40 year old deputy, you're not guilty of enticing a 14 year-old. I admit that I am no scholar of criminal law, but that seems pretty cut and dried. I believe that Jan was charged under 18 USC Sec. 2422(b):

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.

If that's the charge, it seems to me he's not guilty.

My supposition that he is not guilty is bolstered by the arguments made by those upset by Judge Whipple's decision. They are all attacking the effect of the decision, but I haven't seen them attacking its logic. They're blaming Judge Whipple (not my favorite judge by a long shot) for reading a statute the way it was written. They're wrong, he's right, and he's doing his job. If the legislature had done a better job of writing the law, Judge Whipple wouldn't have had to set Jan free. But, under the law as written, he nobly refused to hold a man in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

Regardless, though, Jan's life has taken a radical downward turn. So far, as I understand it, his wife has stayed with him. But his reputation is deservedly shot, he's now facing charges in state court (how is that not double jeopardy, I wonder?), and his federal case is almost certainly going to attract additional attention, even if he ultimately prevails. His firm, Helder Law Firm, is going to be destroyed. (He's apparently lost his seat on the Board of Directors for Kansas City Young Audiences, and maybe even been kicked out of that "Who's Who of Kansas City Nutcases", the Indian Hills Country Club.) Until now, the only criminal records I could find on the guy are one parking and and one speeding ticket, both from 1998.

I guess my biggest problem with all this is that, in many ways, he's a kind, caring, decent human being. I have laughed with him, and drank beer with him - I can't hate him. He's not a monster. Yet, what he apparently was attempting to do was monstrous.

While the media and the rest of Kansas City are full of hatred for Jan Helder, I guess I'm just out of step. I'm full of sadness, though glad he was stopped before actually harming anyone.