I worded things a bit unclearly the first time I think, so I'll rehash my opinion in short form.
Having bad intentions should not be a punishable crime. However, people like this guy should most certainly be watched and while I don't agree with the underhanded methods the police tend to use, I think it is good to find such people in advance. Once you've determined- clearly, not like "omg he has underage porn" insomuch as real, legitimate indications he'll act- that he does seriously have a major possibility of negative action, watch, and by watch I mean like spy on him continuously and get a standing search warrant, and see if he actually does something; then if he's clearly in the process of something (as in he goes to purchase kids on his own, or attempts a kidnapping, or somesuch), without unfair interference- such as this solicitation- by the police, then arrest his ass and carry out punishment then. Otherwise it's unfair manipulation and he's being punished for something there was no guarantee he was ever going to do.
Unless I misunderstand (I haven't paid full attention to the debate), I think this is what Glenn means- all the anghsty argument and social difficulties aside- hence why I said earlier that I agreed with him. The way they handled this sounds unfair to me, like he was manipulated into committing a falsified crime and punished for it when he might never have done anything on his own.
Incidentally: given more recent conversations with Glenn in regards to his beliefs versus what he used to say, was that bit about people not having free will sarcasm (this question being directed at Glenn himself, not someone else's opinion)?
Damn, that wasn't short at all. Sorry.
To really put it in short terms: there is a huge difference between thinking about doing something, wanting to do something, doing something, and being offered/encouraged into doing something.
Suppose you're on a diet: you have money and the grocery store is nearby, where they have huge, savory, high quality steaks on a cheap sale, and you're really hungry. You want that steak, you think about eating it. You might hold off on that though.
Now suppose someone walks up to your door announcing they've got a free steak dinner and promises not to tell anybody. Would you still refuse? Can you really say that giving in to that is "just as bad", and moreover can you even really support the argument that you "obviously would've done it anyway" without such provocation?
I think the main reasoning most people are using here is "But this is different! It's children! What a sicko!" And thus the logic is chopped down a notch by powerful (understandable and noble as the sentiment may be) emotional bias. It's blinding because you have a strong idea of what should be right and it's a delicate subject, so you go more easily for the throat without stopping to think about the whole circumstance.
*goes back to hiding*