In a December 4 press release from Westchester County's District Attorney's Office, the details of the case are explained in typically vague and predictable terms: In an undisclosed online chat room, an investigator posing as a 15-year-old boy allegedly engages Dr. Clifford Berken, a Greenwich-based gastroenterologist, in conversation. Over two days, the two discuss "various sex acts on a number of occasions," and then Berken offers "to meet the 'boy' in downtown White Plains." When Berken arrives for the meeting, he is placed under arrest.

Berken has been arraigned in New York on "one count of Attempted Disseminating Indecent Material to Minors" -- a "class 'E' felony." If convicted, he faces "a maximum of one and one third to four years in state prison." Berken's Stamford home address is revealed in the press release, and a mugshot is presented -- an image of this 55-year-old husband and father of three, his graying hair close-cropped and combed to the side, his eyes revealing an emotion seemingly caught between unguarded expectation, disbelief and fear.

----------

Lucian Chalfen, spokesman for Westchester County District Attorney's office, says, unlike the television program To Catch A Predator -- in which an outside organization called Perverted Justice is contracted to oversee Internet sex crime stings -- the Westchester County investigations are done in-house. "We have our own investigators," he says. "These [stings] are the equivalent of a detective staking out a public area."

According to Chalfen, since the baited conversations are held in chat rooms -- on sites like Facebook and Yahoo! -- the discussions are not private and there is no need for a warrant. "It's part of a continuing monitoring," Chalfen says. "It's really nothing special."

Berken is accused of attempted disseminating indecent material to minors because he had no opportunity, under the circumstances of the investigation, to actually disseminate anything to a minor.

"If [the conversations were] with a minor, and it was found out by a third party -- a family member or someone like that who later reported it to officials -- then it would've been 'disseminating indecent material,'" minus the "attempted," Chalfen says. "But if he would've succeeded in disseminating anything in this case, it would've been to a 40-year-old man."

----------

In any felony case threatening the livelihood of a prominent community member, it's understandable to ask whether the arrest is the result of a misunderstanding. And indeed, soon after the story breaks in Stamford Advocate and Greenwich Time (and eventually makes its way into online editions of USA Today, New York Daily News, and Chicago Tribune), discussion boards flood with reader comments offering not only calls for persecution, but also support for the sullied doctor. What does "disseminating indecent material" actually mean?

Jeffrey Meyer, an associate law professor at Quinnipiac University's School of Law, says "the statute at hand -- New York Penal Law Section 235.21 -- is fairly definitive." It states:

A person is guilty of disseminating indecent material to minors ... when: With knowledge of its character and content, he sells or loans to a minor for monetary consideration: Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of  the human  body  which  depicts  nudity,  sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors.

Meyer says mounting a defense is going to be tricky. "Investigators in these stings are very careful to discuss their age, and to make sure a crime has been committed before they make an arrest."

"What's actually interesting in this case," he says, "is the variation of severity between New York and federal punishment." Meyer says the federal equivalent is United States Code Title 18 Section 2422 -- "Transportation for illegal sexual activity and related crimes."

"If the case were tried in a federal court," Meyer says, "Berken could face up to ten years in prison."

Berken's lawyer, Eugene J. Riccio, did not return calls for comment. Berken is due back in White Plains City Court on January 30.

----------

What causes a middle-aged man to engage an anonymous child in sexual conversations online? Frederic G. Reamer, a professor in the graduate program of the School of Social Work at Rhode Island College, has been a member of the Rhode Island Parole Board for many years and has experience dealing with sexual predators of all types. While Reamer is careful to note he's not intimately familiar with Dr. Berken's case, he says it certainly sounds familiar. Situations like Berken's -- where a man with an awful lot to lose attempts a remarkably risky rendezvous with a teenager -- generally follow a pattern: an adult life that has begun to spin out of control; marriage in disharmony; increasingly distant relationships with family and friends; difficulty connecting with other adults. Reamer says, from his experience interviewing numerous sexual predators on parole, he's noted that these men often "find solace and comfort in relating to teenagers." A reason for this, he says, is that they are stunted developmentally. "They may be remarkably accomplished in some respects, but undeveloped in others," he says. "Often they're individuals who, day to day, are professional and in-charge," but when they go home at night, they revert to adolescent behavior. "It's like an alter ego," Reamer says. "Like, when they're not at work, they become 16-year-olds."

----------

That's speculation, though. And the discussion -- in all its vast implications -- misses the main point: that these Internet stings are done for a reason -- to keep kids safe and away from harmful adults.

In that regard, Susan Thomas, Executive Director at Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center, says, "one simple suggestion is to keep the family computer -- or the computer your children may have access to -- in the living room or dining room so its use can be viewed by everyone. Secondly," she says, "you want to see the child's face page" -- their MySpace profile, or Facebook homepage or whatever -- and that parents should monitor kids computer use at least once a day. Thomas also suggests installing Internet filters and parental control software on home computers, but stresses that the best resistance against Internet predators is paying attention to what your kids are viewing. "Really," she says, "the best defense is to be an attentive and involved parent."

***

Written for Fairfield County Weekly.