Perhaps it is. But I trust you take the point I was making: convicting someone for the acts that Governor Spitzer stands accused of does not require a “motivated prosecutor” to “technically contrive” a case. Spitzer’s actions, if true, are clearly violative of federal law, and plenty of other non-political people have been convicted of similar, or even lesser, transgressions. Now, if you want to inveigh against the law’s evil nature, that’s fine; you need to understand, though, that your earlier factual proclamations about the law’s plain reach and effect were simply wrong.
I disagree that Spitzer did anything “clearly violative” of federal law. I think the case you cited above was a bullshit conviction. I also think it’s much easier to railroad a Sikh in a redneck state than a white state Governor with deep pockets. It’s not going to happen. I alreday said that a motivated prosecuter could contrive a bullshit technical case if he wanted to (the Mann Act is so broadly written and ill-defined as to allow prosecutions for almost anything involving a woman), I’m just sayong that the choice to do so would be transparently selective and political and Elliot Spitizer isn’t going to be the easy target that poor Sikh was.
So the “targeting” of the “poor Sikh” was IYO racism or something akin to it (he was “railroaded” in a “red state”), but if Spitzer is prosecuted under the same Act that will be “transparently selective and political” bullshit. Seems to me that it would be the FAILURE to prosecute the rich white guy on the same charges that would read to most people as transparently selective and political bullshit.
Agreed. I wonder if it’s in the pre-nup. I thought it interesting that one newscaster said she had downcast eyes during his speech. I thought it was pretty obvious she was looking at his prepared speech and focusing on the words on the paper in order to keep her composure during a very difficult moment. I wouldn’t be surprised if she had helped him write that…though I would have emphasized first letting down my wife…not just a generalized family comment.
But it doesn’t matter how many cases I cite, right? They will ALL be “bullshit convictions,” right?
No, it couldn’t- there’s no commercial exchange taking place in that situation, which makes the “immoral purposes” which the Act specifically prohibits much harder, if not impossible, to prove.
There doesn’t have to be a commercial exchange under the statute. Cite.
There was an article addressing this very issue in Slate today.
It makes sense – if you don’t appear, the reporters would be hounding you to make a statement, which is bound to make it all worse.
Let’s review this statement.
First – what does federal law say?
As far as I can tell, you’re trying to hang your defense here on the word “transports.” You’ve said before that he didn’t transport her; she came of her own free will.
But that’s not what “transport” means. There are plenty of convictions under the law where the prostitute transports herself across a state line in order to enege in sex for money, and that alone is “transports” within the meaning of the law. I have even given you a case in which someone was convicted for “transporting” when he simply offered reduced room rental rates for the prostitute, which is much LESS inducment than Gov. Spitzer is alleged to have made.
You’re absolutely wrong, in other words. His conduct (if true) does violate federal law.
I disagree, Bricker. The case you cited was just a jury getting it wrong.
Not just the jury, but also the judge, and then too the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wrong, every one of 'em, because they are missed your penetrating analysis of federal jurisprudence.
That’s correct., Every one of them got it wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time (although the appeals court probably didn’t have any choice about it since it couldn’t second guess the subjective opinion of the jury, no matter how braindead that jury might have been).
Or, possibly, YOU are wrong, and the professionals whose job it actually is to interpret and enforce the law are right. Now, I don’t for a second expect you to entertain such a perposterous idea, but it is a possibilty worth mentioning for the benefit of any reader less impressed with your own legal analysis than you are.
ETA: And if the Fourth Circuit indeed felt it did not have the legal grounds to overturn the jury’s “subjective” verdict – that only indicates insufficient evidence that the verdict was “wrong.” IOW, that particular point doesn’t support your assertion, it undercuts it.
No, it just shows that there sometimes isn’t any remedy for a stupid jury.
You know, I’m in agreement with you Dio in regard to this kind of thing (its being bullshit, that is).
When prosecutors choose to stretch the language of the law to such utterly ridiculous lengths such as to contend that people who transport themselves across state lines are actually being ‘transported’ by someone else, or that some guy at a motel who gives a hooker a room discount is somehow ‘transporting’ her across state lines, no reasonable person can hold that they are applying the law as intended when it was written.
Another instance of this kind of thing that irks me is when prosecutors charge someone with ‘premeditated’ murder when the ‘premeditation’ consists of no more than reaching for a weapon.
I’m as much as law-and-order guy as anyone, and I know prosecutors view themselves as trying to fight the good fight, but this kind of thing just isn’t kosher. It’s hard to believe that in this day and age the courts uphold these kinds of charges and the convictions that result from them.
I agree that they are interpreting the law wrongly. However, it is also a crazy law to begin with. What if I drive my gf to a different state, and have sex in public or something. That clearly seems to qualify.
The jury judges the facts. They found that Singh offered the rooms at a reduced rate. The courts decided the law - that offering girls the inducement of reduced room rates if they traveled into your state, stayed at your motel, and prostituted themselves is “transported” within the meaning of the law. And the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld just that language, which means that in the Fourth Circuit, THAT IS THE LAW.
I am certain I can find similar cases in each federal circuit that define “transport” in such a way as to hang Spitzer. So you can’t say they’re wrong, Diogenes, because they have the power to define the law. You can certainly claim their approach is unwise or that there is some generic “wrongness” to the situation, but you cannot say the law is not what it is.
i know i can’t be the only one singing “sex client number nine” to the tune of “love potion number nine”.
The jury didn’t do anything wrong. They found, as matters of fact, that Singh offered reduced room rates to hookers willing to work out of his hotel. He DID do that.
The legal consequence of that finding was that it constitutes “transport.” That’s a matter of law.
And if “transport” is such a sticking point, maybe your mind will be quieted by considering the very next section: