If a friend pays a prostitute for another friend...

Concerning the law. Does the person who paid get in trouble? What about the person that performed the sex acts? Or do both get caught up for it?

Is it reasonable to assume that a random woman off the street knocked on your door and desparately needed to have sex with you?

drac: It’s easy to imagine a more reasonable scenario. Like if the friend knew the guy was always at a certain singles bar looking for a date, and he paid the girl to be there and be easy.

To answer the question, I think most crimes require a mens rea before they’re prosecutable. That means you must intend to commit the crime, as opposed to being tricked into it.

August “Heh. ‘Tricked’.” Derleth

No, it’s not. But the friend is paying for relations for his friend, and not for himself. The person doing the acts technically didn’t pay, but is doing acts the prostitute was hired to do, for him. Let’s assume the cops witnessed this, who gets in trouble?

If it’s a simple non-convoluted scenario where your friend pays the prostitute, the second guy knows that what she is and goes through with it, IANAL, but my understanding of the law is that all three are guilty. The friend who pays most likely for soliciting.

Soliciting services, that is.

Doesn’t the term ‘pandering’ fit into this conversation somehow?

In Virginia, “prostitution” is defined as committing adultery, fornication, or oral or anal sex for money or its equivalent. You must commit the sexual act to be guilty of the crime.

Conspiracy is an agreement among two or more people to commit a crime. All three people in the OP’s scenario are guilty of the conspiracy.

In general, conviction of the underlying crime bars a subsequent conviction for the conspiracy.

  • Rick

The person who procured the prostitute for his friend is guilty of pandering. The prostitute and the friend are guilty of whatever charges are applicable in the state.

Are you calling Neil Bush a liar?

I read the criminal statutes and annotations in North Carolina from cover to cover one time.
I’d say that the crime varies by state, but in NC, procuring a loose woman or paying someone else for a loose woman (not the exact wording) gets you a charge for pimping. The sentencing class for “pimping (again, not the precise term)” is such that the pimp is in exponentially more trouble than either the loose woman or the end user of the sexual services in question.
Pimping was a low-grade felony or high-grade misdemeanor, whereas whoring or whoremongering were mid-grade misdemeanors.
I’m sure out of 50 states, there are probably 20 different answers to your question.

Isn’t that the gist of how porno production is not considered prostitution? In other words, it’s not prostitution, because the neither of the people having sex are paying, instead someone else is paying them for sex.

Seems to me that the only difference is that there’s(probably) no filming going on in this situation.

to have sex “on camera” with anyone who showed up that I would be “legal”. Since, I live out in the country, I can’t imagine any ordinances that would apply (however I’m only 30minutes from the city).

What really gets me was that when I was younger (and not married) I had more than one occasion where a first date ended in sex. Why was it legal that the girl had sex with me because I bought her dinner and she thought I was “cute” (perhaps), while some of my other friends couldn’t get dates (either due to looks or more often shyness). How was my “promiscuity” which is so very common in America any MORE moral, or ethical than prostitution? All prosititution does is let the less attractive, or shy “get some” on a semi-regular basis. Those blessed with sufficent looks, or personality (or both) get for free (and without legal condemnation) what others would be willing to pay.

How about the concept of ‘gift certificates’? A guy could buy gift certificates from a particular escort service, and give those certificates to his friend.

contacts (such as when I was an Real Estate Appraiser) could this be considered prostitution. Here’s how it might work. I approach various mortgage brokers, banking, and Real Estate executives and say something like "give me some of your appraisal business and not only will you get good appraisals, BUT you can sleep with my beautiful wife anytime that you like (subject to certain restrictions). I would benefit from more business, and she would benefit from a better sex life (considering I’m only good for about three minutes of passion a couple times per month!)

  • Rick

relationships outside of marriage.

New York Penal Law Article 230 concerns prostitution offences. It has three groups of prostitution crimes, prostiution, patronizing a prostitute, and promoting prostitution.

Section 230.00 provides:

Section 230.02 defines patronizing a prostitute as:

Promoting prostitution includes both advancing prostitution and profiting from prostitution. Section 230.15 provides:

So, in New York, if person A paid person B to have sex with person C, person A would be guilty of promoting prostitution, person B guilty of prostitution and person C guilty of nothing (unless person C gave something of value to start this whole arrangement, in which he or she might be guilty of patronizing a prostitute).

Going by NY law, person C would probably get canned too (…aid or facilitate an act…). He didn’t pay, but is in on the act, which was paid for, which is illegal.

Thanks all.

No, you’re on the right track but not quite, with respect ot porn.

The laws that made it tough to charge porn producers with “pandering” has to do with the fact that the porn performers were getting paid to “make a non-obscene movie”. They specifically were not getting paid for the “sexual gratification” of any the participants.

The case law, is People v. Freeman.

Freeman was convicted for pandering after he hired two people to have sex on camera. The conviction was overturned on appeal when the courts found no evidence that Freeman paid the fees “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors’.”

As long as the film met the stardards of “non-obscene” (which I think was also established by California case-law Miller v. California? )