[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He didn’t transport her.
I wonder if Rudy ever brought his mistress out of New York with him before he married her. Would you support a federal prosecution if he did?
[/QUOTE]
I’m a “cite” virgin but I’d like a cite that his mistress was a prostitute. If she was you have educated me on something I did not know. I think adultery may be a misdemeanor but well we’re back to
[QUOTE=RyJae]
I’m a “cite” virgin but I’d like a cite that his mistress was a prostitute.
[/QUOTE]
What does prostitution have to do with anything? How many times do I have to cite Caminetti?
No prostitution or commercial exchange is required. Any non-marital sex falls under the statute. If Rudy took his mistress out of New York and had sex with her, he violated the Mann Act. Why should he get a pass but not Spitzer?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You do know that blackmail is a felony, right?
[/QUOTE]
" ‘Blackmail’ is such an ugly word. I prefer ‘extortion’. The ‘x’ makes it sound cool."–Bender
Everytime I hear about the Mann Act, I feel like getting Buford T. Justice on the trail of the Bandit to stop this debauchery…
I keep thinking about sated lions and immoral porpoises.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What does prostitution have to do with anything? How many times do I have to cite Caminetti?
No prostitution or commercial exchange is required. Any non-marital sex falls under the statute. If Rudy took his mistress out of New York and had sex with her, he violated the Mann Act. Why should he get a pass but not Spitzer?
[/QUOTE]
IOW, the courts have an interest in busting up prostitution rings and no interest in busting up weekends in Vermont.
This is a pretty well established principle - I’m sure you just forgot it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He was just a John. Let’s not exaggerate. The bottom line is that all he did was order a hooker. It’s a trivial misdemeanor and it really isn’t even anyone else’s business.
[/QUOTE]
Well, many people have moral standards and find this behavior unbecoming a governor. Prostitution is a vile industry that destroys the lives of the women involved. As a Governor he is expected to set an example. So without exaggerating anything this is a big deal to those people.
On top of breaking the law in an immoral way he is liable for any unpaid (state) taxes. He’s screwed NY in more ways than one.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What does prostitution have to do with anything? How many times do I have to cite Caminetti?
If Rudy took his mistress out of New York and had sex with her, he violated the Mann Act. Why should he get a pass but not Spitzer?
[/QUOTE]
What if he drove drunk and killed his “party friend”? You need to learn the difference between something that actually happened and your bag of “ifs”.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
De minimis.
IOW, the courts have an interest in busting up prostitution rings and no interest in busting up weekends in Vermont.
This is a pretty well established principle - I’m sure you just forgot it.
[/QUOTE]
That’s called “selective prosecution.” The bottom line is still that ity;'s just as illegal to take your girlfriend to Vegas as it is to order in a hooker from New York. Tell me why some people should be above the law but not others.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
What if he drove drunk and killed his “party friend”? You need to learn the difference between something that actually happened and your bag of “ifs”.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing hypothetical about it. Millions of people violate the Mann Act every day. Why should Spitzer get singled out for prosecution but not Rudy? Why are we pretending like Spitzer did anything more illegal than a guy who flies a girlfriend in from another state? There is no difference in the illegality of that and flying in a prostitute. Whether the sex is paid for is not germane to the statute. Anyone who supports prosecuttion of Spitzer under the Mann Act but not Rudy (or anyone else who ever boned an unmarried partner after she crossed state lines) is a hypocrite. Either support the enforcement of the statute across the boardor don’t, but it’s impossible to maintain credibility if you just want to prosecute people you don’t like.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Well, many people have moral standards and find this behavior unbecoming a governor. Prostitution is a vile industry that destroys the lives of the women involved.
[/quote]
I would disagree that there is anything necessarily vile about prostitution. That’s a personal opinion. I would also argue that the women who are victimized by it are victimed because it is illegal, but that argument always makes me wonder why we prosecute the prostitutes. What other criminal law seeks to punish the victims. If you think that prostitution victimizes women (and I agree that illegal prostitution frequently does), then I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s stupid to prosecute the victims for it and you’ll agree that it makes no sense to criminalize it as a profession.
Cite?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There’s nothing hypothetical about it. Millions of people violate the Mann Act every day
[/QUOTE]
You’ve moved from Gulliani to a million people. Where to begin. First, your argument was speculative regarding Gulliani. Second, when I called you on it you shifted it to people who are not in positions of authority. We’re talking about the chief officer of the state. He is the one person who should uphold the law.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
You’ve moved from Gulliani to a million people. Where to begin. First, your argument was speculative regarding Gulliani. Second, when I called you on it you shifted it to people who are not in positions of authority. We’re talking about the chief officer of the state. He is the one person who should uphold the law.
[/QUOTE]
Giuliani is just one example. What do you imagine you “called me” on? Why shouldn’t Rudy be prosecuted for travelling with his mistress across state lines?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I would disagree that there is anything necessarily vile about prostitution.
[/QUOTE]
OK, well, that’s sad given the reality of it. If you would want your mother or sister to be a legal prostitute than any discussion of morality is pointless.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I would also argue that the women who are victimized by it are victimed because it is illegal
[/QUOTE]
No, they’re victimized because it’s demeaning to sell their bodies for sex.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
but that argument always makes me wonder why we prosecute the prostitutes. What other criminal law seeks to punish the victims. If you think that prostitution victimizes women (and I agree that illegal prostitution frequently does), then I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s stupid to prosecute the victims for it and you’ll agree that it makes no sense to criminalize it as a profession.
[/QUOTE]
We prosecute prostitutes and johns to stop the behavior. Whether or not prostitutes get the help they need after prison is a commentary on a given legal system’s effectiveness.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Giuliani is just one example. What do you imagine you “called me” on? Why shouldn’t Rudy be prosecuted for travelling with his mistress across state lines?
[/QUOTE]
I called you on the fact that you’re stipulating on Gulliani’s activities. If you want to speculate on it that’s fine but then you have to draw the distinction between a failed marriage and the purchase of a woman’s body.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
OK, well, that’s sad given the reality of it. If you would want your mother or sister to be a legal prostitute than any discussion of morality is pointless.
[/quote]
My reasoning is moral, not amoral. It’s immoralize to criminalize consensual sex of any sort.
Why, because you say so?
You can’t say they’re both the perpertrators and the victims of the crime. That’s nonsensical. Don’t pretend you care about women being victimized by a profession and then say you want to throw them in jail for being victimized. Basicxally you just want to impose a self-righteous religious code on other people’s sexual choices. I don’t share your religious belief that sex is dirty or “demeaning.” Sorry.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I called you on the fact that you’re stipulating on Gulliani’s activities.
[/QUOTE]
If by “stipulating,” you mean “speculating,” then I wasn’t speculating at all. Rudy made no secret of the fact that he had a mistress while he was mayor. Basically, you’re just ducking the question.
I’m assuming you mean you’re asking me to draw a distinction between paying for extramarital sex and not paying for it, but my point is that the Mann Act does not draw any such distinction so I’m asking you why some people should be allowed to violate federal law but not other people.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If by “stipulating,” you mean “speculating,” then I wasn’t speculating at all. Rudy made no secret of the fact that he had a mistress while he was mayor. Basically, you’re just ducking the question.
I’m assuming you mean you’re asking me to draw a distinction between paying for extramarital sex and not paying for it, but my point is that the Mann Act does not draw any such distinction so I’m asking you why some people should be allowed to violate federal law but not other people.
[/QUOTE]
I will undoubtedly regret asking this question of someone who considers himself the final, ultimate, and unimpeachable authority on what the law was, is, should be, and shall be everymore…
… but what sort of acts, specifically, are you talking about when you opine that “millions of people” violate the Mann Act every day?
begins a NY Times article which talks of the despair of which people who thought he was their ally on anti-prostitution measures.
My question for Bricker and others, in light of this background, do you still say that there is no hypocrisy?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I will undoubtedly regret asking this question of someone who considers himself the final, ultimate, and unimpeachable authority on what the law was, is, should be, and shall be everymore…
… but what sort of acts, specifically, are you talking about when you opine that “millions of people” violate the Mann Act every day?
[/QUOTE]
Anybody who ever takes a girlfriend to a different state or arranges or pays for a woman to come in from another state and meet them for sex is in violation of the Mann Act. I could have been prosecuted for it when I took a vacation on an out of state lake with my wife before we were married. I cite, once more Caminetti V. United States which ruled that the Mann Act applies to any consensual, non-marital sex. In fact, it applies not only to sex but to “any immoral purpose.” That’s why I’ve used the example of taking a girlfriend to Vegas for a weekend.
Please tell me why Spitzer merits prosecution but not me or Rudy Giuliani or probably 3/4 of the men on this message board.