San Francisco Rejects Decriminalization of Prostitution

On election day San Francisco voters had the opportunity to cast a blow (no pun intended – really) for some commonsense. If passed, Proposition K would have effectively decriminalized prostitution in the city. To my astonishment, Prop K failed, by a rather large margin. Some 60% of San Franciscans voted against decriminalization. I have posted before on the subject of legalizing or decriminalizing prostution, and will not rehearse all of the arguments again in this post. Suffice it to say, I think that, on the main, prosections of prostution related crimes – especially those involving escort services – are a tremendous waste of governmental resources, a diversion from more pressing law enforcement concerns, and trample on zones of privacy that are, in my view, none of the government’s business. The San Francisco result was especially disappointing given the city’s widely acknowledged liberal slant. If a decriminalization measure failed by such a wide margin there, its hard to imagine where one might pass. I urge the political proponents of such measure to keep trying, though. They’re fighting the good fight. In the meantime, I’ll continue to criticize politically misguided prosecutions wherever they occur.

Feds Won’t Charge Spitzer

It has been reported that federal prosecutors will not bring any charges against former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer arising out of his involvement with a Manhattan escort service. Sensible decision, it seems to me. As I have written previosuly in this space, Spitzer is a jerk and a hypocrite, but his conduct, in my view, does not warrant prosecution. Of course there remains the issue of why, if Spitzer gets a walk, the folks who operate the escort services face prosecution. Seems to me that the feds should empoy their resources chasing real criminals. Like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

PA Supremes Hear Argument In Child Porn Case

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court justices considered whether a person looking at a book in a library is analogous to a person downloading files from the Internet and whether, in either circumstance, the person is in “control” of the material.

The comparison came during arguments in Commonwealth v. Diodoro, in which a Delaware County man is challenging his conviction of sexual abuse of children by possession and control of child pornography. The arguments were held in Harrisburg on Wednesday.

Anthony Diodoro admitted viewing at least 30 images of child pornography but argued that since he didn’t knowingly save them to his computer’s hard drive, he wasn’t in control or possession of the images. Authorities found the images in his Web browser’s cache file, where a computer automatically saves files so they can quickly be viewed again.

“In order to determine whether there is possession or control, we have to determine the corpus delicti of the crime,” said Diodoro’s attorney, Mark P. Much of Media, Pa.

Much noted that the state statute on child pornography provides for prosecution if an individual produces, distributes, possesses or controls sexually explicit images of children. The law does not contain definitions of “possess” or “control.”

Assistant Delaware County District Attorney Michelle P. Hutton argued there was evidence that Diodoro had specifically sought out Web sites where he could find child pornography and had 370 images of suspected child pornography on his computer.

She said that when he clicked on the links to the images and had them on his screen, he was in control. Applying the library analogy, Hutton said Diodoro’s actions were the same as asking a librarian to bring him material of a specific genre.

“When he’s in that room all alone, he’s in control,” Hutton said.

Diodoro was the subject of two published opinions in the Superior Court.

In the first, a three-judge panel concluded that merely looking at child pornography on the Internet — without intentionally saving or downloading any images viewed — does not amount to “knowing possession” of child pornography.

An en banc panel, in a 7-2 decision last year, reversed the first panel, finding that §6312(d) of the Crimes and Offenses Code clearly states that anyone who “possesses or controls” child pornography is guilty of a third-degree felony.

“[Diodoro's] actions of operating the computer mouse, locating the Web sites, opening the sites, displaying the images on his computer screen, and then closing the sites were affirmative steps and corroborated his interest and intent to exercise influence over, and, thereby, control over the child pornography,” Judge Correale F. Stevens said.

He added that while Diodoro was viewing the pornography, he had the ability to download, print, copy or e-mail the images.

Judge Richard B. Klein, who authored the opinion of the first unanimous panel, wrote a dissenting opinion for the en banc panel. Judge John T. Bender joined him.

Klein said the fact that the images were automatically saved to an Internet cache file on Diodoro’s computer is not enough to show that he did anything but view them, considering there was no evidence that he knew they were automatically saved.

During arguments before the Supreme Court, Justice Max Baer sought to remove the question from the electronic age, positing a scenario in which a person visits an adult bookstore and pages through a magazine. He asked whether that could be considered control.

Baer then put forth a scenario in which a person orders similar materials to be sent to his home. He asked whether that would be control.

Much said the statute is void for vagueness because the term control does not give a person enough notice of what is considered criminal intent.

Justice J. Michael Eakin asked whether making a picture larger on the computer screen could be considered control.

“Do you not physically change what you’re observing?” he asked.

Much said the statute doesn’t account for intent.

“If it pops up and you look at it and realize it’s child pornography and you ‘x’ out of it, under the statute, you’ve controlled it,” Much said. “You can’t criminalize viewing without intent.”

Source: Law.com

D.C. Madam, RIP

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, dubbed the D.C. Madam by the news media, reportedly committed suicide today. Palfrey was convicted just over two weeks ago on federal money laundering, mail fraud and racketeering charges, all of which arose from her operation of an alleged prostitution ring. As readers of this blog know, I have been harshly critical of the federal government’s prosecution of Palfrey. I simply fail to see how one woman runni9ng an escort service purportedly as a front for prostitution ought to be any business of the federal government (for those who will argue that Palfrey’s activities violated the letter of the federal statutes under which she was charged, save your breath – I am well aware of the borad uses to which federal prosecutors put such statutes. My point is – and has been – that reading those statutes so expansively as to include Palfrey is stupid, and a colossal waste of federal resources). So it turns out, as usual, that the only victim in the whole D.C. Madam affair was Deborah Jean Palfrey. This time, the consequences were tragic. Chalk up another win for the feds. One less madam to worry about tonight.

D.C. Madam Convicted

A federal jury in the District of Columbia yesterday convicted the so-called “D.C. Madam,” Deborah Jeane Palfrey, on “racketeering” charges (read, money laundering) arising out of her operation of an escort service, The Washington Post reported this morning. Palfrey’s defense was, I would agree, not believable: she claimed that she did not know that the women employed as escorts by her business were engaging in sex with clients. Uh huh. The only thing sillier is that this case was prosecuted in the first place. Thank heavens for the federales, keeping the Republic safe. Perhaps now they will focus on protecting us from Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.,

D.C. Madam Trial To Start

This week’s edition of Washington’s “Legal Times” contains an article on the D.C. Madam trial, which starts this week. By all accounts, the trial ought to be great entertainment – so long as we forget that this woman is being persecuted prosecuted, and faces jail time, for what is an utterly stupid crime. When will the Feds get back to chasing real criminals, like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Tammie Thomas? Oh, wait, they are. Silly me.

Eliot Spitzer Is A Jerk And A Hypocrite, But He Should Not Be Prosecuted

Unless you have somehow managed to avoid any and all news media for the last 3 days you no doubt are aware that Eliot Spitzer resigned his position as Governor of New York today, brought down by revelations that he had engaged the services of a prostitute while traveling on government business in Washington, D.C. Since the story first broke on Monday, additional allegations have surfaced concerning the frequency of Spitzer’s dalliances, the amount of money that he spent on high end call girls, and the span of years over which he has indulged his particular sweet tooth. All of this is rather unseemly, most will stipulate, and I heartily agree that resigning from office was the right thing for Spitzer to do. Engaging in the sort of conduct for which he had prosecuted others in the past reveals Spitzer as a hypocrite who sees himself as above the law, and robbed him of the moral authority to exercise authority and to wield governmental power over the citizens of New York. Unless there is much more to the story than has come to light, however, prosecuting Spitzer would be a colossal waste of governmental resources.

Why Should Prostitution Be Decriminalized?

Judging from the statistics that are reported to me about this blog, the posts thar I have done on issues relating to prostitution and the legalization or deriminalization of it have been by far the most read. Many of readers have asked me to explain what the issues are, and why I am a believer that prostitution ought ot be decriminalized, given what is, they believe, the societal costs that result from prostitution. To that end, I recommend this website which, in my view, very weel sets forth the best arguments for legalizing, or at least decriminlaizing, prositution. Not to mention that prosecutors, both state and federal, ough to spend their misguided time chasing real criminals.

Is It Really Prostitution If There’s No Sex?

Austin criminal defense lawyer Jamie Spencer recently addressed this question at his blog, and pointed out that, under Texas law, and the law of most states (including, by the way, Pennsylvania) an offense is committed at the point that a person offers to have sex in exchange for money, or solicits another to do so. As Jamie points out, this is why police prostitution stings actually work and result in convictions. Which of course begs the qauestion as to why our government is spending money and other resources on these cases.

And They Say Defense Lawyers Have All the Fun

Evidently, a prosecutor in Washington state is in a jam for, among other things, entering into a sexual relationship with the mother of a defendant he was prosecuting for the purpose of obtaining confidential defense information. But we have no reason to fear that the Government will trample on liberties in pursuit of its, sometimes illegitimate, objectives. OK.