| Author |
Message |
    
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 64
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 08:06 am: | 
|
The fact that the legislation he discusses didn't pass is criminal in and of itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
February 19, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Wrong Target
By BOB HERBERT
A New York City police detective and his girlfriend have been accused of kidnapping and forcing a 13-year-old girl into prostitution.
According to the Queens district attorney’s office, the detective, Wayne Taylor, and the girlfriend, Zalika Brown, would parade the girl at parties and other places where adult men had gathered and force her to have sex with them for money — $40 for oral sex, $80 for intercourse.
The child was an investment. The couple allegedly told her that she had been purchased for $500 — purchased, like the slaves of old, only this time for use as a prostitute.
Other than the fact that one of the accused in this case is a police detective, there was nothing unusual about this tale of trafficking in young female flesh.
Our perspective is twisted. It was a big story when a television newsman was crude and thoughtless enough to use the term “pimped out” in a reference to Chelsea Clinton. The comment generated outrage — as it should have — and the newsman was suspended. But if someone actually pimps out a 13-year-old child, and even if that someone is alleged to be a police detective, it generates a collective yawn.
Across the country, young girls by the many thousands — children — are being drawn into the hellishly dangerous world of prostitution. They are raped, beaten and exploited in every way imaginable.
As part of the staggeringly lucrative commercial sex trade, the role of these children is to satisfy the sexual demands of johns who in most cases do not fit the stereotype of a pedophile.
“Many of the guys who buy sex with children would never consider themselves pedophiles,” said Rachel Lloyd, founder of an organization in New York called GEMS that offers help to under-age girls in the sex trade. “They’re not necessarily out there looking for 12-year-olds or teenagers. They just kind of don’t care.
“They feel like they have the right to buy sex from someone, and they prefer it to be someone who looks younger and cleaner and less drug-addicted.”
In the case of the accused New York City detective, the authorities acted promptly and effectively. The girl managed to escape and notified the police, who investigated immediately. Detective Taylor and Ms. Brown were arrested and the case has been turned over to the office of Queens District Attorney Richard Brown. Both are in custody.
But law enforcement does not always respond in a positive or constructive way. It is common across the country for under-age girls engaged in prostitution to be arrested, which is bizarre when you consider that it is a serious crime — statutory rape — for an adult to have sex with a minor.
If no money is involved, the youngster is considered a victim. But if the man pays for the sex — even if the money is going to the pimp, which is so often the case — the child is considered a prostitute and thus subject in many venues to arrest and incarceration.
“We often see the girls arrested and the pimps and the johns go free,” said Carol Smolenski, the head of Ecpat-USA, a group that fights the sexual exploitation of children. “One of the big problems is that there is this whole set of child sex exploiters who are not targeted as exceptionally bad guys.”
What’s needed is a paradigm shift. Society (and thus law enforcement) needs to view any adult who sexually exploits a child as a villain, and the exploited child as a victim of that villainy. If a 35-year-old pimp puts a 16-year-old girl on the street and a 30-year-old john pays to have sex with her, how is it reasonable that the girl is most often the point in that triangle that is targeted by law enforcement?
A measure of how far we still have to go is the fact that some enlightened officials in the state of New York tried to shift that paradigm last year and failed. The proposed Safe Harbor Act would have ended the practice of criminalizing kids too young to legally consent to sex. Under the law, authorities would have no longer been able to charge children with prostitution, but would have had to offer such youngsters emotional counseling, medical care and shelter, if necessary.
Legislative passage was thwarted in large part because prosecutors made the case that it was necessary to hold the threat of jail over the heads of these children as a way of coercing them to testify against pimps. In other words: If you don’t tell us who hurt you, little girl, we’re going to put you in jail.
It was an utterly specious case, filled to the bursting point with tragic implications and unworthy of a civilized society. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9961
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 11:11 am: |
|
Not intending to defend Johns. Though I generally support some limited legalization of prostitution, as long as it is illegal to exchange money for sex, those who are engaged in such should be subject to possible arrest and prosecution for engaging in prostitution. But what I question is how you can charge them with statutory rape given a John might not even know the age of the prostitute.
Perhaps if you can prove the John 'should' have known the girl's age (e.g., the child's body had not fully developed) OR it can be proven the John actively pursued minors, you could effectively assert statutory rape and/or child abuse or endangerment charges. But if the state does not have any those at its disposal, I doubt indictments of those sort will hold up in court. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9962
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 11:17 am: |
|
And another thing: What if there are no pimps in the picture? What if there are no adult directly involved in compeling or promoting minors prostituting themselves?
Do you still grant special consideration or "Safe Harbor" to them?
Because it seems to me if you still often leniency to them you've potentially opened up the possibility of having to grant similar considerations to teens who commit OTHER crimes (e.g., car theft) we generally are a lot LESS sympathetic of. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 65
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 12:20 pm: |
|
I think, pimp-or-no-pimp, if a child is being abused via paid sex but not of the age for consent, they should not be treated as criminals. They should be treated as the victims they are, and the difference between this and other crimes, like car theft, is that in the act of stealing a car, a child is not being victimized simultaneously.
The special consideration is not about age; it's about age of consent. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 66
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 12:22 pm: |
|
As for the johns, not knowing doesn't get them off (no pun intended). It's illegal to possess child pornography, whether you personally know the age of those pictured or not. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 72
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 08:16 pm: |
|
...And ABM, I know how you love proof, so:
http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm
The above would support what I stated about child porn and the illegality regardless of whether one knows the age of those photographed. In fact:
Section 2256 clearly defines images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct as "Child Pornography." It also, however, adds to that definition images that appear to depict a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and images or advertisements that suggest images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Does that mean that adult websites that display sexually explicit images of legal-age models in pigtails with a lollipop, while surrounded by stuffed animals, can be prosecuted under Child Pornography laws? The short answer is yes. Future prosecutions will determine which direction the law is going.
As for the johns claiming ignorance, it would seem that this would vary by state, depending on the age of consent (which varies by state), as implied by the following discussion about the prosecution of pimps in Arizona.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/arizonaschildren//articles/0316prosecutingpimps. html
Currently, Arizona law provides extremely harsh sentences for those individuals who pimp out young girls under the age of fifteen; in fact, it is one of the toughest sentencing schemes in the country for this age group. The State is not even required to prove that the pimp knew the victim was under the age of fifteen. However, when it comes to young girls between the ages of fifteen and seventeen years, the law seems to be more "pimp friendly". How is that possible you ask? It's possible when the law provides an absolute defense for pimps who claim ignorance of a victim's true age. As the law stands right now, it is a prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pimp "knew or had reason to know" that the victim was a minor. Often times, due to the dynamics of the prostitution culture, this is very hard for the prosecutor to prove. The answer to this problem: strict liability.
The Legislative Subcommittee has proposed that the above defense to child prostitution for this age bracket be repealed and that any individual who gets caught pimping out a victim under the age of eighteen be held accountable.
And as pimps go, so go the johns, I'd guess.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9963
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 10:00 pm: |
|
The argument you make of a child prostitute being both a victim and villain is persuasive. But I am still suspicious of laws that charge adults with being pedophiles when the adults might have no means of verifying the ages of someone they see in a movie or magazine.
Again, I accept pursuing someone who’s consumed media of involving people who are so OBVIOUSLY underdeveloped that it is highly unlikely that she-he would be of consenting age. But when such is much less certain, I think and hope some sort of reasonableness standard is applied.
What if it’s revealed that Playboy published and distributed pictures of 15 year old girls? Should all those who subscribe to Playboy be arrested and charged with soliciting and buying in Child pornography? |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 73
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 10:21 pm: |
|
But I am still suspicious of laws that charge adults with being pedophiles when the adults might have no means of verifying the ages of someone they see in a movie or magazine.
Agreed. And I think the reasonableness standard you call for should be applied to the Playboy hypothetical. However, my sympathy goes out of the window for guys like those who are described in the article--they don't necessarily set out to find a 12-year-old to have sex with, but they are intentionally looking for someone who doesn't look all used up and drugged out. Well, if it's that important to a John that his purchase look "fresh" (no matter that AIDS doesn't have a face) then: 1) he is knowingly taking the risk of committing the crime of having sex with a kid, and he needs to face the consequences; and 2) he always has the option of paying more for a call girl, someone who looks fresher but is more likely to be of legal age than someone walking the street. But if such a guy persists in getting laid on the cheap, then he gets what he deserves. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 74
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 10:26 pm: |
|
It's like me with speeding. I know it's wrong, I know it's illegal. And I really try not to do it when my kids are in the car.
Same with the john. He knows that paying for sex is illegal, but he's going to do it anyway. The least he can do is look out for the kids. And if that means paying more or dealing with a hooker that doesn't look like she's exactly new to the trade, then the conscientious john would be willing to do that. All the others--I suspect they don't care one way or the other. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 75
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 10:49 pm: |
|
I keep getting tangents in my head. :-)
I know people that wouldn't watch the alleged R. Kelly video because it might be child porn. And legit video stores wouldn't carry it for that same reason (even though Statutory R hasn't stood trial yet; and at this rate, he may never). I think johns should hold themselves to that kind of standard. If they do, and still manage to screw up, then the reasonableness standard you suggest (ABM) would kick in.
Sadly, I just don't think a lot of people--men or women--give much care to protecting children in these situations. Promiscuous young girls aren't universally viewed as victims, and I think it's cyclical problem. Sexual abuse breeds promiscuity. So while we may not see a girl in the act of promiscuity as a victim, we need to look into her past where she was likely undeniably victimized.
Adults routinely fail children in this way. A friend (who is a porn aficionado) tells the story of being in his favorite video store in ATL and having a black woman--in hair rollers no less--come in and ask, "Y'all got the R. Kelly video?" And she had the nerve to get mad when the clerk explained why they wouldn't stock it.
If we look at children this way, why are we surprised when they have no qualms about viewing themselves as adults' sexual equals way too soon? The initial failure is ours. |
Doberman23
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 09:33 pm: |
|
abm i agree with you it doesn't even have to be that deep (prostituion/porn mags) when i was stationed in ft. hood tx, there was this club that seemed to let any girl in or the girls must have had a good fake i.d.... but i know that 4 dudes ran a train on this chick who was 16, and they all got sent to the stockade (because she was this captains daughter mainly) ... now what the hell was she doing in the club? i don't think those guys should have spent one day in there because her little ass did everything possible to get caught up in a gang bang. at some point, dudes shouldn't get even a tiny slap on the wrist what so ever. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 09:41 am: |
|
Why do some of us excuse the behavior of men in these situations? Are men really so base and animalistic that they "just can't help themselves"? They see a young girl (and I've lived on Army bases--they knew exactly who she was and that she was 16) and shouldn't be punished for their behavior because she should have known better? The club owners/bouncers (likely male, I bet) shouldn't be punished for "letting any girl in"? (Again, Ft. Hood is not such a big place that they wouldn't know what was up.)
Lord help those of us with daughters... |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 09:45 am: |
|
What if there are no pimps in the picture? What if there are no adult directly involved in compeling or promoting minors prostituting themselves?
ABM. let me ask you this: What kinds of circumstances do you imagine result in an underage girl or boy becoming and being a prostitute? Should we presume they are doing so of their own free will, with no constraints or extenuating circumstances? Say, they sat down deciding between a part time gig at Micky D's or prostitution and decided in favor of prostitution?
|
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 81
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 09:49 am: |
|
Yvette, this is exactly what I'm talking about: The initial failure is ours. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2708
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 10:55 am: |
|
FK, have you seen this? http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/27/sex-and-youth-why-we-need-community-focus ed-messaging/ |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 82
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 11:29 am: |
|
Yvette, I had heard about the ads, but thanks for the head's up on the Racialicious series. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11706
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 03:17 pm: |
|
Men do tend to think that young girls bring it on themselves when they are taken advantage of. Good judgment goes out the window and raw male animalism takes over at the thought of a "quick hit"!
And, of course, if an older woman molests a younger boy, as in the cases of teachers seducing students, men consider these young male victims lucky!
It would seem that the penis is mightier than the brain! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9966
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 01:48 am: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
I'd agree that sexual abuse is often at the source of promiscuity amongst children. But what were talking about here is when and why an adult should be charged with and convict of committing statutory rape.
Note a segment of one of your posts: "As the law stands right now, it is a prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pimp "knew or had reason to know" that the victim was a minor. Often times, due to the dynamics of the prostitution culture, this is very hard for the prosecutor to prove."
Why would the law pursue and prosecute Johns for statutory rape when it hesitates to do the same to the very people who are SELLING the sexing of of those children?
Ferociouskitty: "Well, if it's that important to a John that his purchase look "fresh" (no matter that AIDS doesn't have a face) then: 1) he is knowingly taking the risk of committing the crime of having sex with a kid, and he needs to face the consequences; and 2) he always has the option of paying more for a call girl, someone who looks fresher but is more likely to be of legal age than someone walking the street."
So because because a John would prefers a hooker to look (and, I guess, feel) somewhat healthy, he must know or intend to be paying to have sex with children?
WTF?
Upon what valid authority or basis that can be effectively used as asserting the child molesting intent of a John in a court of law do you presume call girls are less likely than streetwalkers to be minors?
I mean, I'm for protecting children. And I agree that when it is clear that a man (or, btw, woman) has actively, willfully pursed and had sex with children, he (or she) should be charged as such.
But I think the threshold for charging and convicting a man of statutory rape MUST be higher than what you appear to assert. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9967
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 02:01 am: |
|
Dobes,
What you describe makes you wonder whether a man should "card" every chick he lays wood to for fear of being nabbed by the dyck police.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
But, seriously, I can see how her being in a BAR - one that, presumably, "cards" its patrons - might make her appear to be of age.
The only caveat I'd add is that I STILL think that if they had reason to think she might not be of consenting age and they made no extra effort to prove she was an adult they willfully engaged in statutory rape and should be pursed and charged as such.
I mean, if chick was bragging about what she was going to wear to the prom while they were headed to the fuhk motel, those mofos SHOULD have known the kind of TROUBLE they were about to be getting her and themselves into. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9969
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 02:41 am: |
|
Yvettep,
I agree if an adult knew or should have known a person with whom he or she engages is a minor that adu;t should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
And while I've done no study or even meaningful reading of the subject of underage hookers, I am sure, as you and Ferociouskitty to assert, that MANY of them had at some point being sexually abused. (Though, I am sure MANY child prostitutes are runaways, drug abusers and/or they have other mental and emotional issues that are not necessarily sexual in origin.)
Again, my issue here is what should be the basis of arresting, trying and convicting a person of statutory rape, especially where there may be no basis of the accused knowing or even thinking the female, be she a teenage hooker or barhoopin' skeezer, is underage.
If by law and custom we were all required to present valid identification and proof of our age prior to engaging sex, we might have a more solid basis for asserting statutory rape charges within the circumstances presented by Ferociouskitty. But that is NOT what we, as a society and culture, have required of each other.
PS: I have a cousin who used to be a pimp. One of the chicks in his stable was this young Blond White chick who claimed she started hooking as a form of rebellion against her hardcore bible-thumpin' pastor father. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 91
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 09:23 am: |
|
I'd agree that sexual abuse is often at the source of promiscuity amongst children. But what were talking about here is when and why an adult should be charged with and convict of committing statutory rape.
Actually, I was talking about both.
Why would the law pursue and prosecute Johns for statutory rape when it hesitates to do the same to the very people who are SELLING the sexing of of those children?
Because the johns are the ones actually having sex with the children. I don't believe it should be an either/or issue.
So because because a John would prefers a hooker to look (and, I guess, feel) somewhat healthy, he must know or intend to be paying to have sex with children?
I didn't say that. I said that he should know that he runs that risk, and if he pursues, he's accepting that risk and what may come with it.
Upon what valid authority or basis that can be effectively used as asserting the child molesting intent of a John in a court of law do you presume call girls are less likely than streetwalkers to be minors?
Because many (and if you want to challenge "many" or any of what I put forth her, you can find your own proof ;-))--many child prostitutes start out as runaways, and they aren't being gathered up en masse and taken into call girl rings. They remain on the streets.
Also, call girls are considered to be among the hooker "elite", tend to be better educated, and have far more decision-making power over who they sleep with. Children, by contrast, wield no power, and their powerless is in part what makes them so "attractive."
Finally, escort services that employ call girls sometimes go as far as running criminal background checks on their women and eschew drug users, so why would they run the risk of employing children when they are trying to present the creme de la creme of women to their usually well-to-do clients?
(Aside: I have a friend that paid $600 for a threesome that left a lot to be desired. Too bad he can't report that to the BBB or get a refund, LOL!!!)
Of course there are elite services which cater to pedophiles, but that's not the majority.
But I think the threshold for charging and convicting a man of statutory rape MUST be higher than what you appear to assert
Well, reasonable people disagree. There's a reason that the age of consent and prosecution of statutory rape varies widely across different states.
|
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2715
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 09:46 am: |
|
Well, reasonable people disagree.
I suppose. But why is there concern at all for protecting grown men who are engaging in crimes? Why should the primary concern ever be with protecting their rights? Since when is "running a train" on a woman in a bar acceptable adult sexual behavior--even when all involved are adults? Why in this situation are we concerned that the men have been duped? And are most men really so easily fooled that they cannot tell a 16 year old from a 22 year old once she begins having a conversation with him?
I am sure MANY child prostitutes are runaways, drug abusers and/or they have other mental and emotional issues that are not necessarily sexual in origin.
I agree. And this would all go against the idea that these teens/young men and women are having sex for pay as a matter of free will and rational decision making.
I encourage folks to check out that series of posts on that blog I mentioned earlier--including the comments. I think many folks would be surprised how often this kind of thing happens. And not necessarily with girls who are "tarted up," hanging out in bars or something. |
Ferociouskitty
Regular Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 93
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 11:05 am: |
|
Well, reasonable people disagree.
I suppose. But why is there concern at all for protecting grown men who are engaging in crimes? Why should the primary concern ever be with protecting their rights?
Well, I can only speak to the varying statutory rape laws/ages of consent across states. A man's legal actions in one state, may be a crime in a different state. So no one is protecting a criminal if in a given state the sex is deemed consensual and legal. That's what I was referring to, certainly not giving johns a pass because they mistook a child for a woman.
Looking back at ABM's statement, I do need to qualify my "reasonable people disagree" because I don't extend that to mean that the john has to be willfully looking for children in order to be prosecuted for statutory rape. He knows the risks, so that's on him.
Interesting (and disturbing) that some folks make the argument, privately and legally, "She [underage girl] should have known/she should have known better/she was asking for it/she was acting grown/like an adult...."--and yet johns don't have to know better. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11723
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 12:53 pm: |
|
I'm curious. Is the penalty for statuatory rape the same as for rape? Are extenuating circumstances taken into consideration by the court when punishment for statuatory rape is meted out. There has to be a reason that a distinction is made between rape and statuatory rape. |
Ferociouskitty
Veteran Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 101
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 01:16 pm: |
|
I *think* the difference is that with statutory rape, both parties could claim that the sex was consensual but that doesn't matter if one of the parties is younger than the established age of consent.
As for differences in punishment, I would guess so, given the indisputable coercion factor in non-statutory rape cases. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9974
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 02:17 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Ferociouskitty: "Because the johns are the ones actually having sex with the children. I don't believe it should be an either/or issue.
That doesn't make sense. The pimp is much more likely to know part of his 'stable' is underage than would some fool John.
We have conspiracy, RICO laws, etc. to nab those who created or enabled an environment of wrongdoing. If having sex with a 15 year old is illegal, those who facilitated that act should be similarly charged.
At the very least, the pimp would be guilty of some form of child endangerment or conspiracy to commit or elicit statutory rape.
The law is not equivocating on the pimp not having had sex with the child. Its equivocating for the SAME reason that I've explained: Questions of whether or not the adults involved - pimp or john - knew or should have known the age of the child.
Ferociouskitty: "I didn't say that. I said that he should know that he runs that risk, and if he pursues, he's accepting that risk and what may come with it.
To an extent, I agree. The risk you refer to should include the possibility of his being arrested and charged with solicitation of prositition. But, again, unless there compelling support that he knew or should have known the hooker was underage, THAT is as far as this should go.
Ferociouskitty: "...call girls are considered to be among the hooker "elite", tend to be better educated, and have far more decision-making power over who they sleep with. Children, by contrast, wield no power, and their powerless is in part what makes them so "attractive..."
Thanks for providing some very interesting information. But I still can't see what you've provided being used as some valid basis of effectively asserting (especially in court) a john should have known his streetwalking hooker was 15 years old.
Ferociouskitty: "Well, reasonable people disagree. There's a reason that the age of consent and prosecution of statutory rape varies widely across different states.
Indeed. And that right there helps makes this a more complicated issue than you and Yvettep appear to assert.
Ferociouskitty: "Interesting (and disturbing) that some folks make the argument, privately and legally, "She [underage girl] should have known/she should have known better/she was asking for it/she was acting grown/like an adult...."
It depends on the extent to which the child caused or perpetrated the deception. For example, what if the girl in the bar showed the men what appeared to be valid driver's license or state ID card (which might have explain how she got in the bar to begin with) that asserted her being of consenting age PRIOR to their having sex?
Would you STILL charge the men with statutory rape? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9976
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 02:33 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
Yvettep: "I suppose. But why is there concern at all for protecting grown men who are engaging in crimes? Why should the primary concern ever be with protecting their rights? Since when is "running a train" on a woman in a bar acceptable adult sexual behavior--even when all involved are adults?"
I'm not defending the men. But there's a difference between what may or may not be respectable and what may or may not be legal.
You and I might (somewhat) agree that it's despicable for several men to simultaneously have sex with only one woman. But we part company if you believe the men should be charged with a crime when the ADULT woman CONSENTED to what went down.
Yvettep: "And are most men really so easily fooled that they cannot tell a 16 year old from a 22 year old once she begins having a conversation with him?"
Fair question. Though it's often been my experience that you may be giving the 22 year old too much credit here.
Yvettep: "I agree. And this would all go against the idea that these teens/young men and women are having sex for pay as a matter of free will and rational decision making."
Well. We can debate what constitutes and comes of a teenagers "free will" here. I mean, if those SAME drug abusing teens are caught by the cops with a stash of coke on their person the law could still see fit to arrest and possible charge/convict them of a crime.
But my point was that not all those prostitute themselves have been sexually abused. Yes. I'm sure LOTS of them have been. But not all. |
Ferociouskitty
Veteran Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 105
Registered: 02-2008
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 02:55 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty: "Because the johns are the ones actually having sex with the children. I don't believe it should be an either/or issue.
That doesn't make sense. The pimp is much more likely to know part of his 'stable' is underage than would some fool John.
You asked, originally, why the law would prosecute the johns when they hesitate to prosecute the pimps. I don't believe the law should hesitate to prosecute either. Selling or buying, they should be prosecuted. In no way do I believe pimps should get treated lightly.
The law is not equivocating on the pimp not having had sex with the child. Its equivocating for the SAME reason that I've explained: Questions of whether or not the adults involved - pimp or john - knew or should have known the age of the child.
In my opinion, I don't hold them to different standards.
Thanks for providing some very interesting information. But I still can't see what you've provided being used as some valid basis of effectively asserting (especially in court) a john should have known his streetwalking hooker was 15 years old.
Let me re-read your question:
Upon what valid authority or basis that can be effectively used as asserting the child molesting intent of a John in a court of law do you presume call girls are less likely than streetwalkers to be minors?
I did not address the underlined part because I'm not a court of law, so I can't say whether the information I provided would be effective or not. All I can do is answer your query as to why call girls are less likely than streetwalkers to be minors.
As far as courts of law go, according to the Arizona article I posted, the matter appears to comes down to whether or not a judge or state Supreme Court will apply strict liability (not knowing the child's age is no excuse). Some will, some won't. If the case was held before me as a judge, I would follow the strict liability principle.
Indeed. And that right there helps makes this a more complicated issue than you and Yvettep appear to assert.
Just because an issue is complicated doesn't mean that one can't take a firm position. Abortion comes to mind. When this complicated issue (chid prostitution when the john claims he did not know the child was a child) comes before a judge, he or she will have to adjudicate regardless of the two arguments put forth.
And much of the complication is resolved when states set their age of consent laws. In doing so, the state is saying, essentially, how mature a child looks or acts doesn't matter. If it did, we would not have established ages of consent.
If the state decides that the age is 16, and you accidently sleep with a 14 y.o. hooker, then that's your ass if you are in a state that follows strict liability. The law is clear.
So, if it's that important to somehow that they get a fresh-faced adult hooker, they should go to one of the states where the age of consent is the lowest in the nation, 14, which would lower their "risk" considerably. Or go to a state that doesn't prosecute based on strict liability.
It depends on the extent to which the child caused or perpetrated the deception. For example, what if the girl in the bar showed the men what appeared to be valid driver's license or state ID card (which might have explain how she got in the bar to begin with) that asserted her being of consenting age PRIOR to their having sex?
We don't generally hold children to the same legal standards as adults. There are exceptions, but if I were a judge or a lawmaker, this wouldn't be one.
Many men make it through life without accidentally sleeping with a child. It's really not that difficult.
Any of us, male or female, who sleep with strangers for pay or for free, are taking risks. And all of us have to live with the consequences of those actions. To the extent that any of the parties are younger than the age of consent, the law offers protections that are not afforded adults. Oh, well. They are kids. We are grown-ups.
Johns, or anyone who doesn't think that's fair, should advocate to change the laws. If not, when they get arrested, they are taking a chance with their freedom that they can somehow overturn a law. Not a gamble I would be willing to take.
Would you STILL charge the men with statutory rape?
Yep. They broke the law.
Do I think statutory rape laws need to be changed? No. For johns, they are already committing a crime, and in doing so, knowingly putting themselves in a position to be charged with additional crimes. If the hooker stashes some coke in his pants pockets while they are around his ankles, he's going to have a helluva time beating a possession charge with the "I didn't know" defense.
If you steal a car, you may not have intended to mow down a crowd of people in the process, but if you do, you are now going to be charged with two crimes.
In the case where no money changes hands, all involved run the risk, all the risks, that comes with sleeping with someone you really don't know.
Life is hard. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11736
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 06:24 pm: |
|
Seems like the statutory rape charge is a measure to help protect underage children from - themselves. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9978
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 07:30 pm: |
|
Ferociouskitty,
Then we agree that if the john is charged with statutory rape the pimp should be similarly charged. Now, going back to my point: If the law is uncertain of charging a pimp, who, presumeably is more likely to know the child's true age than a fool john she might spend all of 10 minutes with, how does the law rationalize doing the john what it won't do to the pimp?
I can't help laughing at your concept of a fresh-faced hooker. Because it presuppose that every adult streetwalker has been worn down by toiling alleys and corners for some extended time period.
And in the example I cited I was referring to the guys who pulled the train of the willing 16 year old. Those guys were not, based on what Dobes described, johns. So most of your response does not really apply there.
Perhaps you, as a judge, would exert you discretion to impose strict liability. But were I your fellow jurist on that high court, I'd likely choose otherwise.
I don't see the merit or social value in ruining a man's life via labeling him a child molester - requiring him to be nationally listed and reported as a child sex offender - because while drunk he paid to cop a 5-minute blowjob from some chick without first asking to see a certified copy of her birth certificate.
But I think I have said enough here. I think we both have fully explained why we're not likely to agree. |
Ferociouskitty
Veteran Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 107
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 08:45 pm: |
|
I can't help laughing at your concept of a fresh-faced hooker. Because it presuppose that every adult streetwalker has been worn down by toiling alleys and corners for some extended time period.
I'm not presuming anything. I'm referring to what the article stated: Some johns don't go looking for 12 y.o.'s, but they do go looking for hookers who don't look like they've been hooking since Hector was a pup. ;-) That's the only reason I said "fresh-faced."
And in the example I cited I was referring to the guys who pulled the train of the willing 16 year old. Those guys were not, based on what Dobes described, johns. So most of your response does not really apply there.
I did address the non-paid sex scenario...In the case where no money changes hands, all involved run the risk, all the risks, that comes with sleeping with someone you really don't know. ...and the only difference is that the guy wouldn't also be charged with soliciting. If she's underaged, willing or not, according to the law, it's statutory rape.
But I think I have said enough here. I think we both have fully explained why we're not likely to agree.
Let the church say... |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2724
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Amen. |
|
Email This Page