Give me a name
Posted by Marc Hodak on March 10, 2008 under Scandal | 
3 Comments to Read
So, Eliot Spitzer has had to publicly apologize for having sex with someone who wasn’t his wife. For money, that is. The pandemonium has begun, because everyone knows that sex-money-politics is the very best headline-grabbing mix.
Like most places, johns are rarely prosecuted in New York, according to Michael Bachner, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office:
To the extent Mr. Spitzer is charged it would likely be under the Mann Act, which prohibits transportation of people across state lines with the intent to commit prostitution.But “the Mann Act really was designed more towards those who get someone to travel against their will,” Mr. Bachner said. “If Spitzer gets indicted, it would seem to me he would be indicted based on who he is rather than what he’s done.
Oh noes. We wouldn’t want to selectively prosecute someone just for who he is rather than what he’s done. Why, that would be so unfair, so political. Mr. Bachner goes on to say:
Those who frequent prostitutes are very, very rarely the subjects of a federal prosecution when clearly it’s commercial and consensual.”
Why, that would be like seeking criminal sanctions for what are generally treated as civil cases.
As for possible state charges, he said “customers are rarely prosecuted in the state” and charges that are brought are typically disposed of with a plea to disorderly conduct, “which is akin to a traffic ticket,”
I, for one, would like to go on the record opposing the politicization of the state’s attorney’s office by hounding Mr. Spitzer in any such fashion. I think that would be a dangerous road to travel. It would create a power subject to horrible abuse.
Here is what I’d like to see instead.
I think the Federal attorney in the New York’s Southern district should take Mr. Spitzer into one of those nice little rooms where they interrogate people in expensive suits, and demand a name. He could say something like, “We ordinarily wouldn’t prosecute anyone under the Mann Act for such an offense. The Mann Act wasn’t even written for people like you; it was written in 1910 to combat a white slavery epidemic that never actually existed, and has been used since for headline-grabbing prosecutions of celebrities.
“Unfortunately, the penalty for being convicted of a crime under the Mann Act is…well, no point discussing all these things you already know, so let’s cut to the chase. All you have to do, Eliot, to make this go away is give me a name. Tell me someone who you know also indulged in this kind of escapade, someone the reporters haven’t fingered yet. Just one name, and all this talk of prosecution will vanish. Come on, Eliot. You know I’m on your side. It kills me to see you like this. I would be thrilled to let you cop a plea for something minor, a nothing little offense that carries almost no jail time, with a fine of a mere couple million dollars, and then you can go on with your life. You could be with your wife and kids. You could continue trying to govern the state. (Wink. Wink.) So, wadda ya say?”
Kat said,
Marc,
That’s a terrible solution and it won’t depoliticize the AG’s office. It’s already politicized as it’s an elected office.
I don’t think prostitution should be illegal and I’m not sure how crossing state lines makes anything better or worse. However, the Mann Act is the law and Spitzer would have sought a life sentence for anyone who violated it if he had been the prosecuting attorney. Stringing up Spitzer by his…(I will restrain myself here)…will serve as a good lesson for the next abusive crusader-to-be stepping into the NYAG office. Crusader. Can there be a more appropriate adjective for a man who destroyed everything in his path?
M. Hodak said,
Actually, I didn’t intend for my “wadda ya say?” solution to be taken seriously.
Your point about “Crusader” is well taken. I have often been puzzled by the fact that the West hears “crusader” with a very positive connotation. Muslims hear it with a very negative connotation. (I think they spit when they say it), and I must say I’m with the Muslims on this one. A crusader, to my mind, is bloody moralist going (far) out of his way to initiate unprovoked attacks on people based on their heretical believes or lifestyles, without any concern for the costs to their own society, let alone the community of those they hate.
Kat said,
I thought your “solution” was a bit out of character.
The Muslims spit when they say “crusades” because they see themselves as the only victims of the crusades and because there’s a general belief that Muslims are superior to all – sort of Nazi, “arian race” style.
I’m sure you know that the crusaders destroyed everything in their path – Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Muslim. Their stated goals and their actions were unrelated. They were just general looters and destroyers. Spitzer mowed down everything in his path and his stated goals and actions have always been unrelated – just like a crusader. That’s why I like the term for him.