Okay, so this Zumba instructor who was working as a prostitute in the back and secretly filming the encounters... A list of twenty-one of the male clients has been made public. Some people are upset by this because of how it might hurt the families, So my question is, do you have an opinion on this? Should all charges be made public? I know at least around here, every ill-timed fart is published in the newspapers, so this information would be as well.
I personally don't think publishing the list of names is necessary. In an area like you've described the names would get around anyway. As long as everyone is punished properly for their involvement, I see no reason for it.
I think the families deserve to know. ''Hurt the families'' psssh! Those cheating husbands hurt their own families! It's a shame it has to go in the paper, but since she got in trouble for prostituting, they should get in trouble for buying protitution.
The familes may deserve to know. They don't deserve to have their family humiliated and talked about in the community because of publication in the paper.
As they say, actions done immorally in the dark will eventually come to the light (or something similar to that). I completely agree that those in the wrong need to be humiliated and for those innocent individuals who are connected to these unscrupulous people, I guess that's the unfortunate reality of life. Let's say I was married & my husband was involved in some kind of prostituation ring, for example. I'd want him to be humiliated. the SOB deservesit! I'd just get divorced & away from him as quickly as possible!
This is Portland. Unless there were underage (or prominent) people involved on either side of the equation, I can't imagine our Police Department spending a lot of time or money on this.
While I'm not convinced that prostitution should be a crime, I do think that "johns" should be outed, just as the prostitutes (always) are. But then again, if paying for sex wasn't a crime, then it wouldn't matter.
At my age and disability they could "out me" anytime I'd call it a badge of ........ er ..... dang .... , what was I saying? All kidding a side there are two tacks that can be taken: one the johns are breaking the law they should face the music Two If the John is savable (having a rude awakening that sets him on the straight and narrow) he should be "spanked" and sent home and told never to do it again! Make it a deep dark secret! Let his conscience punish him.......!!!!!!!!! BUT men who do this are lower than a dog and that is a insult to dogs
They should be punished, and their families need to know, but publicly humiliate them? I don't care how those men feel, but what about their families? their kids would go to school the next day and get picked on because daddy is a moron? I don't think that's the answer.
Publcly humiliating people in a victimless crime is preposterous. I know a guy who got busted in a soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom scheme. They published all the guys faces on the front page of the local paper. It's not right. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Those men and that woman broke the law. Their spousess and kids and parents and siblings did not. I cannot imagine being the 12 or 13 year old kid, having to face my middle school friends, knowing they had seen my mom or dad's photo in the paper after facing such charges.
I think they should be outed publicly just because it seems like all criminals in that area are outed. I think the big problem is that the newspaper is not allowed to print their ages and addresses so people with the same name as the "Johns" have been having to explain to their families that they did not participate in the Zumbatiution (thanks for the new term Irishdave, lol).
I agree that publicly humiliating them is unnecessary because the damage to the kids is heartbreaking. I personally don't think prostitution should be illegal. Victimless crime.
It has happened NUMEROUS times during my teaching career that a student's parent was not just in the police logs in our paper, but on the front page. I am sure the children were heartbroken, humilated, hurt, and devastated. Should all crimes no longer be reported?
It's not printed in my city but I guess if people are still committed crimes even though they know it will be in the newspaper shows it is not a deterrent.
I don't think it's meant to be a deterrent. I always thought it was to keep citizens informed about the crimes happening in their communities so they could make decisions accordingly.
We get weekly updates on crimes in each area of the city; such as, car break-ins, business break-ins, home break-ins, etc... People who have warrants do get to be in the newspaper though, but they only choose 3 a day.
The issue of whether prostitution should be legal/illegal is a separate discussion. As it stands, prostitution is illegal in most places, and the guys who paid for sex knew or should have known that. I don't see a problem with their names getting published in the paper. I assume that the paper also publishes other arrests, like DUIs, domestic violence, theft, etc. Those things would all be embarrassing to kids whose parents were arrested for those things. I guess I feel like if the parent doesn't want family members feeling embarrassed, then he shouldn't do anything that will get his name in the paper.
I think if your town publishes other crimes in the local paper then this should be no different. They really should have thought about their families before they acted like idiots.
True. But the choices of a bad parent shouldn't mean that the kids get punished. And you KNOW they would. I just don't see any purpose in doing it. It's not that knowing such information keeps me or my kids safer. There's no reason I need to know such information, other than to keep the neighborhood gossips happy. And it does hurt the spouse and the kids, who have committed no crimes. I think we can agree that the people who make such choices probably aren't thinking about the best interests of their families anyway. I just don't see what the point is. Why is this information I need to know?
We should keep in mind that so far, these people are just accused of a crime, not convicted of one. Suppose a name of someone who was innocent had mistakenly been put on the list? There's a legitimate business attached, so it's not that far-fetched. And if that's the case, you're effectively punishing them without a hearing ( because the offense is minor, the real punishment is the public outing).
What about the johns that are single? Should they be humiliated as well? I agree, Caesar. If you don't want to embarrass your family or loved ones, then you shouldn't do anything that might get your name printed in the paper. I also agree that, if the paper publishes other arrests, they should publish this one as well. Our local paper publishes the Sheriff's Arrest Report every week, regardless of the charges. Those are good points, Alice. I would imagine the editors of the paper feel they are providing a community service. Since arrest records are public information, some papers (especially in smaller, rural towns, may feel it is part of their duty or responsibility to report the information. Arrests are news. We see them on the news and read them in the paper all the time. The more "sensational" arrests often warrant a story of their own in the paper. By publishing the arrest records, the paper is also informing the public about the less "sensational" arrests that occurred during the past week or month. It does also provide fodder for gossips, but they would likely get that information somehow anyway and the paper at least publishes the facts, rather than rumors or hearsay. I suppose if some readers feel they don't need to know the information, they can just skip that section. I rarely ever read the arrest report in my local paper. This is another excellent point, 3Sons. We need to remember all of these men are considered innocent until proven guilty and that many of them have the same name as other men in the area. It would be very easy to falsely accuse (or humiliate) the wrong person in a case like this if someone else with the same name (and similar age) also attended Zuma classes there.
I beg to differ with you. First of all, the issue of legality is a separate discussion, but it also is related (to the discussion) too. Because the law says it, doesn't make it wrong. Would you (not you literally) like it if they put your face on the newspaper anytime you have had sex? Of course not. If you think about it, the only difference (between that and prostitution) is the exchange of currency. The second issue is that those things you chose to cite (DUIs, domestic violence, theft) are crimes with victims. Prostitution (in/of itself) has no victim. It is between consenting adults.
I have to challenge the assertion that prostitution is a victimless crime. Many women ( and young girls) are forced into prostitution. They don't have a choice in the matter. Others are addicted to drugs and resort to prostitution for drugs or money to buy drugs. So I feel many prostitutes are[\i] victims of their profession for different reasons.
The difference is that I'm not breaking any laws by getting it on with my hoosband. The fact is that whether you agree with it or not, prostitution is illegal in most places. There are many crimes that some people consider to be "victimless", like loitering and not wearing seatbelts. Victimless crime or not, people who are found to be doing those things will still get cited, arrested, and/or reported in the paper. I don't see how prostitution is any different. Is it? I agree with Cerek on this one. Most prostitutes aren't prostitutes because they love the lifestyle. Most of them do it because they are coerced, addicted to drugs, and/or trafficked. Prostitution isn't a victimless crime, and my argument is that the prostitutes themselves are most often the victims.
My point (admittedly maybe not a very good example) is that you wouldn't want to be in the paper for having sex (even if it is with your husband). It would be embarrassing, both personally and professionally. Why criminalize someone any more than they already are, when they didn't harm anybody? You seem to want to affix a modern day Scarlet Letter on folks who's moral standards may not measure up to yours. Bear in mind, I'm not arguing against the practice of publishing other crimes (violence, theft... I'm not crazy about it necessarily either.) But in terms of "crimes" that don't directly harm others, it seems extremely punitive to publicly embarrass them too.
I have a good friend that would strongly disagree over whether sex within the confines of marriage or a relationship does not involve the exchange of currency. His divorce ran him in the low seven-figures. After this especially bitter, protracted battle, his love life could best be described as the "pay as you go" variety. In his own words, "I didn't pay her $XXX to spend the night, I paid her to leave in the morning." I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily agree with his point of view, but I certainly understand it.
Dude. You're reading far, far, far too much into my responses. I'm about as far away from a Scarlet Letter mentality as a person can get. This issue isn't about morality; it's about legality. I don't give a hoot who has sex with whom or under what circumstances the arrangement occurred. My point is that prostitution IS already on the books as a crime. If you want to change that, then change it. Then I'll be all for not publishing the names of people who solicited or offered sex in exchange for money. Until that time, however, it should be treated like any other crime. And for the record, I could give a rat's patoot about whether I appear in the paper for getting it on within the confines of the law.
There is a HUGE, HUGE !! difference between having sex with a husband / boyfriend / someone in the same committed relationship, and having sex with a stranger for money, who does the same thing with others all the time. It is wrong morally, and it is a crime. I don't see how the 2 can be compared.
I agree. It would be of great information for me to know that there is a rapist, killer or burglar in my neighborhood. I need to know that so that I can be more careful. As far as a guy having sex with a pro, it doesn't really concern me, because our paths will never cross.
I said it wasn't a good example. The point was in relating the nature of a "crime" that involves sex (consentual in this case), and its embarrassment level to the so-called perpetrator. Caesar, You know it would be embarrassing on some level to publish your sex life. That's my point. There is a distinction between certain crimes and those of a sexual nature. There is an additional distinction (line) where the crime in question doesn't involve harming another individual. The issue IS morality. Of course it's LEGAL for the newspaper to publish the people (I'm assuming that is what you mean by it being a legal issue). By saying you have no problem with all these people being publicly named in the paper, you are speaking from your own moral POV.
There is a big debate over whether it is a victimless crime or not. When you add in; the white slavery, the illegal drugs, the spread of STDs, and the affect it has on marriages. Together It is hardly a victimless crime, True if a man pays a woman for sex and none of above happen I guess it might be somewhat victimless.
They publish all mugshots on our local newspaper's website. Well, everyone who's being charged as an adult.
In my opinion: No one should have their name or face plastered all over town for being accused of a crime - any crime. Everyone's identity should be protected (exactly as we protect a child's identity) unless and until there is a conviction. Then they can release all the gory little details. The police can notify the families without having the media notify the public. For those that think the papers want to publish the names only to keep the community informed, it's time to wake up. Smut sells, and that's the one and only reason for publishing these names ... the gossip value. Prostitution in and of itself is a victimless crime. Passing on STDs is not a crime, and if it were it still would be without prostitution. Likewise abusing or victimizing young girls. Did I miss anything?
No. The "legality" of the issue is the fact that prostitution is currently illegal, the same as smoking pot is illegal (which many others consider to be a "victimless crime"). Whether someone agrees with the law or not is rather moot. Right now, it IS against the law, so engaging in the activity IS a crime. My local paper is one that does publish the arresting report every week. They report all the arrests and the charges filed. They show no discrimination in the type of charge nor the person being charged. If papers published all the arrests, except prostitution, there could be claims of "favoritism" towards those that might have been caught soliciting the prostitute. It has nothing to do with different values of morality; if a person commits ANY crime and is arrested for that crime, their name goes in the local paper. If a person does NOT want their name in the paper, then all they have to do is NOT commit a crime. Pretty simple solution when you think about it.
No, they have to not be ACCUSED of committing a crime. In this country, the two are not the same thing. "Arrested" does not imply guilt.
