Secrets of the City

If you’re in a position where you either need to be a prostitute or a john, I’d say you already have a pretty rough lot. Let’s be honest: there are guys out there who can’t get it any other way. Leave them alone.

Regulate it. Tax it. Just like pot should be. Why, why is this complicated?

This isn’t a debate on legalization, but on humiliation.

I certainly can’t see putting a picture up on a billboard until someone has been convicted. But even then, what does it accomplish?

The person is already in the process of being punished. Spouses or girlfriends or his Momma have already found out. At that point the guy is trying to repair the damage he’s done to all these people’s lives. I don’t know what purpose the billboard thing serves, but I can speculate on the motives behind it.

Disgusting.

Why don’t we just skip this step and go right to public stoning?

It seems it is a lot like we treat other sex offenders, so why not? I mean, what is the difference between this and having to register as a sex offender and let everyone in the neighborhood know everytime you move.

Since everytime sex offender registration gets brought up on MNSpeak everyone is all for it I assume everyone will be all for this too.

(I’m against this and sex offender registration/civil committment).

Well, I suppose that’s true, but by being for the legalization I’m opposed to the humiliation, obviously. I think there’s a pretty significant connection between prostitution’s illegal status and the strange methods by which it is punished; those methods make it all the more obvious to me that this is vestigial Puritanism and not a law that helps anyone.

I’m in 100% agreement with jeffk. there’s a HUGE difference between sex offenders and johns. sex offenders have harmed victims, johns have made an arrangement with another consenting adult.

The Minneapolis police want to make their jobs simpler? Tough shit. Also, the whole blaming-it-on-the-suburbs meme is so played out. The city doesn’t seem to mind taking suburban money through every other orifice.

I’m in 100% agreement with jeffk. there’s a HUGE difference between sex offenders and johns. sex offenders have harmed victims, johns have made an arrangement with another consenting adult.

The Minneapolis police want to make their jobs simpler? Tough shit. Also, the whole blaming-it-on-the-suburbs meme is so played out. The city doesn’t seem to mind taking suburban money through every other orifice.

It seems it is a lot like we treat other sex offenders, so why not?

because the 2 crimes are not remotely similar.

I wouldn’t say a prostitute is a consenting adult. If prostitution were legal (which I’m all for) and pimps and drugs didn’t play such a huge role, that would be another story. But as it is, those women are basically slaves. All there money is turned over to their pimps who pay for their basic needs, including their drug habits.

My point is that MNSpeakers are all about weird ass punishments for sex offenders which violate civil liberties and are based in shame, but not for Johns, who also commit a sex crime, but one that isn’t seen as so bad.

Oh and having sex with someone under 18 is a sex crime if it is done consensually. Unless that person is a prostitute, then it is just a crime.

Who sex said is the only thing you can’t pay for but can give away for free?

(saying that our sex offender laws are screwed up and are based on fear more than reality)

I am not sure how I feel about the issue yet.

“Let’s be honest: there are guys out there who can’t get it any other way.”

I bet you’d be surprised at who is actually getting arrested for this. They are not all social misfits. A signifigant number of them are married, and could get it another way. Maybe just not the way they like it?

“I certainly can’t see putting a picture up on a billboard until someone has been convicted. But even then, what does it accomplish?”

Arrests are public information too. But I think it is nothing more than a deterrent strategy they are pushing. A John may see another’s face on the billboard and think…maybe I shouldn’t be doing this anymore.

KC, you are against sex offender registration? Why?
What is it that you feel is unfair?

I wouldn’t say that every transaction with a john is consensual. Some prostitutes are forced into the business, others aren’t competent enough to give real consent due to substance/mental issues.

That said, I don’t really support the idea, or really any special treatment for certain societal affinities. Missing kids get AMBER alerts. Pedophiles would be lucky to just be outcasts. Breast cancer “awareness” gets massive amounts of attention. In my mind, these are all important causes, but none of them should take precedence over the myriad of other crimes and diseases unless they can be singled out and eradicated.

You can call it a deterrent strategy, but it has a different whiff to me. You’ve thrown the guy’s family and children, wives, girlfriends into a very public humiliation.

I’m against sex offender notification for a variety of reasons:
1) We only do it for sex offenders. Are gang members and drug dealers also not likely to reoffend? How about murderers? I’d say murder is worse than a lot of sex crimes. People deserve a right to privacy.

2) These people have served their sentence. We have sentence guidelines. If society feels these guidelines do not line up with the severity of the crime, they should be changed. But once someone has served their time, they should be free.

3) Rehabilition is possible. Yet by making lifelong notification and registry mandatory we make it seem like this is not the case.

4)Registry and notification leads to unfair punishment. People on these lists are harrassed and threatened by neighbors, are unable to find housing and employment, and are not given a fair chance to reintigrate into society. Some states make it impossible for sex offenders to find housing by placing incredible limits on where they are allowed to live. All this does is force the offenders into hiding and/or homelessness.

Champs, It is believed that only 2% of all prostitutes aren’t forced into prostitutions either physically or due to other life circumstance. A full 60% are actual slaves.

When asked 90-92% of prostitutes state they would like to leave prostitution, but are unable.

Bottomline: If shame works, let’s do for ALL crimes.

“Let’s be honest: there are guys out there who can’t get it any other way.”

Uhm, Eliot Spitzer, Sen. Vitter, Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant, Tom Sizemore. I’m pretty sure those guys can/could easliy get plenty without paying.

What’s your point, Dave? I don’t think jeff was talking about them.

3) Rehabilition is possible.

so are unicorns.

I think this is an interesting idea.

I don’t think mugshots could be posted until after appeals have been exhausted. Getting it wrong would obv. invite a defamation lawsuit. Otherwise, I don’t see any obvious legal issues (Eighth Amendment, etc.).

Dudes, prostitution is never going to be legalized in MN. We can’t buy strong beer or new cars on Sundays and you think the legislature is going to legalize prostitution? For reals?

Kc! keep in mind that not many sex offenders are required to register as Level 3 sex offenders. I generally agree with your points that we should encourage rehabilitation and not conform the sentencing guidelines to the likelihood of rehabilitation — or the lack thereof — but this is one of the trickiest areas of criminal justice. The current system isn’t necessarily what I’d set up, but I don’t see it as one of the more pressing legal problems we face.

(That would, of course, be our inability to buy booze on Sundays.)

Dangit, I meant the sentencing guidelines should reflect the likelihood of rehabilitation. (On the flip side, if we conclude that certain offenders can’t be rehabilitated, that means there should be longer sentences.)

kc, sex offender registry is considered by many a public health issue, I guess. Granted the recidivism rates for sex offenders is not always a staggering number (close to 10% depending where you get numbers), a few big cases where little girls were raped and murdered by someone who had raped girls before prompted this legislation. You’ve probably heard of Megan’s law. The public essentially wrote this law.

So I guess someone who has sex with a five year old could be considered a public health risk in a neighborhood full of five year olds, right? Should they be locked up indefinately, given a chance to live life outside, or told they cannot live in this type of area and must be monitored?

Sometimes I feel like Megan’s law was blanket legislation that should be re-examined and re-tooled. On the other hand, imagine having your 5 year old brutally raped and murdered by your neighbor who has a history of child rape. It’s very tricky…

That being said, I think MN’s SOR laws need to be updated. A 17 year old boy who had sex with his 16 year old GF, and then got caught, is not necessarily a dangerous sex offender. Many cases like these are assigned a level one status, but are still required to register for 10 years.

Furthermore, I think many experts would tell you that sex offenses are quite different than dealing drugs. Many sex offenders have mental issues that contribute to their crimes. While they may be able to operate somewhat normally in society, and not need to be committed to a mental institution, Often times sex offenders may have mental issues that affect their propensity to commit sex crimes. Not sure you could say the same about a learned behavior like drug dealing.

It’s a damned if you do/don’t type of situation. If you don’t notify the neighbors of a dangerous offender, and he/she commits a sex crime, the state/local gov’t have hell to pay. If they do, the offender may get harrassed. I guess those who write the law weighed their options.

but back on subject, Remeber, Mike S, adult arrests are public record. Just have to pay for the paper it’s printed on. So the police couldn’t get in trouble even if the arrestee wasn’t convicted.

What’s your point, Dave? I don’t think jeff was talking about them.

When he prefaces it with this:

If you’re in a position where you either need to be a prostitute or a john, I’d say you already have a pretty rough lot.

He’s leaving the a massaive number of johns out of the equation.

Does it help or hurt a neighborhood to have what are essentially “Prostitution Happens Here” billboards?

I find that information helpful.

Far more effective than putting red lights in windows.

I’m wondering why your paragraph that says some think it is unfair also quotes Gary Schiff? It implies that he thinks it’s unfair, which I’m assuming he doesn’t since he’s for this program . . .

I’m not okay with displaying the images of the prostitutes because chances are they’re not doing it because they really want to but rather because they feel that they need to in order to make good money.

I could give a fuck about the johns.

anonymous john, my bad. I screwed up pasting. Maybe max can just take out the line:

Some feel that this is unfair to the johns and may damage their careers and families:…..”

thanks

We could use a “Prostitution Happens Here” near kwatt’s place of employment. Not just for his party of choice, of course.

Actually, the Frogtown neighborhood IS notorius for its street protitution.

I’m okay for the “shaming” billboards, once the one showing the faces of cops who break the law goes up. Still waiting for that one…

Frogotwn is notorious for what?

If you’re a John and you really need to get some, why don’t you save yourself some money and the risk of being arrested and log on to Craigslist? You might even find a free sofa while you’re at it.

Or use Twitter. I guess that’s another use for it.

Heh! Just for that, Max and Sailor Martin get a free lunch at The Lagoon in Frogtown.

I recommend the spicy chicken lunch special.

baker- I would argue that a lot of drug dealers and gang members are mentally ill and very dangerous to a neighborhood. Same with murderers.

The problem is that we single out sex offenders. Someone can torture and kill a five year old and not be on the registry, but if they rape them, they are. I don’t want either living on my block.

And if we don’t believe that sex offenders can be rehabilitated, then shouldn’t they all be innocent by reason of insanity since we are saying they can’t help themselves?

@kc! – And if we don’t believe that sex offenders can be rehabilitated, then shouldn’t they all be innocent by reason of insanity since we are saying they can’t help themselves?

Being beyond rehabilitation isn’t the same as being not guilty by reason of insanity.

The only way a sex offender could avoid criminal liability due to insanity would be by proving that as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.

Totally different.

I’m surprised you can still pick up a hooker off the street anymore. I thought they were all on Craigslist now.

There’s hookers on Craigslist now?!

Oh, and, regarding Frogtown… back when I was in high school (this was about 8 years ago) a friend and I had gone out for a Friday night cruise down University. We pulled over on a side street to turn around and figure out where to go next, when I suddenly looked up to find a woman pounding on the rear passenger window asking “you boys lookin’ to get a little freaky?”

I’m still not 100% sure if that was a genuine offer for sex or if she was just wondering if my friend and I were gay, but it still haunts me every time I drive through Frogtown. Yikes.

kc,
NO way. Most of these kids are misguided kids raised by shitty indifferent parents, who have been exposed to crime and drugs since they were kids. Given the chance to thrive in a normal environment, most of them would do much better than they are now.
They are not mentally ill in the sense the phrase is commonly used.

You don;’t want either on your block–but you’d feel better not having a clue should either one of them take us residence next to you? At least I’d want to be aware, I think.

baker, come to my neighborhood and meet the drug dealers. They are’t kids, they are grown adults. Real drug dealers have territories and a complex set of rules, that when broken, result in violence. they are just as mentally ill as the sex offenders, and often, more so.

“real” drug dealers…so, not like the fake one’s we’re accustomed to seeing?

they are just as mentally ill as the sex offenders, and often, more so.

<speechless>

cubbie- baker is calling drug dealers misguided kids. Those are the people selling a little weed to their friends.

And seriously, you don’t think people who kill others in order to protect their terroritory are mentally ill? Unlike sex offenders who know what they are doing is wrong, drug dealers and gang members don’t have that normal reflex.

KC,

Now I’m speechless…Drug dealers and gangbangers don’t know that killing people and selling drugs is wrong?

I am saying most drug dealers were brought up as misguided kids, or in shitty environments, or with drug addicted or indifferent parents. They have been raised in a life of crime–many with fathers in prison, or dead. Criminal life is often is a learned behavior, not a biological thing like mental illness. Most drug dealers and gang bangers just don’t give a shit about others. They were raised this way. To you and I they may seem mentally ill, but in the legal/clinical sense, hell no.

To imply that the majority of them are mentally ill is just insane(no pun intended). Frankly I would have thought you would have a pretty good grasp of these concepts.

yea kc, but they don’t start out as the kingpin. the majority start as bored kids with shitty parents. this does not equal mental illness.

to compare the mental illness of a ganbanger to a child molester is insulting, frankly.

oh, and this doesn’t prove that we should monitor sex offenders, but it’s interesting. and topical.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/12/sex.offender.gps/index.html

I went to the website and found it interesting that all of the John’s were busted in what appears to be the final week of the month.

So, if you’re into being a John, you may want to follow this site to avoid the stings.

So let’s just post the drug dealers and dwi offenders too I think the state should have bigger and better crimes to go after rather than fu*king up my business are they going to pay for my college and if I got a job at burger king in this economy for 6.25 an hour as a single mom I lose my insurance though the state because I make to much money I can barley pay my rent and daycare cost let alone feeding her so until they want to give me more money for welfare they can kiss my john s*ck d*ck having a$$

Wow, that was eloquent…

I’m sorry, but is no one else deeply bothered by Stripper’s statement above?

Only by the fact that she admits to sucking dick for money, but can’t bring herself to say it without censoring it.

I was referring to her sense of entitlement and implication that someone else should be taking care of and providing for her child.

You read that very different. Rather, she’s saying that, unless the state wants to giver her more money to replace her lost wages, they shouldn’t criminalize her efforts to make money for her kids.

your both right. i think she’s saying her current occupation supplements the welfare.

Erm. I’ve made more than $6.25/hr but was still able to get insurance from the State, working full-time and and even overtime as a single adult without children. It’s not that hard to get help for stuff like that if you are truly poor, especially if you have children.