Supreme Court massaging all these individual restrictions
[QUOTE=Speck]These are all local or state issues. The impound issue hasn't even been decided by the California State Supreme Court yet, let alone the US supreme court.[/QUOTE]
Good response Speck.
Let's talk (I am NOT a lawyer but let me try to answer your point anyway).
The current Supreme Court does nothing to stop state & local LE incursions on individual freedoms.
Remember when the homeless back in the 80s were able to camp out on government property? They would use public water fountains to semi-bathe.
Grocery carts were nearby storing personal belongings. Then anti-camping laws were enacted, the grocery carts confiscated and the homeless uprooted from all public property.
Did LE stop there? Answer = No!
Now a person while traversing public areas cannot even slow down. Stand on a street corner or walk down a hooker street in a slow manner and a cop can pull you over, admonish you to keep moving until you "get the hell outta here" and if you don't move fast enough (15 minutes) you are subject to arrest.
These tough anti-loitering laws are a direct assault on individual liberties in the pursuit of "cleaning up the streets". Is it any wonder that mongers looking for street walking action are having troubles finding what used to be so plentiful in the old days?
Entrapment laws have been overturned and seldom succeed as a valid defence in court when trying to explain away why that decoy got you to utter those incriminating words. Another erosion of personal liberty in the name of "clean up the streets" mandate by the religious right (voting) majority.
Car impoundment has been around now for several years and yet no higher court bans its enforcement while the issue gets debated.
Massage parlors (in some cities) require a ridiculous amount of massage training hours before a massuese can rub my back (of course, that is what I want rubbed). And no higher court stops these shenanigans.
The 72 hours for LE to decide whether to charge an individual with a crime or let them go is a bit excessive. I suppose the convenient argument is that LE is not necessarily at work from Friday 5PM until Monday 8AM and thus the 72 hour rule is logical. Can't some ACLU type lawyer argue something better?
The above all go back to my original contention. The current US Supreme Court has given a blank check to local & state LE of every kind to do whatever it wants in the name of "cleaning up the streets". The days of street people standing on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood or Harbor Blvd in Santa Ana and staring down prospective "johns" without incurring serious LE interference, those days are over.
Both sides have their arguments.
It was unfortunate to see young people from all over the country coming to Sunset Blvd (or Harbor Blvd) to seek a very poor quality life. Likewise the homeless deserve our sympathy but their existence camping on government property was an eyesore.
We who sought out SWs enjoyed the cruise and quickie date from a young gal who resembled somebody in our own neighborhood (for a cheap price) but I think deep in out hearts we knew for every dream SW date, there were other SWs who were living a pathetic life under the delusion that they could make ends meet by being a SW hooker. Those SWs were subject to violence from a "john", not getting paid (and without the ability to complain to police), inevitably catching a disease likely not to be treated, etc., etc.
If somebody wants to chime in, please feel free to do so.
But the bottom line might be, everybody is better off if the SW went away and those guys who want to pay for sex ... just go to a massage parlor. You will pay a little more but the public won't be inconvenienced by dealing with the aftermath of SWs and the massage parlor ladies, many of them live a pretty good life judging by the cars they park in the MP parking lot.
If LE is reading any of this, get a clue. Leave the MP ladies alone. If you are not a hypocrite and truly want a better society for everybody MPs are a viable solution for monger, provider and LE alike.
Agree??
Re: Supreme Court massaging all these individual restrictions
[QUOTE=Longrod]Good response Speck.
Let's talk (I am NOT a lawyer but let me try to answer your point anyway)...
[/QUOTE]
I'm not a lawyer, but I did get laid in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Anyway, politicians talk about the blight and crime caused by prostitution... However, the blight and crime is caused because prostitution is illegal!
Regulating prostitution would be much easier if it were legal. The laws can be written to restrict, or eliminate streetwalking... possibly leaving the decision to individual communities. Legalization can put rules in place to limit blight and disease.
Crime would be reduced, because prostitution would become just another service. If a "John" attacked a provider, LE would have to treat it same way as they would if any other business person were attacked. On the other hand, if a provider rips off a customer, LE would have to treat it the same way they treat any business ripping off the public.
The current laws encourage trampling on our civil rights. Some have argued that this can not ever win in court. One lawyer on this board went as far as saying that the the Constitution (right to privacy) does not apply to prostitution as it does to abortion. I disagree! Abortion was illegal, and not considered a constitutional issue until somebody had the guts to take it up to the Supreme Court (Roe vs. Wade)....
The question is, who has the guts to take this issue to the Supreme Court:
John and Jill vs. The United States.
Pardon me for rambling... I'm on a high dose of Vicodin right now and it makes concentration very difficult!!!!
Supreme Court massaging all these individual restrictions
My only big complaint is the use "civil intent to solicit" laws to impound guys cars. It's completely bogus to impound someones car just because they pick up a girl. Thank goodness the cops have eased up on this law. I do agree the anti-loitering laws are oppressive.
I would like to see legalized Eros centers and privates like they do in Europe. This way the price of hookers would not go through the roof like at Nevada's bunny ranch.
I am not so much opposed to the enforcement of prostitution, but to the amount of resources the cops devote to it. With something like 40,000 gang members in LA there is much more important things the cops can be doing. The cops often say that prostitution causes other crimes. If so the cops should be going after those crimes and not bother guys just looking for some action. If a sw is on drugs then the cops should bust her. When we pay the sw for sex it's no different than some girl who works at some job and uses drugs at home. It's not as though we are going out and trading drugs for sex. It's the sw's choice to use drugs not ours.
Stings are not too much of a concern if one takes the proper precautions. But for the inexperienced person who is driving home it's a real bummer to get busted.
I would like to see the cops concentrate on busting the pimps instead.
I have noticed this year that the cops are much more low key in SD. Unless the girl is causing problems or dressed flashy the cops usually leave them alone.
There is things we can do such as not leaving are condoms in front of someones house. Tossing out a used condoms is like raising a flag that we were there. It's rude and inconsiderate. I don't blame homeowners for being upset.
Re : Supreme Court massaging all these individual restrictions
[QUOTE=Longrod]
Car impoundment has been around now for several years and yet no higher court bans its enforcement while the issue gets debated.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for we Mongers = civil property seizure was upheld by the SCOTUS several years ago . This means it's settled case law and no longer being 'debated'
I'd cite you the case name / # , but when you search the SCOTUS or ACLU web sites , it's buried some·where amongst all the hundreds of hits on the recent KELO case
There is NO Constitutional RIGHT TO PRIVACY!
[QUOTE=PlaneGuy]I'm not a lawyer, but I did get laid in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Anyway, politicians talk about the blight and crime caused by prostitution... However, the blight and crime is caused because prostitution is illegal!
Regulating prostitution would be much easier if it were legal. The laws can be written to restrict, or eliminate streetwalking... possibly leaving the decision to individual communities. Legalization can put rules in place to limit blight and disease.
Crime would be reduced, because prostitution would become just another service. If a "John" attacked a provider, LE would have to treat it same way as they would if any other business person were attacked. On the other hand, if a provider rips off a customer, LE would have to treat it the same way they treat any business ripping off the public.
The current laws encourage trampling on our civil rights. Some have argued that this can not ever win in court. One lawyer on this board went as far as saying that the the Constitution (right to privacy) does not apply to prostitution as it does to abortion. I disagree! Abortion was illegal, and not considered a constitutional issue until somebody had the guts to take it up to the Supreme Court (Roe vs. Wade)....
The question is, who has the guts to take this issue to the Supreme Court:
John and Jill vs. The United States.
Pardon me for rambling... I'm on a high dose of Vicodin right now and it makes concentration very difficult!!!![/QUOTE]
That "Right" was created by the US Supreme Court to "create" a Federal "right" of abortion. The several states had previously addressed the issue (about half allowed some form of abortion). There is an implied right of privacy. More importantly the founders clearly stated that the US Constitution did NOT Enumerate ALL rights. In fact this was a major concern of some of our founding fathers who oppoessed the Bill of Rights (first 10 {actually 12, but one has not yet passed, and one only passed recently; very complex bit of legal details there} Amendments to the US Constitution.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution does secure our rights to be secure in our persons, papers, etc., from Unreasonable searches and seizures.
Even many liberal legal scholars will admit that Roe v. Wade is "bad law"; ie poorly reasoned. Not to mention that under the 10th Amendment it should have been left to the several states. Not to mention that any "right" granted by the courts can be revoked by them. Also the legislatures can revoke them too! In fact it is more likely that people would be pissed off by a court created "right to prostitution" and work hard to revoke it. On the other hand, it is more likely that prostitution could be de-criminalized through inititive or legislative action. Such as medical marijuana, civil partnerships, and other contentious issues.
Making Prostitution Legal
[QUOTE=The John]That "Right" was created by the US Supreme Court to "create" a Federal "right" of abortion. The several states had previously addressed the issue (about half allowed some form of abortion). There is an implied right of privacy. More importantly the founders clearly stated that the US Constitution did NOT Enumerate ALL rights. In fact this was a major concern of some of our founding fathers who oppoessed the Bill of Rights (first 10 {actually 12, but one has not yet passed, and one only passed recently; very complex bit of legal details there} Amendments to the US Constitution.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution does secure our rights to be secure in our persons, papers, etc., from Unreasonable searches and seizures.
Even many liberal legal scholars will admit that Roe v. Wade is "bad law"; ie poorly reasoned. Not to mention that under the 10th Amendment it should have been left to the several states. Not to mention that any "right" granted by the courts can be revoked by them. Also the legislatures can revoke them too! In fact it is more likely that people would be pissed off by a court created "right to prostitution" and work hard to revoke it. On the other hand, it is more likely that prostitution could be de-criminalized through inititive or legislative action. Such as medical marijuana, civil partnerships, and other contentious issues.[/QUOTE]I was wondering if it would be possible to have the public vote for it. I guess if we start collecting signatures and put it on a ballot, we'd know for sure what the general public think about this issue and you'd never know maybe we could pull it off.
Does anyone know how to collect signature via web?
