Leveraging Shame And The Presumption Of Guilt To Destroy Lives And Punish Consenting Adults
from the 'MURICA dept
The criminal justice system theoretically operates on a presumption of innocence. An arrest booking is hardly an indicator of guilt, but try telling that to millions of people who believe being accused is no different than being found guilty by a jury. Everyone knows this presumption of guilt exists, despite it being wholly contrary to the basis of our justice system.
Cops know this best. A high-profile bust is as good as a guilty verdict. So it's no surprise that they've increasingly turned to the greatest shaming mechanism known to man: the internet.
In a long, detailed and disturbing piece for the New Republic, Suzy Khimm examines law enforcement's infatuation with harnessing the internet to prey upon the public's continual presumption of guilt. It leverages the most lurid of accusations for maximum shaming, knowing that anything with "sex" in the vicinity will gather news crews like pyros to a dumpster fire.
Prostitution stings are a favorite. You can easily tell it's a victimless crime because none of the parties involved receive any privacy protections from law enforcement. Being swept up in one of these stings means seeing your name and face splashed across a variety of news outlets while the fine print ("all arrestees are innocent until proven guilty") is relegated to the end of the coverage, if it's mentioned at all.
The name of the crackdown suggested a cheeky tabloid headline: Operation Flush the Johns. The other news hook was its sheer scale: 104 men arrested for trying to buy sex through the sting. At a press conference in June 2013, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice and Police Commissioner Thomas Dale unveiled the arrests with great fanfare, arraying the mug shots of all the accused men on a big poster board propped up next to the podium.Rarely do these stings result in large numbers of convictions. In fact, sex trafficking stings -- ones that encompass years of investigations -- rarely result in anything more than a handful of prison terms. Sex trafficking is almost always tied to prostitution busts, even when no evidence of trafficking can be found. But police departments and politicians love nothing more than to shame everyone involved -- especially the paying customers.
How could any self-respecting tabloid resist? “Heeeere’s the ‘Johnnies’!” screamed the New York Post: “104 Horndogs Exposed in Prostitution Sting’s Wall of Shame.” Their names and faces made the U.K.’s Daily Mail. ABC News’s New York affiliate and The Huffington Post turned the 104 photos of the men into online slide shows, leaving out the disclaimer that officials had put in small letters at the bottom of the original image: “All are presumed innocent until proven guilty.” As the articles spread online, they begat more stories and links. All of it now swamps the search results for the names of many of the men arrested, regardless of whether they were ultimately convicted.
This isn't a recent development. This country's Puritanical approach to sex has long been the focus of law enforcement shaming efforts. It's not enough to simply arrest and charge customers and sex workers. An effort must be made to uphold the stigma. This law enforcement "tradition" traces back to the late 1970s, if not earlier. Politicians and judges, working in concert with like-minded law enforcement who felt laws and statutes weren't doing enough to deter offenders, came up with creative ways to further punish arrestees.
In 1979, New York’s mayor Ed Koch introduced “The John Hour,” in which he read over the public radio the names of men who had been convicted of buying sex. (It actually lasted less than two minutes and only aired once.) In 1988, a Brooklyn slumlord was sentenced to live in one of his buildings, where his tenants greeted him with a banner that read “Welcome, You Reptile.” In a 1994 domestic violence case, a court ordered an Ohio man to either pay a $100 fine or let his ex-wife spit in his face.As for the 104 busts that went viral, prosecutors have nearly nothing to show for it.
In the end, 18 men pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge, 67 pled guilty to disorderly conduct, six were acquitted, including the scientist, one was designated as a youthful offender—a teenager whose records are sealed—and seven cases were dismissed. Of the 104 men originally arrested in Operation Flush the Johns, only one was convicted at trial. (As of this February, three cases are still pending, and a warrant is still out for one man’s arrest.)That nearly everyone walked away without being charged with soliciting prostitution is lost to history. One scientist (whose story is detailed in the report) basically lost everything, even though he was acquitted. And still, law enforcement officials -- along with the politicians who have made sex "crimes" their pet issue -- continue to claim there's nothing wrong with leveraging public perception to destroy lives.
Today, Rice and Nassau County both deny that Flush the Johns went out of its way to shame anyone or treat their arrests differently. The biggest difference, Rice argues, was that our culture continues to view prostitution as a “socially acceptable crime,” unlike other offenses. “Every DA’s office puts out a press release when they make arrests—there are pictures of people accused of murder,” she told me in a recent interview.But none of this is true. Law enforcement officials don't hold press conferences to announce every misdemeanor bust and they certainly don't do it under cutesy mission titles like "Flush the Johns." It's all about shaming people for consensual transactions, simply because some people feel it's morally wrong and law enforcement knows its an easy way to ensure positive press.
[...]
“This was not ‘shaming’ nor was it intended to be—this was enforcing the law and raising awareness of a violent industry that too many people don’t consider to even be criminal,” said Shams Tarek, a spokesman for the Nassau County District Attorney’s office. “The wealthy college-educated professional and the poor drug dealer deserve the same treatment by the justice system every day of the year; some people want different sets of justice systems for different kinds of defendants, and that’s wrong.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: law enforcement, prostitution
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That would have allowed us to solve the vast majority of problem with the adult prostitution trade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*Off-the-books revenue streams: check.
*Ability to exert political control and influence over certain groups/subgroups: check
*Asset forfeiture without rigorous due process: check
*Political leverage by appearing to have the moral high-ground: check
Why on Earth would governments ever consider legalization/decriminalization when it means giving up the above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except when they are the paying customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many wives, although not happy about her husband's intended infidelity, would have tried to work things out. But once it becomes public knowledge, she is going to be pressured by family and friends to divorce the cad. It takes a strong woman to resist such pressure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Non-feminist"
And each of these are models that only loosely categorize groups, the individuals in which have their own opinions which mostly match the model under which they're categorized.
Kinda like Liberalism or Conservatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Non-feminist"
This is not about feminism or even conservatism. It's about trust. The way I see it if you're in a relationship and want to fool around, admit it to your other half so she can decide whether or not she wants to remain in the relationship or not. If you can't do that don't fool around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Non-feminist"
Or, you can permit him to seek out what you're failing to provide (the same way my girlfriend might go to a knitting circle because I don't know the first thing about knitting), and keep it all above board.
Yes, we're raised to believe that we're supposed to be able to provide everything to our partners, but we've known better for over a thousand years, which is why even traditional romantic notions are not with your (arranged) spouse but with a bit on the side.
You got it right in one, Wendy Cockcroft it's about trust, and a way to preserve trust is to get everything above board. When your partner can go to you and say I really want this thing, whether it's to get you in leather or bang his secretary, then all the issues, including abandonment insecurities, can be discussed and fielded.
Personally, (and with the caveat my position is unusual) I've found it comforting to know my partner can seek out other partners if she wants to and yet is is still with me. It tells me that she's not staying with me because I'm the easy trick, or the convenient guy, but that I'm still attractive to her.
In a world where I expect deception behind every shroud, it's comforting I don't have to suspect her ever.
But as I said, people generally don't see it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Non-feminist"
It's only "cheating" is a trust is betrayed. If everyone involved is informed and consents, then there is no wrong being done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By any other name
Law enforcement providing the illusion that they're "doing something". And nobody in the press or the public is going to revisit this in a year to see the fruits of the state's labor. As a resident of Florida, I see it all too often coming from Polk County's finest and the infamous Grady Judd.
I would love to see John Oliver and the crew at Last Week Tonight do a piece on this. It seems right up their alley.
Are you listening, John?!? (flushing jokes withheld)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're going to lie, at least put some effort into it
Which of course is why the names and faces of those involved are presented front and center, while the 'These people haven't been found guilty' disclaimer is added almost as an afterthought.
If it really wasn't about 'shaming' then they could 'raise awareness' just as easily by posting the numbers of those involved. Not the names, not the pictures, just 'This is how many people were involved in the sting pre-trial', followed later on by 'This is how many people were found guilty'.
As for this line...
The wealthy college-educated professional and the poor drug dealer deserve the same treatment by the justice system every day of the year; some people want different sets of justice systems for different kinds of defendants, and that’s wrong.”
Coming from a state DA's office... yeah, that's just a little rich. No really, by all means tell us how the legal system treats everyone equally and fairly, and doesn't say take into account whether or not someone has a badge, important connections, or a large bank account in determining just how they'll be treated in the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
plonked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: plonked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: plonked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't change a thing, does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are the cops maybe shaming these individuals in adherence to their 'get their man' policy because they're pretty certain convictions are far from guaranteed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun
There are many problems related to prostitution, such as drugs, STDs, human trafficking, pimping, underage sex (yeah, I know, gringe... it's there), effects on neighborhoods, and so on. The Johns are the financial source the drives all of this activity. That is the sole source of revenue that drives all of the rest of it.
When you work to take the money out of a situation, you take out the profitability, and you take out the desirability to be involved. Raising the risk of arrest and public exposure for being arrested is pretty much on the top of the list to get the job done.
As for the scientist, let's just say that while he may have gotten off in court, his story is pretty lame. Going to a rundown hotel and paying a girl $100 for a massage late at night is pretty much a thin story. For that price, there are plenty of real physiotherapy places would have helped him out - and he likely would have been able to claim some on his insurance (if he had any).
Remember: Someone being arrested is news, even if they are later found innocent. If you shouldn't discuss arrested people, then there would be no stories about Aaron Schwatz, because he was never actually found guilty - so he should be off limits. Oh wait, trying to shame officials for making an arrest is acceptable?
You guys are laughable at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun
Yeah, it's just pathetic that the arrest is news, but the "found innocent" part isn't.
The former makes it look like law enforcement is doing "something."
The latter makes it look like their "something" wasn't really anything at all.
Laughable indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fun
That touches the other point that Tim doesn't seem to like, which is many of these people plead out rather than deal with the courts and such. That doesn't make them less guilty, just perhaps smart enough to know to take the plea rather than face the bigger charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fun
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/?insrc=whc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fun
That begs the question as to why the prosecution would offer or agree to a deal in the first place doesn't it?
Was their case that weak?
Did the arresting officer have vacation scheduled when the trial was supposed to happen?
Were there glaring procedural fuck ups that would be brought up in a trial making the arresting officer/prosecution look foolish?
Your "point" that you say Tim doesn't seem to like is just a presumption of guilt, which I'd LOVE to see you on the working end of so that your limited intelligence can have a chance first-hand to see what a problem that is.
Or, are these deals because prosecuting everyone with a full trial as guaranteed by the constitution is expensive? I'd LOVE to see how budgets are affected if everyone, regardless of their guilt pleads "not guilty" forcing a trial. Would the crime be worth it to you then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
The answer is pretty complex, because there are a bunch of things in play here. As an example, in many US jurisdictions, various players in the system are elected (Sherrifs, DAs, and so on). They may find that an important number in their re-election is "number of convictions" or "percentage of cases resulting in a guilty plea" or what have you. So they may find that accepting a plea deal is expedient and still makes the point for them.
They may also realize that the legal system is packed already, and a plea deal means less court time, less time taking depositions and statements, less calling of witnesses, and all that other stuff. It may be financially wise to accept a plea.
I also think they realize that going to court is a risk, even with a slam dunk case. All you need is a judge who feels like making a stand to pull some excuse why certain evidence can't be accepted, and suddenly a whole bunch of other cases are at risk. So accepting a plea deal avoids having to deal with that possibility.
In the end, the court system doesn't have enough time or space to do a full trial for every criminal. Accepting a plea deal still gets an acceptable conclusion without the costs of money, time, or effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
I see...so metrics for the DA, court is a lot of work, judges treating people inconsistently, and not enough time are perfect excuses for what you call "an acceptable conclusion." With "acceptable conclusion" meaning "any conviction is better than none, even at the expense of justice."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
Honestly, if you are not guilty, fight it. But most people arrested are "guilty enough" to know that fighting it in court would be a crap shoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
Literally nothing about plea deals serve justice. Plea deals let the guilty get of with a lighter punishment than they should, and railroad the innocent into being punished for things they didn't do.
They are as clear of a corruption of the notion of justice as you can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
And I love that "most people are guilty enough" quip - what exactly does "guilty enough" mean in your head?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
While I agree that plea bargains are pretty much a necessary evil with our overburdened court systems, I cannot consider them to be "justice" while prosecutors are allowed to coerce defendants with threats of astronomical sentences. Defendants are basically agreeing to plea bargains while under duress, which is supposed to be a huge no-no with our legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
That has GOT to be the explanation. I can't think of any other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fun
The example in another comment is a good one: no charges filed (or charges dismissed) but the man arrested now has a record that will show up in a background check. He - and anyone else in the same situation - would have to file for an expungement of record. Not everybody knows this or can even afford it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun
From my perspective, the answer is fix the societal woes that create conditions where people want to use drugs. In the mean time, drug abuse and prostitution have to be viewed as a public health threat.
As such, we can help prevent the spread of disease and self harm by allowing access to clean needles, condoms, and access to (relatively) safe sources of drugs (e.g. pharmacy/clinic vs. "crack den"). Legal, regulated access significantly erodes most crimes that follow the illicit drug trade.
Ponder the potential reduction in HIV, Hepatitis C, injection site infections, etc. from such action? You're looking at something like a 75% reduction in HIV and 60% for HepC. That's just with users themselves. Now think how many nonusers have been infected by sleeping with users or partners of users- it's preventable.
I know, it sounds insane. But People are going to use no matter what; people are going to have sex, no matter how unsafe it may be. The rational course of action is to make it safer for the user/participant (i.e., CONSENTING ADULTS) in order to reduce unnecessary harm to the rest of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fun
I know, it sounds insane. But People are going to use no matter what; people are going to have sex, no matter how unsafe it may be. The rational course of action is to make it safer for the user/participant (i.e., CONSENTING ADULTS) in order to reduce unnecessary harm to the rest of the public.
With that I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun
Why do you even bother? This is a blog. It's supposed to be entertainment and personal opinion based on real current news. If you don't agree with something the author says, or something commenters say, then argue the point. Personal attacks directed at the site, and the people who enjoy posting and reading on it, just make you look like an asshole and cause people to flag your comments w/o even bothering to read them.
I actually agreed with some of your points, especially the $100 late night massage. I've had massage therapy, and I think I paid $60 a visit and it was covered mostly by my insurance. It was a valid argument. But I almost didn't read it because you were being a dick. If you want people to read your comments, stop being a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fun
In Vegas, the illegal prostitution world runs very strong, disguised behind the "dancing girls to your room" crap that you see handed out on the street corners and on billboards. Even a cheap hooker in Vegas is expensive - unless you are willing to go the crack ho route, in which case, good luck to you!
Illegal prostitution is still a big deal all over Nevada, as unlicensed girls (and guys) provide sexual services all over the state, you just have to look for it to find it. Making it legal didn't make it go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun
Paul Duffy's keeping your seat warm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun
Legalizing prostitution does not mean legalizing human trafficking, pimping and underage sex. On the contrary, it gives more protection for the girls engaged in it making it harder for pimps and traffickers and the customers themselves. Prostitution has always existed and will always exist because there is demand. And there is nothing wrong with it. As for STDs and drugs they are other problems. There are plenty of other activities that are commonly paired with drugs. STDs will be there regardless of paid sex. And in fact, sex workers actually taker extra care with such issues as far as I know. And yes, I've had my fun with sex workers, some of them good, some not that good. And many couples use the services of sex workers (male or female).
When you work to take the money out of a situation, you take out the profitability, and you take out the desirability to be involved.
Yeah. While you are at that, cut their penises out so it takes desire 100% out. And track every single cash transaction somehow. No, really, you are something.
Raising the risk of arrest and public exposure for being arrested is pretty much on the top of the list to get the job done.
Because the alcohol prohibition worked wonders. Because centuries of shaming and prohibition of prostitution have nearly extinguished it. Right.
For that price, there are plenty of real physiotherapy places would have helped him out - and he likely would have been able to claim some on his insurance (if he had any).
I"d pay for some sexy massage even without coitus. You ignore the intention. He obviously wanted some sexy time. And this should not be forbidden.
Oh wait, trying to shame officials for making an arrest is acceptable?
Moron. As usual you miss the point by light years. Intentionally it seems. The inversion of the innocent until proven the contrary is what is being condemned here. And possibly the idiocy of criminalizing perfectly fine activity just because society is hypocrite and moronic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
side note for Tim Cushing
Learn from Mike. He manages to create outrage without being so obvious about it. Don't learn from Karl, his posts are often more than a little lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: side note for Tim Cushing
The irony of this comment coming from you, of all people is just fucking hilarious.
Judged as LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: side note for Tim Cushing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reputation ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reputation ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reputation ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reputation ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reputation ruined
Title 18 - Crimes & Criminal Procedures
§ 2252A. Certain activities relating to material
constituting or containing child pornography
Section a5B
knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses
with intent to view, any book, magazine,
periodical, film, videotape, computer
disk, or any other material that contains an
image of child pornography that has been
mailed, or shipped or transported using any
means or facility of interstate or foreign
commerce or in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce by any means, including
by computer, or that was produced using
materials that have been mailed, or shipped
or transported in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce by any means, including
by computer;
He did not know what the content of the message was. Upon seeing it, he deleted it. He did not intent to see an illegal picture. That is how the investigation cleared him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reputation ruined
As soon as he viewed it he knowingly possessed it.
Upon seeing it, he deleted it.
At which time he he committed the crime of destroying evidence as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reputation ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I don't approve of prostitution in any way, shape, or form, this is a demand-side problem and as long as both the demanders and the suppliers want to be engaged in this business (despite what authoritarians and radicals may tell you and regardless of whether they are correct or not), it will continue. Why not legalise, tax, and regulate it as they do in some of the states?
The trouble with authoritarian responses to demand-side problems is they simply never work. All they do is drive it underground. As for the shaming, that won't stop people either buying or selling sex. The risk of being caught just adds to the thrill.
*Fixed It For Them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]