Their professions read like a roll call of respectability - several lawyers, a surgeon, a doctor, two dentists, two college professors, a teacher and a financial adviser are among their ranks, all based in affluent suburbia east of New York.
But their police mugshots have been released on a "wall of shame" after more than 100 men were arrested for soliciting sex from undercover officers in Nassau county on Long Island.
Some wives and children only learnt of the 'Johns' when the mugshots were made public
A US defence lawyer has spoken of lives ruined by alleged police entrapment and several wives have consulted divorce lawyers.
But Kathleen Rice, the district attorney for Nassau county, defended the "name and shame" tactic of the prostitution sting, "Operation Flush the Johns".
She told prosecutors: "Sex workers are often vulnerable victims of traffickers and pimps, yet they often remain the prime targets in prostitution investigations, while the Johns [patrons] who fuel the exploitation are treated as mere witnesses," she said.
"My office and the police department are turning the tables on the illogical and immoral nature of that equation."
Thomas Dale, the police commissioner, said that officials launched the sting in April because of an increase in crime in hotels in the area.
The 104 accused, who range in age from 17 to 79, allegedly replied to advertisements for prostitution on a website. They were told to meet at hotels where they were filmed and arrested after offering money for sex to undercover officers.
Defence lawyers have argued that the men were victims of entrapment. Some wives and children only learnt of the "Johns" when the mugshots were made public.
The professions were just paying respect to their eldest.
yrs,
rubato
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:07 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
She (Rice) tried a similar tactic (publishing photos of the accused) for those arrested for DWI's. The court struck it down and she had to remove the wbsite pictures as they are "suspects" not yet convicted of the charge.
I would imagine the same will happen in this case.
ETA
My picture is not up there.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:08 pm
by Lord Jim
She (Rice) tried a similar tactic (publishing photos of the accused) for those arrested for DWI's. The court struck it down and she had to remove the wbsite pictures as they are "suspects" not yet convicted of the charge.
I would imagine the same will happen in this case.
That seems so likely that it makes one wonder what her motive could be beyond pure vindictiveness, ("I know I'll have to take this down, but at least I can fuck up these people's lives and their families lives in the meantime.") I hope she gets sanctioned.
It seems to me that this is every bit as wrong headed as punishing the women...
If the law is going to be structured in a way that it emphasizes the punishment of someone in this equation, it seems to me the target ought to be the people who regularly engage in crimes beyond the exchange of sex for money...
Crimes like assault and battery, rape, torture, robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc....
Namely the pimps...
Yes, there are johns who assault the hookers, and there are hookers who rob their johns...
And they should be prosecuted for those crimes...
But it is the pimps who are engaged systematically in the most serious criminality, and the laws ought to be designed to come down hard on them.
As it is, of the three players in this, they generally have it the easiest...That's upside down....
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:24 pm
by Long Run
I guess the strategy is to scare the customer base away from the "business", thus drying up revenue and putting the pimps out of business. Getting to the pimps is harder than either the john or the prostitute since it usually will require the prostitute to testify against the pimp. Being an expert in American cop shows, I can tell you that isn't likely.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:51 pm
by rubato
Public shaming, an effective means of social control. How is it different here than when Clinton was fooling around with M. Lewinsky?
yrs,
rubato
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:09 pm
by dales
Legalize it and tax it.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:50 pm
by Sue U
oldr_n_wsr wrote:
My picture is not up there.
So you say.
As to posting the pictures, I don't think the law is really quite that clear. The fact of an arrest and the charges filed are a matter of public record, and are available at the police station for public inspection. There is a legitimate public interest in knowing who is being arrested for what in a community. Whether the publicity constitutes a "punishment" before actual conviction is a much touchier question, especially when it arises from a public record that is already required to be disclosed.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:06 pm
by Lord Jim
The fact of an arrest and the charges filed are a matter of public record, and are available at the police station for public inspection.
Yes but Sue, if oldr is correct in saying that the court already told her she had to take down the pictures of those charged (but not convicted) with DWIs from her online "Wall of Shame", what would make her think this would be any different?
Personally, as I've said before, I believe prostitution should be legalized and regulated. (However I am absolutely opposed to "decriminalization" ; "decriminalizing" prostitution will do nothing but empower the pimps...I don't want to see the pimps empowered, I want them put out of business....)
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:34 pm
by Crackpot
Do you think you can overcome the power of the pimp lobby ro make that happen Jim?
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:00 pm
by Lord Jim
CP, I believe that with enough determination we can overcome the power of the Pimp Industrial Complex....
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:32 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Here's what I found about the DWI Wall of Shame and it's stoppage.
MINEOLA (WABC) -- Nassau County has announced a major shift in a controversial anti-DWI campaign, saying it will no longer single out suspected drunken drivers on its Web site until the accused is found guilty of a crime.
The decision by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi comes a day after a judge ruled that posting suspects' names and photographs online under a headline "Wall of Shame" violated their right to due process.
Suozzi said the county will appeal the ruling but is making the policy change to avoid potential lawsuits.
Nassau initiated the effort last spring after a highway patrol officer who had stopped one suspected drunken driver was struck and seriously injured by a second driver, also suspected of being under the influence.
As SueU noted and Rice argues to the judge that the photo's were already part of public record.
I seem to recall a later ruling about the Wall of Shame that also went in favor of the accused but not because of "innocent until proven guilty" terms. If someone has the time and energy, google Kathleen Rice DWI Wall of Shame.
There also was the case of a lady who was driving erratically, pulled over and arrested on DWI suspision. Her photo went up but her tests came back with no trace of alcohol. Turns out she was diabetic and having problems with that. Her photo ended up being removed.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:01 pm
by Lord Jim
MINEOLA (WABC) -- Nassau County has announced a major shift in a controversial anti-DWI campaign, saying it will no longer single out suspected drunken drivers on its Web site until the accused is found guilty of a crime.
The decision by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi comes a day after a judge ruled that posting suspects' names and photographs online under a headline "Wall of Shame" violated their right to due process.
it would seem the exact same principle would apply in this "johns" case, so I have to say this Rice woman looks like nothing but a shameless publicity seeker...
Is she getting ready to run for Congress?
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:08 pm
by Andrew D
Ordinarily, I would say that anyone whose picture was put up and who was later acquitted, or the charge against him was dropped, should sue the living shit out of everyone involved in the decision to publish his picture.
Lamentably, due to a fundamentally misguided legal rule, a prosecutor cannot be sued even for railroading an innocent person into prison, even if the prosecutor is proved to have suborned perjury and otherwise manufactured evidence.
But the identities of prosecutors are as much public record as are the identities of arrestees. And, at least in California, the identities of owners of real estate are also matters of public record.
So arrestees, innocent or guilty, should publish the names and home addresses and photographs -- if legally obtained -- of all the prosecutors and police personnel involved in the publication of arrestees' pictures.
Then let the chips fall where they may.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:11 pm
by Lord Jim
Oh yeah, a little search shows Rice definitely has political ambitions...(she already lost a race for State Attorney General and the Democratic Party tried to get her to take on Peter King....)
That explains the whole thing:
March 12, 2012 7:38 PM
DCCC Mulls Kathleen Rice V. Peter King
BY Celeste Katz
It's no longer redistricting conjecture: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee boss Steve Israel today chatted up Kathleen Rice, the Nassau County DA who lost a brutal 2010 primary for state AG, to gauge her interest in challenging Rep. Peter King.
"Israel personally approached Rice on on the idea and she said she would think about it," a Democratic source told me. A second source confirmed the party's interest in having Rice possibly go up against King.
Rice spox Eric Phillips wouldn't comment on any private discussions, but said Rice and Israel (fixed) "are very close allies and they speak regularly. District Attorney Rice is not only a progressive but someone with a deep and broadening network of supporters and a proven ability to get votes from across the political aisle. It wouldn't be surprising that people are interested in her serving on a larger level."
King, chairman of the powerful House Committee On Homeland Security, tells me he's unfazed by the prospect of running against Rice -- or anyone -- even in a redrawn NY-2.
"Generally, we have a very cordial and friendly relationship," he said of Rice. "I don't take any election for granted. I take every race seriously, but even under the court [redistricting] plan, I'm very confident that I would win."
There are a few reasons, offhand, why Rice might be an interesting candidate to the DCCC, but a race against King wouldn't be all bunnies and cupcakes either. A few thoughts:
Rice is a skilled raiser of campaign cash, but the money she's got on hand can't be rolled over for use in a federal race, while King has over $2 million at his disposal.
Both Rice and King are well known on Long Island, but King's reach is certainly broader and more national and even international. (There was even a moment, although missable if you blinked, where there was chatter about a King run for President.)
King's position as Homeland Security chair gives him lots of that influence and exposure, but some of his Congressional hearings, such as those on the radicalization of American Muslims, engendered serious ill will.
They've developed their cred in different arenas, surely, but both King and Rice would clearly be expected to make law-and-order arguments for their respective candidacies.
It's rarely about gender alone -- obviously it wasn't when Rice lost the 2010 AG primary to Eric Schneiderman -- but certainly there are voters and donors who might like to see a female candidate added to the ranks.
Obviously she's tuning up to run for something else now....
Well then, I stand corrected...
She didn't do this out of ideological vindictiveness; she did it because she believes it will advance her political career and she doesn't give a damn who she hurts in the process...It's nothing personal...If she thought posting pictures of rodeo clowns on the web would advance her political ambitions, she'd be just as happy to do that....
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:26 pm
by Long Run
It is one thing if a tabloid goes to the court house and gets public information on arrests and creates a privately funded wall of shame or a tabloid that knuckle-draggers buy at the kwikee-mart counter; and it is a whole different matter when an officer of the court who is supposed to impartially seek justice metes out a judgment by creating her own publicly funded wall of shame for people who have not been convicted of a crime. Good on the judge for putting a stop to it.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:35 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
The Dems have been dieing to get a hold of Peter Kings seat for some time. I don't see it happening.
Plus I have a bias agains Rice anyway. When she first became DA of Nassau county, she forced many of her ADA's to resign one of whom was a buddy of mines brother. He has since been having a very distinguished career as an ADA in Suffolk county NY (from what I heard she felt threatened by some of the ADA's already there when she took over). And he's an excellent baker and cook.
Re: See anyone you know?
Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:58 pm
by Lord Jim
I really like Peter King...I don't expect he's going to get beat any time soon...
Yes, he's a little in love with the sound of his own voice, and he's never met a TV camera he didn't like, but he's a very genuine guy who stands up for his constituents...(As he did quite forcefully against the Radical Randians in his own party after Hurricane Sandy)
Besides, how can you not like 68 year old guy who goes 3 rounds with the NY State kickboxing champion?