Which is why there are investigations. To gather information, facts. Usually involves warrants.
The warrant for the very intrusive surveillance was based on claims of human trafficking. No evidence of human trafficking was found, and these videos should not be used to prosecute low-level prostitution "crimes" and neither should they be released to the public.
Different jobs, different pressure, different kinds of accountability. A DA is much more political.
Again, both are elected offices, and thus both are political.
I agree that they are different jobs. The sheriff's department is much more tightly involved with the investigation and the use of intrusive and likely illegal surveillance.
I see no reason why the prosecutor in this case should be disbelieved that no evidence of human trafficking was uncovered. Especially since he is still gung ho on prosecuting Kraft on the bullshit solicitation charge.
Florida state attorney appeals judge's ruling to exclude Robert Kraft spa surveillance video from trial
The whole thing is a mess, but it shows how ridiculous is it is that the government is policing people getting hand jobs.
Yes, investigations into human trafficking and prostitution (illegal in FL, no?) are often quite intrusive. I imagine that clients would find it upsetting for many reasons.
Using intrusive surveillance to prosecute low-level misdemeanor cases is the road to a police state. And besides, it's completely irresponsible use of tax-payer resources. Esp. when there are actual crimes that they should be focusing on.
The prosecutor is not 'likely to be more objective.' The prosecutor is much more likely to respond to more considerable and direct political pressure and is generally scored on number of cases which are won. A loss in a big case (and this one got tons of publicity with famous rich people involved) would be a huge negative. I imagine the political pressure to not move forward with charges was immense, given who was among the clients.
But the prosecutor is pushing with the case against Kraft, even despite court ruling suppressing the video. And even with all that, he still had to admit that there was no actual evidence for human trafficking and all they are prosecuting is
consensual prostitution.
You and I simply view the issues differently.
I know. You are not a true liberal. In fact, you are very illiberal and authoritarian on this issue.
You think that men should be able to purchase sex with women whenever they want.
No. Just whenever they find a woman who they come to an agreement regarding services and price. Both the buyer and seller of sexual services have full agency. Your attitude is robbing the sellers (usually women) of agency by telling them they can't sell a certain service.
I think a lot more about what it says about a society where one class of individuals can purchase intimate services from a different class of individuals
What's wrong with that?
in an industry which has a long history that is rife with physical, psychological and sexual abuse, coercion and violence and where the workers typically use drugs to get them through the day.
You are painting a very unrealistic picture here.
Best case scenario, sex workers are at high risk of contracting incurable sexually transmitted infections that are life threatening,
Actually, where sex work is legal, that risk is very low. By pushing sex work underground, you and other prohibitionists make sex work more dangerous for providers.
And in the case of this massage parlor, the risk is zero because they do hand jobs.
life changing and extremely expensive to treat and manage. They effectively end the sex worker's career in that industry, leaving her ill prepared for any other work and usually without the means to support herself or gain training for other jobs.
There is nothing that says that hookers can't also pursue education or save money for retirement. Now is that easier when sex work is legal and not stigmatized or in the world you support?
BTW, I also have strong objections to professional boxing, professional football and other careers which are dangerous and put workers at serious work for injury, illness and death.
So just like you want to jail people who hire hookers, do you want to jail people who watch boxing and Am. football?
Oooooh, I'm sooooo scared that Derec doesn't think I'm really liberal!
Well you are not. Not by any meaningful definition of the word.
Because we all know that what passes for liberal in the US is fairly conservative by US standards 50 years ago in many respects.
I am not talking about that. "Liberal" in the US has just come to mean "left of center". Which allows illiberals like you to call themselves "liberal" even though what you seek is to restrict freedoms of people you don't like.
I realize that most people on this board see liberal = smart, educated, cool, good. The better, more evolved way of thinking. Even some people who claim to be very liberal but who actually espouse ideology that I see as pretty conservative and frankly backwards thinking claim that they are the true liberals. I really don't care.
Root word of liberal is liberty. Not leftism. American liberalism is really a misnomer.
Which is how they should be and why I don't really give a rat's ass about them.
Especially when you want to hide the fact that you are really an illiberal authoritarian.
Prostitution oppresses people.
Allowing people to choose for themselves to buy and sell sexual services does not oppress people. Prohibiting them from freely engaging in sexual activities because the government does not approve of the reason they do them does.
Just like it was oppressive for the government to criminalize gay sex, or sex between unmarried people, so it is oppressive for the government to criminalize sex work.
It basically says that one group of people (almost always male) has the right to purchase the intimate services of another group of people (mostly young women and too often minors, including children) for their own sexual gratification and without regard to the sex worker's well being, health, pleasure or desire or willingness and free will to participate.
No it does not. It says that people have the right to purchase "intimate services" of another group of people as long as they are willing sellers.
Nobody is advocating buying sexual services from children or unwilling people. That's like being against decriminalizing gay sex by lumping it together with (child) rape. It's deeply dishonest.
I see that as pretty repressive.
I see your equating consensual with forced sex work as pretty disingenuous. Not to mention repressive in its outcome.
You have other choices. You just choose not to use them.
Like what?
And you quote numbers cited by pro-prostitution groups. Hardly unbiased. For the record, when I talk about human trafficking, I look at the definitions and standards that legal organizations use. Like the one that Homeland Security uses.
But the bogus stats are not based on that definition, as I have shown repeatedly.
You are the one who is misapplying words and quotes.
No, I am not. I am not the one who thinks paying somebody for a service is automatically "coercive". But prohibitionists like to argue that way in order to manipulate the numbers.
And then you go off onto another tangent.
It's not a tangent. It's an example of consensual any sex work is being conflated with "trafficking".
No, I meant what I said: Having sex with people you don't know well enough to ascertain their willing participation is dangerous. It leaves you legally vulnerable, physically unsafe and also financially at risk.
But given that consensual sex work is banned too, one is placing themselves at risk even if the partner is perfectly willing.
That's the situation you want - where septuagenarian widowers are being persecuted by powers that be for getting a hand job.
You can tell yourself that all you want, little man. Everybody who reads your posts knows and understands your positions which are quite anti-female, anti-black, anti-Hispanic and definitely not liberal.
Wrong. My positions are perfectly liberal. Just because I am against discriminating in favor of blacks and hispanics in college admissions does not make me anti these people for example.
On the other hand, you want to prohibit individuals from exchanging sexual services for money. That is illiberal.
If you're old enough to have sex, then you are old enough to be responsible enough and mature enough to actually have a conversation. That should include things like consent, birth control, any sexually transmitted infection risks.
Of course. What does that have to do with blanket bans on sex work that you are in favor of? Nobody benefits from those except busybody moralizers from both right and left.
I imagine he authorized and helped organize and made available resources for the sting. Why would he do that? Perhaps because he had reason to believe that there was human trafficking? Maybe because one of the sex workers managed to make a complaint? What should he do except investigate? Wait until after hours so that Trump's buddy isn't embarrassed?
The problem is that they used probably illegal surveillance and found no evidence of human trafficking. And instead of dropping it, they are pushing to use these very intrusive videos to punish people for getting hand jobs.
If warrants were obtained, then the surveillance was legal and given the suspicion of serious violations of human rights involved, I'm glad that the surveillance was carried out and an investigation was conducted. Aren't you? Or are your only objections because it was sex work and it hits a little close to home for you? What if it was drug trafficking? Would you have also objected?
If surveillance was authorized based on suspicion of drug trafficking and all they could find was evidence of misdemeanor marijuana possession, I do not think that surveillance should be used, as evidence of crimes for which the surveillance warrants were obtained were not found.
In other words: no judge would authorize video surveillance for investigation of solicitation (or misdemeanor possession). Therefore, the videoes should not be used for that purpose. Neither should the threats of release of the videos be used to intimidate suspects.
It doesn't seem to work out to actually be a free choice on the part of sex workers.
You keep repeating that like a mantra but that does not make it any more true.
Derec talked to a girl!! Good for you!
What do you mean? I talk to many women. It's not like I am an early seasons Raj Koothrappali.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that your attitudes towards the nanny state do not carry over to say, marijuana.
I think it certainly should be legal.
And the worst thing we could do is adopt a kind of "Swedish model" where we only persecute end users but treat dealers like "victims".
Really, Derec? Is that what you think? How many posts have I written that directly contradict that opinion? I've lost count but surely it's at least 100.
You want to see me in jail for having consensual sex just because I left some money on the dresser. Your views on this matter are as explicit as they are illiberal.
