In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Spitzer Will Not Be Charged

Former Governor Eliot Spitzer will not be charged in connection with his involvement as a customer with a prostitution ring. I’m shocked.  Aren’t you shocked?

“After a thorough investigation, this office has uncovered no evidence of misuse of public or campaign funds,” U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement.

The attorney’s office also said it found no illicit activity related to Spitzer’s withdrawal of funds for, and his payments to, the Emperors Club VIP, which authorities have said was a prostitution ring.

“In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this office, as well as Mr. Spitzer’s acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter,” Garcia said.

Right, because that’s how we often treat the women who work as prostitutes, isn’t it?  They accept “responsibility” and law enforcement decides to just let it go, because how does it serve the public interest to prosecute women and humiliate them openly in a society that condemns their work, especially when they’re very often only doing the job because they’re desperate for money, or have even been forced or coerced?

Oh no, wait, actually Eliot Spitzer himself was well-known for prosecuting those running prostitution services and working for them, but not the clients.

There’s nothing to be surprised about here, and not just because Eliot Spitzer used to be governor.  It’s because, as this NYT article notes, clients are rarely prosecuted:

Patricia A. Pileggi, who once prosecuted public corruption cases in Brooklyn, agreed with Mr. Garcia that the federal government does not, as a general rule, prosecute johns in prostitution cases. She said that she once represented a madam in a criminal case and recalled that the clients in the matter were never charged, despite there being evidence to do so.

“What I’m seeing,” Ms. Pileggi said, referring to Mr. Garcia’s decision, “is completely consistent with how they’ve handled other matters.”

And that’s precisely the problem.

As you may know, I support decriminalization of prostitution.  But if we’re going to prosecute those involved with it — which I unfortunately think we will for some time — there is absolutely no non-misogynistic excuse to not charge the clients.  Not prosecuting the clients indicates that selling sex is morally repugnant, but buying it is not.  It indicates that there is something repulsive and wrong about women having sex with many men for a fee, but not about men paying many women fees for that sex.  It says that there is something that needs to be condemned and punished about female sexuality, and in fact female survival, but male sexuality and exploitation ought to just be shrugged off as “boys will be boys.”  And it sure as hell doesn’t do a damn bit of good to help those women who we pretend to be so concerned about.

The good news is that it looks like “Kristen” and the other women who were selling sex for the Emporers Club have not been prosecuted.  Those who ran the business, however, have been.  And again, there is no excuse for punishing those who ensure that there is a supply but not those who create the demand.  There are laws under which to prosecute Spitzer, and they’re the same laws that he wouldn’t have hesitated to use against the same women he hired back when he was Attorney General.  And I’m sick of the excuses.

cross-posted at The Curvature


8 thoughts on Spitzer Will Not Be Charged

  1. I’m not shocked. It does seem perfectly consistent that they would prosecute the disenfranchised but not those with power.

    I AM shocked that they aren’t prosecuting the prostitutes involved. In a pleasant way, though it doesn’t count for much.

  2. I AM shocked that they aren’t prosecuting the prostitutes involved.

    Same here, honestly. I just kind of assumed that they were and was going to say something about it in the post . . . and was really surprised when I fact-checked it and could only find mentions of those running the business being charged with crimes.

  3. I took the events in a different way…

    That the charges being dropped meant that Spitzer was targeted and removed by person(s) unknown and for precise motive(s) unknown.

  4. Keep in mind that this was the FEDERAL government that decided not to prosecute him, not the state government. Prostitution illegality is a function of state law, not federal law, so the feds had nothing to do with deciding whether he’d be prosecuted for that or not, nor will they decide if the prostitutes themselves will be prosecuted (for violations of prostitution laws). The agency operators were charged with federal crimes of tax evasion, conspiracy, and so forth. The prostitutes were not charged with failure to pay taxes on their earnings, which the vast majority invariably don’t.

    What does surprise me, however, is that he wasn’t charged with the violation of the Mann Act. He did violate that law and there was plenty of evidence that he did. So, on that point, it is asinine that he wasn’t charged.

  5. Curious–maybe someone here knows this–does the difference in prosecution of sellers and buyers of sex hold steady across M/F, F/F, F/M, and M/M transactions? Or is the only group that gets a “pass” the hetero males?

  6. I’m really on the fence about whether prostitution should be legal, mainly because I’m not convinced it does anything to truly help or protect prostitutes. That said, I don’t think it should be illegal for the reasons it is. While people may think it is disgusting, gross, or immoral for someone to buy or sell sex (and I’ll admitt, I kinda feel that way) I don’t think these are legitimate reasons to make something illegal.

    But honestly the fact of the matter is that it IS ILLEGAL, and I get so fucking pissed off at how it is prosecuted. If you truly want to reduce prostitution by making it illegal, then you need to prosecute the CLIENTS! Looking at this from an economics point of view, and since it is a business, I think it’s valid, prosecuting the protitutes and not touching the clients essentially reduces the supply while maintaining or increasing demand. Therefore, prices for services and available jobs as a prostitute rise and make it a very lucrative business to be in. Since you are at risk for being arrested as a prostitute you can charge higher prices (I know I am ignoring the fact that pimps and madams often get a major cut). If you put a lot of effort into prosecuting the clients while ignoring the prostitutes, on the other hand, you reduce demand, maintain supply, and reduce how lucrative being a prostitute is. When it is hard to find a John (because they are scared of being arrested) and can’t charge that much, you reduce the appeal of the job.

    But of course, what am I thinking. The reason prostitution is illegal is not to reduce it, or to protect anybody, it is just to slut shame.

Comments are currently closed.