The News Isn't All Bad...
San Fran's next step: Legalized prostitution?
City to vote on ballot measure D.A. calls 'welcome mat for prostitutes and pimps'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 19, 2008
4:00 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Petitioners have succeeded in moving a measure that would effectively decriminalize prostitution in the city of San Francisco to the Nov. 4 ballot.
While prostitution is unlawful under the California Penal Code, the measure – if passed by voters – would ban the San Francisco Police Department from allocating any financial resources for the investigation and prosecution of sex workers on prostitution charges.
Section four of the ballot measure – under the heading "Prostitution Shall Be Decriminalized" – further states that the city, county, and district attorney "shall not subject sex-workers to life long economic discrimination associated with having a criminal record."
San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris criticized the measure, unofficially titled "Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers." Harris told the San Francisco Chronicle, "This measure is nothing more than a welcome mat for prostitutes and pimps to come and hang out in San Francisco."
Proponents of the measure are claiming it is needed to give sex-industry workers equal protection under the law and to counter an alleged long-standing cronyism between dance club owners and key decision makers that has resulted in police cracking down on some prostitution outlets but looking the other way from popular nightclubs, even when the clubs were accused of sexual abuses by workers.
Maxine Doogan, founder of the Erotic Service Provider's Union, wrote in an email reported by the Chronicle, "Workers would like it if crimes like rape, robbery, theft and coercion were vigorously investigated and prosecuted. We want the right to make reports of crimes against us without being retaliated against by the police department."
According to the ESPU, the petition to have the measure put on the ballot received 12,763 signatures, 5,000 more than are required. The Chronicle reported that three of the signatures came from sitting members of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.
The ballot measure also takes aim at two programs currently used by San Francisco authorities to combat sex industry crime.
The first is the use of federal and state funds to reduce human trafficking, particularly of illegal immigrants, into the sex trade. The ballot measure states, "San Francisco's law enforcement agencies shall not apply, nor receive federal and state monies that institute racial profiling as a means of targeting alleged trafficked victims under the guise of enforcing the abatement of prostitution laws."
District Attorney Harris dodged the measure's thinly veiled implication of racism in explaining why the funds and program are valuable. The ballot measure's changes "would make it very challenging to investigate and prosecute human trafficking," she told the Chronicle. "We need to use police resources to investigate where there is a suspicion that women and children, in particular immigrants, are being exploited."
The second program targeted by the measure is San Francisco's First Offender Prostitution Program, which allows men arrested for soliciting a prostitute to pay $1,000 fine and attend a class on prostitution in exchange for having the misdemeanor charge against them dropped. In April, an audit by the U.S. Department of Justice found that men who participated in the program were 30 percent less likely to be arrested for soliciting a prostitute than men who did not.
The ballot measure specifically names the First Offender Prostitution Program and would end it.
The ballot measure quotes and draws credibility from an official task force on prostitution established by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1994. According to a release from the San Francisco City Attorney's Office in February, "The Task Force included representatives from the Mayor's Office, neighborhood groups, law enforcement agencies, public health agencies, social service agencies, various other City departments, women's rights advocates and immigrant and prostitute rights groups."
In 1996, the task force released a report recommending, "City departments stop enforcing and prosecuting prostitution crimes. … [and] that the departments instead focus on the quality of life infractions about which neighborhoods complain and redirect funds from prosecution, public defense, court time, legal system overhead and incarceration towards services and alternatives for needy constituencies."
Since 1996, the city has acted on some of the task force's recommendations, but has refrained from following through on its final conclusion – a reallocation of all funds from prostitution enforcement to neighborhood improvement. The ballot measure seeks to see the task force's full recommendation enacted.
If passed, the ballot measure states that it would take effect Jan. 1, 2009.
City to vote on ballot measure D.A. calls 'welcome mat for prostitutes and pimps'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 19, 2008
4:00 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Petitioners have succeeded in moving a measure that would effectively decriminalize prostitution in the city of San Francisco to the Nov. 4 ballot.
While prostitution is unlawful under the California Penal Code, the measure – if passed by voters – would ban the San Francisco Police Department from allocating any financial resources for the investigation and prosecution of sex workers on prostitution charges.
Section four of the ballot measure – under the heading "Prostitution Shall Be Decriminalized" – further states that the city, county, and district attorney "shall not subject sex-workers to life long economic discrimination associated with having a criminal record."
San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris criticized the measure, unofficially titled "Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers." Harris told the San Francisco Chronicle, "This measure is nothing more than a welcome mat for prostitutes and pimps to come and hang out in San Francisco."
Proponents of the measure are claiming it is needed to give sex-industry workers equal protection under the law and to counter an alleged long-standing cronyism between dance club owners and key decision makers that has resulted in police cracking down on some prostitution outlets but looking the other way from popular nightclubs, even when the clubs were accused of sexual abuses by workers.
Maxine Doogan, founder of the Erotic Service Provider's Union, wrote in an email reported by the Chronicle, "Workers would like it if crimes like rape, robbery, theft and coercion were vigorously investigated and prosecuted. We want the right to make reports of crimes against us without being retaliated against by the police department."
According to the ESPU, the petition to have the measure put on the ballot received 12,763 signatures, 5,000 more than are required. The Chronicle reported that three of the signatures came from sitting members of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.
The ballot measure also takes aim at two programs currently used by San Francisco authorities to combat sex industry crime.
The first is the use of federal and state funds to reduce human trafficking, particularly of illegal immigrants, into the sex trade. The ballot measure states, "San Francisco's law enforcement agencies shall not apply, nor receive federal and state monies that institute racial profiling as a means of targeting alleged trafficked victims under the guise of enforcing the abatement of prostitution laws."
District Attorney Harris dodged the measure's thinly veiled implication of racism in explaining why the funds and program are valuable. The ballot measure's changes "would make it very challenging to investigate and prosecute human trafficking," she told the Chronicle. "We need to use police resources to investigate where there is a suspicion that women and children, in particular immigrants, are being exploited."
The second program targeted by the measure is San Francisco's First Offender Prostitution Program, which allows men arrested for soliciting a prostitute to pay $1,000 fine and attend a class on prostitution in exchange for having the misdemeanor charge against them dropped. In April, an audit by the U.S. Department of Justice found that men who participated in the program were 30 percent less likely to be arrested for soliciting a prostitute than men who did not.
The ballot measure specifically names the First Offender Prostitution Program and would end it.
The ballot measure quotes and draws credibility from an official task force on prostitution established by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1994. According to a release from the San Francisco City Attorney's Office in February, "The Task Force included representatives from the Mayor's Office, neighborhood groups, law enforcement agencies, public health agencies, social service agencies, various other City departments, women's rights advocates and immigrant and prostitute rights groups."
In 1996, the task force released a report recommending, "City departments stop enforcing and prosecuting prostitution crimes. … [and] that the departments instead focus on the quality of life infractions about which neighborhoods complain and redirect funds from prosecution, public defense, court time, legal system overhead and incarceration towards services and alternatives for needy constituencies."
Since 1996, the city has acted on some of the task force's recommendations, but has refrained from following through on its final conclusion – a reallocation of all funds from prostitution enforcement to neighborhood improvement. The ballot measure seeks to see the task force's full recommendation enacted.
If passed, the ballot measure states that it would take effect Jan. 1, 2009.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
21 comments
However, a state can make prostitution legal without running afoul of federal law. California could legalize prostitution, but I don't think any city in California can tie the hands of LE in the manner proposed.
I wish Miami would follow SF lead.
Miami IS following SF lead. Murders, crime, illegal immigration, poor wages, etc.
There are good things like "crime," and "illegal immigration," and "poor wages," but unfortunately this is a police state. When I was young it was fairly rural and guns were common and police were few and far between. On my street, you could easily go a month or two without seeing a police officer. Prostitution? Hello?! Might have been against the law, but it wasn't enforced unless you're being a real pest. Stripclubs? Oh YES!!! W. Dixie Hwy was the place to be; all manner of little small clubs. Drugs? Well, if you were male and white and over 18 . . . my strong wager would be the officers would ignore the "crime" without a bead of sweat. In fact, most officers didn't want to be sending people to jail in the least. It was more of a very friendly force (for whites) that attempted to keep the peace and keep people on target as far as respecting others. Now, the police get a sizable bounty for sitting in a court room so sending people to jail is just fun and games; there ain't much of community.
Ideally, the police will just sort of disappear as quickly as they appeared to enforce a bunch of phoney baloney "crimes."
I'm so sick of the ruling class of so called legal Americans it be wonderful to see 'em replaced wholesale with people from Cuba, Haiti, Iran, South America, etc. Who knows perhaps those people have the same prison state mentality that seems to have gripped so called legal Americans.
What I think is interesting is if this passes, San Fran will suddenly be in competition to Nevada. I think this will be good. If San Fran benefits from this, certain jurisdictions in the US might consider this in the name of raising needed revenue.
More importantly they probably also swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as California's Constitution as well as to God and the Pink Poney, etc. Point being the law can and is twisted to mean whatever BS those with the power choose it to mean. Penumbras, remember, penumbras; at least that was honest. :) Judges find it easy to ignore even well established precedent and clearly written law; the filth and fraud of law is big business for the bright and brightless.
Perhaps it was just the high priced attorneys that I spoke with, but none thought The Second Amendment applied as an individual right. I doubt law professors by and large were teaching their young pupils that it was an individual right; of course, I could be wrong. :)
December 6, 1996
The National Law Journal - Podium/Civil Liberties
By Harvey A. Silverglate
Apparently for the first time in American legal history, a criminal trial juror has herself been placed on trial for contempt, growing out of her telling fellow jurors, during deliberations, a truthful fact -- that American juries have the power to acquit a defendant even if they believe that he violated the law. The case, arising and tried in Gilpin County, Colorado, has pitted judges and prosecutors, who fear the spread of "jury nullification", against a growing, or at least increasingly vocal, movement of libertarians, civil libertarians, and others who seek to stem a growing tendency by courts, legislatures, and prosecutors to curtail the ancient and revered right to trial by jury.
Laura J. Kriho was sworn to serve as a trial juror in the prosecution of a 19-year-old woman charged with felony possession of amphetamines. During jury selection voir dire, Kriho did not disclose two matters that, later, the trial judge and the District Attorney said were material omissions made under oath: (1) that in 1984 she had been charged with felony possession of LSD, pleaded guilty, and received a deferred judgment and sentence, and (2) that she disagreed with the drug laws and did not believe that a juror had to follow the judge's instructions as to the law and hence could acquit even a demonstrably guilty defendant. Even though Kriho had not been asked a direct question on either of these matters during jury selection, she was charged with perjury for failing to disclose them when asked a general question as to whether she knew of any reason why she could not serve as a conscientious juror in accordance with the evidence and the law as instructed by the court."
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.na…
Generally, the judges here in Miami-Dade County from what my friends have related will NOT tolerate jurors being educated about jury nullification. Handing out pamphlets to educate the jury is enough to get the jury dismissed-----I wish I had one to give my neighbor who can't understand or speak English very well. Of course, the court may reason, correctly, that the pamphlet is NO threat as far as he is concerned because he wouldn't be able to understand it; if written in English.
The Golden Rule? (You can't place yourself in the defendant's shoes.) Yes, that is a definite HELL NO!!!
by Jacqueline D. Stanley (she is an attorney who believes in jury nullification)
http://www.amazon.com/Jurors-Rights-Lega…
"A jury's most significant right is also the one they are most likely to know nothing about: the power or right nullify the law and follow their conscience when rendering their decisions. It is sometimes hard to convince novice jurors that this right exists, because judges often give instructions to the contrary." ID at page 53---I have this book at home.
More interesting, imo, is the body of "secret law" i.e. case law that has been removed from the law reports, but is nonetheless *controlling* precedent. Doubt it? Well, any search of depublished opinions should yield some interesting leads----I would assume. I did a lot of work on this issue, but it was years ago. This one judge argued vociferously ALL case law should be secret so criminals wont know how to break the law and get away with it---as if judges adhere to precedent---controlling or otherwise unless they happen to *feel* like it.
"A jury's most significant right is also the one they are most likely to know nothing about: the power or right to nullify the law and follow their conscience when rendering their decisions. It is sometimes hard to convince novice jurors that this right exists, because judges often give instructions to the contrary." ID at page 53---I have this book at home.
Well, I hope you get your "learned" opinion. :)
For those interested in jury nullification you might wish to check this website: http://www.fija.org/.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/1…
From: Stanford Law Review | Date: May 1, 2004| Author: Pether, Penelope | COPYRIGHT 2004 Stanford Law School.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-1193…
I haven't bothered to read this and it may even cost $$$, but some people might be interested in depublished opinions as well as unpublished opinions. It should be very interesting to those who believe the law isn't hidden from the public---hidden for varying reasons. Most people are ignorant and want to believe whatever they're fed by the newspaper or a single judge or single lawyer. Even where lawyers seem to be in complete agreement---it might be a good idea to dig deeper. Research the actual court files. Yes, a lot work. And, very few people do it. Most are ignorant and those who know the value of checking hundreds of files usually won't take the time because it is so labor intensive. And, what is the point unless you are writing an article for publication?
Not exactly...prostitution is LEGAL if conducted indoors in RI...so it's not selective enforcement of the law.
For whatever reason, being on a jury was always something that I wanted to have as an experience. The experience turned out to be very mixed, but I'd do again though. There were too many people IMO that were willing to say anything to not be considered for a jury. One guy even said during voir dire that he "could feel himself forming an opinion about the case" while he was sitting there in the jury box - he got booted...along with a LOT of other people...anyone basically that actually knew much of anything about the issues (which mostly involved trees of all things) that were involved in the case. Even though I said in open court that I had heard of one the people that was going to testify as an "expert", they didn't boot me...I guess there were too many "tree people" that needed to be booted off first. The guy next to me at voir dire said that he had ran a saw mill in Belize (true story)...booted. The guy that sat next to me during the trial remembered that his company had done business at one time with one of the other "expert" witnesses (but only after she had been on the stand already!), but they kept him thank goodness...I didn't want to go through an entire other hearing. Some of the other jurors acted like it was one of the hardest things that they had ever done in their life...others just didn't seem to have a clue about why we were all there. It was a very "unique" experience to say the least...