Robert Kraft charged

24 February 2019, 10:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by AdagioM:
Meh, whoever he is.

What’s important here? Human trafficking. Actual human trafficking for sexual servitude. Actually happening, right there. Ugh.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

And it does tie in to the immigration issue, because these people come from other countries and then can be forced into these sex jobs.

And heightened immigration enforcement increases the pressure that they are under, because the threat that they and their children will be sent packing is larger.

24 February 2019, 10:18 AM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailoh:
Should he? Do other johns in similar situations do jail time?

Yes. My bet is they'll all be charged with misdemeanors and they'll all be fined and have some sort of service time (including, I've read, mandatory training on human trafficking). But no jail time.

24 February 2019, 10:51 AM

jon-nyc

Jail? That’s ridiculous.

24 February 2019, 11:39 AM

Nina

I don't know if it's ridiculous, as it's in the realm of the sentencing guidelines. But I don't see it happening.

I got stuck on this quote, from the 2nd article, this from the Patriots organization: "We categorically deny that Mr. Kraft engaged in any illegal activity."

Uh, don't they have video? Surely they're not going to claim it was consensual.

24 February 2019, 02:24 PM

Steve Miller

That same $20 says he doesn't get fined either.

25 February 2019, 03:55 PM

Bernard

Meanwhile, in NY, legislators working to decriminalize sex work

25 February 2019, 04:35 PM

jon-nyc

quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
Surely they're not going to claim it was consensual.

Maybe I haven't read enough about this case, in fact I've probably seen only the headlines. But why wouldn't he? He's not accused of raping somebody, is he?

25 February 2019, 04:46 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
Surely they're not going to claim it was consensual.

Maybe I haven't read enough about this case, in fact I've probably seen only the headlines. But why wouldn't he? He's not accused of raping somebody, is he?

It’s still prostitution. That’s still a crime.

Surely he will not try to argue that he went into a day spa to meet someone, and just happened to strike up a sexual relationship?

25 February 2019, 04:47 PM

wtg

jon - What about the part about paying for services?

Quirt -- Yea, and he was there more than once. Would be interesting to see if there was more than one woman involved...

--------------------------------
We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love… and then we return home. - Australian Aboriginal proverb

Bazootiehead-in-training

25 February 2019, 07:01 PM

jon-nyc

I get that it's prostitution. But he'll still argue that it's consensual.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a crime, rather I'm addressing Nina's specific point about consent.

25 February 2019, 07:17 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I get that it's prostitution. But he'll still argue that it's consensual.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a crime, rather I'm addressing Nina's specific point about consent.

Consent gets you out of human trafficking, it does not vitiate a charge of prostitution.

In the classic case of sex for money, if you assume a sole contractor who is a U.S. citizen with no pimp, the prostitute is consenting, 100%. And it's still a crime.

25 February 2019, 07:18 PM

jon-nyc

Again, I get that it’s a crime in many jurisdictions. I was simply reacting to Nina’s statement about consent.

25 February 2019, 07:20 PM

jon-nyc

Human trafficking would be a charge for the owner, not the customer. Unless the law is really defective.

25 February 2019, 08:11 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Human trafficking would be a charge for the owner, not the customer. Unless the law is really defective.

No. Suppose, for example, that the "customer" knows that the provider of the service is unwilling and is a victim of human trafficking. One can imagine the charging authorities claiming the "customer" is complicit. Perhaps that would be a rape or sexual assault charge. Or perhaps a conspiracy charge. Or perhaps an accessory after the fact charge. I can imagine several ways in which a "customer" who was aware that the provider was a trafficking victim might be charged.

And now, I'll go look to see if I can find support for that viewpoint.

25 February 2019, 08:20 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Some states punish sex purchasers the same as traffickers, generally with felony level crimes, while others punish them with misdemeanors associated with paying for prostitution or solicitation. A third option some states have taken is to assign a middle-ground crime, usually being either a more severe version of solicitation, or a less severe form of human trafficking.

South Dakota’s law assesses a class 1 misdemeanor for hiring a person for sexual activity, unless the person should have known they were hiring someone forced to engage in this activity through trafficking, then it is a class 6 felony.

Washington identifies anyone who purchases a sexually explicit act as a human trafficker guilty of a class A felony.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/c...rafficking-laws.aspx