It's a Crime

Looks like young Wizards forward Andray Blatche got himself "arrested Thursday on sexual solicitation charges."

This is what I feel like went mysteriously missing from the Beltway conversation about David Vitter showing up on the DC madam's list. We don't know exactly what went down, but it certainly appears that Vitter did things that get people arrested. I don't, personally, think people should be arrested for what Vitter and Blatche both seem to have done. But one way or another, the only way to have any kind of sensible vice laws is for the laws to applied with a modicum of fairness.

Comments

I'm moderately surprised that so-called libertarian Ron Paul didn't take advantage of this situation to make the case for decriminalizing this sort of consensual sexual activity. But only moderately.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | August 2, 2007 10:53 PM

Good for you Matt, but f&#k this "modicum of fairness" b.s. This calls for full throated indignation toward the neo-Victorian DC class with their trashy Porsche Cayenne's and monthly parking passes. But I digress.

Of course prostitution is not the type of "crime" that should result in incarceration, but this isn't about that. This is about one rule for the rulers. Another rule for the ruled. Someone should ask Vitter what he thinks about Mr. Blatche's predicament. In sum, in a fair world, Vitter should not be let off the hook.

Posted by fnook | August 2, 2007 11:42 PM

has anyone asked Vitter if he thinks the prostitutes he admits paying should be subject to criminal sanctions? Seems like the answer would interesting, either way.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 2, 2007 11:44 PM

The articles I've seen on the story have all noted that the statute of limitations has long since expired. So unless you think we should suspend the statue of limitations for Republicans, then he's been treated fairly. Besides, have ANY of the madame's clients been prosecuted due to her release of the names?

Posted by EE | August 3, 2007 1:15 AM

You know you're a shitty basketball player when you have to pay for sex.

Posted by Gregorio | August 3, 2007 3:42 AM

EE, nobody wants Vitter to go to jail. What we want is for him to show some of the same compassion he expects for himself, by supporting reduced penalties for prostitution.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 3, 2007 6:56 AM

A New Orleans madam said in an interview about Vitter that "he was very nice and he mainly wanted to just talk". So, the right think to do is to solicit a girl to talk with you for 200 dollars per hour.

Posted by piotr | August 3, 2007 9:09 AM

Of course, the fact that vice laws will never, ever be applied with even a modicum of fairness is a good reason to give up the enterprise.

Posted by X. Trapnel | August 3, 2007 10:16 AM

Scooter Libby says, "Fairness is good."

Posted by Teethwriter | August 3, 2007 11:09 AM

"Of course prostitution is not the type of "crime" that should result in incarceration"

Right, the johns whose money supports a perpetual cycle of addiction and abuse should be able to purchase their short-term human slaves without legal consequences. Of course. How elightened of you.

Comments like this allow one to understand how out of touch beltway libertarians are with the rest of the world. I guess this is consistent with Polanyi's argument in the "Great Transformation," that the market will eventually destroy all decent values, and humanity itself.

Posted by father figure | August 3, 2007 12:41 PM

We don't know exactly what went down, but it certainly appears that Vitter did things that get people arrested.

I agree that prostitution should not be a crime. However, the difference between Vitter and Blatche is obviously that there is actual evidence against Blatche. I'm not sure what planet Matthew is living on, but you can't arrest someone simply because his phone number showed up on a madam's phone records.

Posted by Al | August 3, 2007 12:58 PM

You know father figure, just because there are laws against it doesn't mean that anything is being done to break that cycle. I've heard this argument over and over again, but the selective enforcement suggests to me that we'd be better off with an open arrangment subject to legal oversight.

Posted by mpowell | August 3, 2007 2:47 PM

Mpowell, people should not be allowed to demean themselves, period. The power dynamic is so skewed between prostitute and john (or prostitute and pimp) that calling these arrangements "consensual" is perverse. Dehumanization is the theme that underlies many of histories great evils, and allowing it to occur cannot be a policy platform of a truly progressive political movement.

Posted by Father figure | August 3, 2007 4:08 PM