: Legal Corner Discussion : Yeah, value as precedent weak

PSEguy147 2698 reads

posted 13 years ago

1 / 11

Pennsylvania Supreme Court legalized Non-commerical prostitution!!

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v Danko 421. A.2d 1165. 1170 (Pa. Super. 1980) legalized non-commercial, private prostitution. The court set guidelines that the person engaging in this activity. The court stated that a person cannot make it a profession.
This case was cited in the case of the woman who attempt to trade tickets for sex. Her conviction got reversed because she was not doing it as a profession and her activates were labeled as non-commercial.
In most of the United States, there is no court cases that state that non-commercial prostitution is legal. You will have to research court cases for mistress-lovers relationship or cohabitation case law.
The court may establish a right to contract between mistress and lovers. If the court establishes the right to contract between mistress and lovers, they are establishing this activity is legal. If the activity is illegal, the court will not honor such contract.
The Commonwealth v. Danko can be cited in any courts of the United States provided there is no case law that is similar or answer this legal question.
There is a court ruling that classify escort services as commercial. This is the reason why escorts and their clients cannot claim their activities are non-commercial is because of this court ruling; IDK, INC. COUNTY OF CLARK .836 F.2d 1185

maxwell44 23 Reviews 808 reads

posted 13 years ago

2 / 11

In summary...

The court didn't legalize anything.

All they did is use a bunch of legalese to say that the woman was not a prostitute, she was just a slut, and there is nothing illegal about being a slut. That was their ruling in layman's terms.

PSEguy147 778 reads

posted 13 years ago

3 / 11

Re: In summary...

The court said that if you are doing it privately in a context of a relationship and not a profession it is OK. This is the mistress-lover exemption to the prostitution statutes. This is how Sugar Daddies and Sugar Babies get away.

The courts don't allow escorts to sell sexual services because they are in a profession and they serve the public or segment of the public.

The court logic between non-commercial and commercial is the turnaround rates. They claim escorts change clients at the rate that make it commercial. Sugar babies don't have a high turn around rate with lovers so they are non-commercial.

Posted By: maxwell44

The court didn't legalize anything.

All they did is use a bunch of legalese to say that the woman was not a prostitute, she was just a slut, and there is nothing illegal about being a slut. That was their ruling in layman's terms.

mrfisher 115 Reviews 799 reads

posted 13 years ago

4 / 11

True, but this could be the "camel's nose under the tent" that could....

eventually lead to acceptance of individual providers being able to work without being hassled.

Anything is better than nothing.

Mr.Tennis 1 Reviews 730 reads

posted 13 years ago

5 / 11

I remember when the story came out

Laughed my ass off reading about it. What you posted is the exact same thing I read when the news first came out, "it's not illegal to be a slut." Haha!

maxwell44 23 Reviews 642 reads

posted 13 years ago

6 / 11

So what we know so far is....

So what we know so far is that the woman in question didn't actually have sex with the officer, she just proposed to have some fun with him and then go on a date with him to the Superbowl or whatever. Then it turned out that she was just a slut, not a prostitute, so it was legal. The key to making this determination, according to the court, is the "turn around rate".

Therefore, if you go to one of those speed-dating places where you switch seats ever few minutes, and talk to a dozen girls in the span of an hour in this manner, the court is going to say that the girls are proposing having fun with too many prospective dates in a certain span of time, so they won't approve of the "turn around rate" which they will then say makes it an illegal activity.

In conclusion, if you don't want to run afoul of this law, you are going to have to avoid speed dating places because of their illegal practices of having turn around rates that the court doesn't approve of. For that matter, never date more than one different person per month, because that too might be illegal. If you are two-timing your significant other, that would also be illegal, because of the turn around rate.

The other thing you will need to avoid is making any proposals to have any kind of fun time. Therefore only married people who are miserable at all times will truly be legal at all times. If that is not the case in your situation, the next best thing that is also legal is to date people who don't speak English, that way you can't convey the words "fun time" or anything else at all to that person.

And that is the court-approved way in Pennsylvania to have sex.

Posted By: PSEguy147

The court said that if you are doing it privately in a context of a relationship and not a profession it is OK. This is the mistress-lover exemption to the prostitution statutes. This is how Sugar Daddies and Sugar Babies get away.

The courts don't allow escorts to sell sexual services because they are in a profession and they serve the public or segment of the public.

The court logic between non-commercial and commercial is the turnaround rates. They claim escorts change clients at the rate that make it commercial. Sugar babies don't have a high turn around rate with lovers so they are non-commercial.

Posted By: maxwell44

The court didn't legalize anything.

All they did is use a bunch of legalese to say that the woman was not a prostitute, she was just a slut, and there is nothing illegal about being a slut. That was their ruling in layman's terms.

marikod 1 Reviews 791 reads

posted 13 years ago

7 / 11

Maybe you should read the case before you comment on it

Almost everything you said is wrong. You even identified the court incorrectly- this was not the Penn Supreme Court.

You apparently focused on the discussion that promiscuity if not for hire is not criminal. Well, gee, that is hardly news.

Finally "non-commercial prostitution" is an oxymoron. Sex must be traded for something for value to be prostitution. But, once you make that bargain, you have engaged in solictation or prostitution even if you only do it once in your life.

Talk to poor Cathy who use to post on this Board about 5 years ago about it.

PSEguy147 669 reads

posted 13 years ago

8 / 11

Re: So what we know so far is.... Sorry for Errors

It is the Penn. Superior Court. This case is good for citing.
The court is not saying it is illegal to engage in commercial companionship. Commercial companionship is LEGAL. What is illegal is commercial sex.

The court did it's best without creating public outrage at this time. The judges did not want the public outcry of legalizing prostitution totally but don't want to prohibit to the point outlawing mistress-lover's relationship.

This is the happy balance for the time. Maybe on a future date they will legalize some commercial prostitution.

Posted By: maxwell44

So what we know so far is that the woman in question didn't actually have sex with the officer, she just proposed to have some fun with him and then go on a date with him to the Superbowl or whatever. Then it turned out that she was just a slut, not a prostitute, so it was legal. The key to making this determination, according to the court, is the "turn around rate".

Therefore, if you go to one of those speed-dating places where you switch seats ever few minutes, and talk to a dozen girls in the span of an hour in this manner, the court is going to say that the girls are proposing having fun with too many prospective dates in a certain span of time, so they won't approve of the "turn around rate" which they will then say makes it an illegal activity.

In conclusion, if you don't want to run afoul of this law, you are going to have to avoid speed dating places because of their illegal practices of having turn around rates that the court doesn't approve of. For that matter, never date more than one different person per month, because that too might be illegal. If you are two-timing your significant other, that would also be illegal, because of the turn around rate.

The other thing you will need to avoid is making any proposals to have any kind of fun time. Therefore only married people who are miserable at all times will truly be legal at all times. If that is not the case in your situation, the next best thing that is also legal is to date people who don't speak English, that way you can't convey the words "fun time" or anything else at all to that person.

And that is the court-approved way in Pennsylvania to have sex.

Posted By: PSEguy147

The court said that if you are doing it privately in a context of a relationship and not a profession it is OK. This is the mistress-lover exemption to the prostitution statutes. This is how Sugar Daddies and Sugar Babies get away.

The courts don't allow escorts to sell sexual services because they are in a profession and they serve the public or segment of the public.

The court logic between non-commercial and commercial is the turnaround rates. They claim escorts change clients at the rate that make it commercial. Sugar babies don't have a high turn around rate with lovers so they are non-commercial.

Posted By: maxwell44

The court didn't legalize anything.

All they did is use a bunch of legalese to say that the woman was not a prostitute, she was just a slut, and there is nothing illegal about being a slut. That was their ruling in layman's terms.

dadvocate 696 reads

posted 13 years ago

9 / 11

Re: So what we know so far is.... Sorry for Errors

Sorry, but I think this is wishful thinking. It looks like the Court just clarified an attempt to blur the lines of prostitution, nothing more. I can't see a Court striking down prostitution laws. There is definitely a libertarian case for it, but justices most likely to be skeptical about government intrusion into commercial activity are those already most in thrall to the religious right. Maybe in a few decades...

Posted By: PSEguy147

It is the Penn. Superior Court. This case is good for citing.
The court is not saying it is illegal to engage in commercial companionship. Commercial companionship is LEGAL. What is illegal is commercial sex.

The court did it's best without creating public outrage at this time. The judges did not want the public outcry of legalizing prostitution totally but don't want to prohibit to the point outlawing mistress-lover's relationship.

This is the happy balance for the time. Maybe on a future date they will legalize some commercial prostitution.

Posted By: maxwell44

So what we know so far is that the woman in question didn't actually have sex with the officer, she just proposed to have some fun with him and then go on a date with him to the Superbowl or whatever. Then it turned out that she was just a slut, not a prostitute, so it was legal. The key to making this determination, according to the court, is the "turn around rate".

Therefore, if you go to one of those speed-dating places where you switch seats ever few minutes, and talk to a dozen girls in the span of an hour in this manner, the court is going to say that the girls are proposing having fun with too many prospective dates in a certain span of time, so they won't approve of the "turn around rate" which they will then say makes it an illegal activity.

In conclusion, if you don't want to run afoul of this law, you are going to have to avoid speed dating places because of their illegal practices of having turn around rates that the court doesn't approve of. For that matter, never date more than one different person per month, because that too might be illegal. If you are two-timing your significant other, that would also be illegal, because of the turn around rate.

The other thing you will need to avoid is making any proposals to have any kind of fun time. Therefore only married people who are miserable at all times will truly be legal at all times. If that is not the case in your situation, the next best thing that is also legal is to date people who don't speak English, that way you can't convey the words "fun time" or anything else at all to that person.

And that is the court-approved way in Pennsylvania to have sex.

Posted By: PSEguy147

The court said that if you are doing it privately in a context of a relationship and not a profession it is OK. This is the mistress-lover exemption to the prostitution statutes. This is how Sugar Daddies and Sugar Babies get away.

The courts don't allow escorts to sell sexual services because they are in a profession and they serve the public or segment of the public.

The court logic between non-commercial and commercial is the turnaround rates. They claim escorts change clients at the rate that make it commercial. Sugar babies don't have a high turn around rate with lovers so they are non-commercial.

Posted By: maxwell44

The court didn't legalize anything.

All they did is use a bunch of legalese to say that the woman was not a prostitute, she was just a slut, and there is nothing illegal about being a slut. That was their ruling in layman's terms.

Rudy50 15 Reviews 674 reads

posted 13 years ago

10 / 11

Yeah, value as precedent weak

This was an opinion of a trial court level judge so has no binding effect on any court outside the county where that judge sits. It may or may not have persuasive value, but appellate judges think they're smarter than trial judges so they wouldn't likely give it any more consideration than a good lawyer's argument.

Still, an interesting case on topic for the board.

PSEguy147 623 reads

posted 13 years ago

11 / 11

Superior Courts are Appeals Court in Penn.

The trial court is the court of common pleads. The name classification are different than other states. It is just like NY that calls the trial courts Supreme Courts. In all the other state, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the state.

Posted By: Rudy50

This was an opinion of a trial court level judge so has no binding effect on any court outside the county where that judge sits. It may or may not have persuasive value, but appellate judges think they're smarter than trial judges so they wouldn't likely give it any more consideration than a good lawyer's argument.

Still, an interesting case on topic for the board.