Fretting over definitions is a red herring

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT an attorney-what follows could not, under any doctrine of reasonable, serve as legal advice, nor should it be construed as such. I have a "defendents" knowledge at best of the statutory predicament we call Prostitution. That said:

There are the classic three elements of any successful prostitution prosecution: Offer, Consideration and Acceptance.

1. Offer-speaks for itself. Did someone offer sex or make an offer FOR sex. (watch a john sting on COPS, where they get the poor sucker to mention a sex act-there's your offer).

2. Consideration-money or item of value proffered or arranged for in exchange. (Exchange for the act referenced under "Offer"). No cash need change hands, by the way, for consideration to exist-I've seen people successfully prosecuted anyway...firsthand.

3. Acceptance-again speaks for itself. Pulling around the corner to get your BJ, or knocking on the door after you did items 1 and 2 is "Acceptance", even if nothing happens physically. (Again, watch them do john stings on COPS if you don't follow)

Now, again I am no lawyer, but I very much doubt if you offered a provider a car or your timeshare in Aspen instead of cash, using it as your defense gets you off the hook on a prostitution charge.


It's good to keep people informed about pending legislation, particularly as it pertains, even tangentally, to the hobby. I for one encourage every hobbyist to follow the link and read it in it's entirety and draw your own conclusions, then act as you see fit. That's more useful than well intentioned people generating unnecessary hysteria.

SB1268 doesn't expand the definition to encompass things the law currently exempts, it simply modifies the definition.

So, if they really wanted to prosecute a Sugar Daddy, and had sufficient evidence to connect remuneration with the act of sex, they could try.

Which in these cases, can be as good as winning, once they bankrupt you with mounting a defense and drag your name through the mud, possibly invoking the governments most effective weapon-asset forfeiture. God help you if you have incall in your home or drive your car to a call.

This is where I think well intentioned alarm becomes misleading-making people think that this Bill makes something that illegal that wasn't before. It doesn't.

If I were a hobbyist, what would concern me more about SB1268 than the expansion to encompass what has already been well established as consideration for purposes of prostituion, would be this amendment to the bill:

(this is an ADOPTED amendment to this bill, not a PROPOSED one)

S.B. 1268
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1268

Page 2, between lines 24 and 25, insert:

“b.  except pursuant to subsection c, paragraph 2 of this section, it is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section if the defendant engaged in the conduct constituting the offense with a minor and at the time of the offense the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known the age of the minor.”

This repeals the existing defense in A.R.S. § 13-3213.


Meaning even if you have bonafide "proof" of valid identification establishing the age of your provider, and it were to turn out to be false, you go down on a Class 4 felony if a person commits child prostitution and the minor is 15, 16 or 17 years old and at the time of the offense the defendant (you) could not reasonably have known the age of the minor.

So rather than worry if you gave her folded cash or a diamond necklace for your session, worry if that girl who SAYS she's 21 isn't really 17 with a fake ID-cause under SB1268, not knowing or having any reason to be ABLE to know will really hurt.


I'm all for preserving freedoms-I just like to make sure I'm not tilting at windmills first.

None of this is to dismiss AZLawman's post or what I am sure are his good intentions in bringing this to our attention.  Hey, I could be wrong-but after sitting in a courtroom watching a good woman suffer through a 4 day trial over whether the word "release" could convince 12 people too bored or stupid to get out of jury duty to convict her as a prostitute, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Anyone with legitimate legal credentials care to tackle this and clarify the implications of SB1268 for us?

Cause personally, what they can already DO to us scares me a hell of a lot more than any verbage buried in a child prostitution bill.


Let's all Get Informed and discuss.

THEN...

Hobby Happy

JJ


-- Modified on 3/27/2007 12:45:35 AM

"Of course, under this broader definition, any woman with a Sugar Daddy would be a prostitute"

What's the difference?  Seriously.