Honestly pretty severe sentencing for the crimes that stuck? I think it’s actually longer than the federal recommendation. For once I actually think he got more years than your average Joe would.
Honestly pretty severe sentencing for the crimes that stuck? I think it’s actually longer than the federal recommendation.
For once I actually think he got more years than your average Joe would.
Yeah but the max was ridiculous. Recommendation was 48-52 months, but let's be honest, most people wouldn't even be prosecuted. Getting 4 years for paying for a prostitute's plane ticket is...
Yeah but the max was ridiculous. Recommendation was 48-52 months, but let's be honest, most people wouldn't even be prosecuted.
Getting 4 years for paying for a prostitute's plane ticket is already draconian. I don't think there's any reason the Mann act should still be in the books, it's like having sodomy laws be enforced.
After looking into the Mann Act a little bit, I have... Mixed feelings on it. Historically it was very vaguely worded to include anything "immoral" or "debauchery" and used to punish people for...
After looking into the Mann Act a little bit, I have... Mixed feelings on it. Historically it was very vaguely worded to include anything "immoral" or "debauchery" and used to punish people for pretty much anything. And primarily used by racists or for political purposes.
It's been refined since then to refer specifically to sexual acts that can be charged criminally (with a particular focus on minors), and... Well, to quote this other NYT article:
Over time, the government’s use of the law evolved to focus on the types of cases more familiar to prosecutors today: trafficking and sex crimes against underage victims.
The passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000 — now considered the country’s main sex trafficking law — altered the use of the Mann Act even further.
...
Now, legal experts say, the government often deploys Mann Act charges in tandem with the more severe sex trafficking law because they are significantly easier to prove and serve as something of a backstop in challenging cases.
The Combs case shows the usefulness of that strategy for prosecutors, one of whom told the jury during the trial that “even if all the participants enthusiastically consented,” they could still convict under the Mann Act.
Mann Act charges are often used as building blocks for prosecutors to assemble a complex case with a sweeping narrative of behavior, experts say, as in the federal cases against R. Kelly and Ghislaine Maxwell.
And that's where my internal conflict comes in. I can see where even now it can be abused to suppress someone for being different, just as Combs' lawyers argued. However, with how abysmal the justice system can be in regards to sex-related crimes, I can also easily imagine so many scenarios where it may be the only charges that stick.
Or at least the easiest charges to prove and act on. After looking at the Wikipedia page for notable cases, it seems like the Mann Act was the primary justification for arresting cult leader Tony Alamo, who... Wow. He absolutely belonged in jail and I assume/hope authorities would have found other reasons to charge him eventually, given how public he was about his views, but it at least may have gotten six girls out of that place that much sooner.
So yeah, I'm conflicted. The law, especially in its original form, has been abused and still has the potential to be so. But again, that leaves many cases where it may be the best recourse to seek justice.
That's the crux of it, in the end. It's one of those laws that is used by the government when they can't actually prove someone committed crimes, but the prosecution "feels" that they did....
Historically it was very vaguely worded to include anything "immoral" or "debauchery" and used to punish people for pretty much anything.
That's the crux of it, in the end. It's one of those laws that is used by the government when they can't actually prove someone committed crimes, but the prosecution "feels" that they did.
However, ultimately prosecutors are not judge and jury - they are just that, the prosecution. Tools like the Mann act, while they can be a prosecutor's way to achieve vigilante justice, are not, in the end, justice.
I think this is just a dangerous way to look at it and is basically the same line of logic that’s always used for horrific laws. We need better sex trafficking laws yes, but justifying the Mann...
I think this is just a dangerous way to look at it and is basically the same line of logic that’s always used for horrific laws.
We need better sex trafficking laws yes, but justifying the Mann act because it (barely) got Diddy is honestly the same rhetoric you get for all sorts of racist or terrible laws(stopped this one horrible person. Think of the consequences if we didn’t have it!)
It's a concerning trend I think that people who almost certainly did many terrible things are being overpunished for whatever crime prosecutors could most easily prove, instead of doing a...
It's a concerning trend I think that people who almost certainly did many terrible things are being overpunished for whatever crime prosecutors could most easily prove, instead of doing a comprehensive investigation of their wrongdoing and putting together a really solid case.
I think that undersells the state of things. The “prostitutes” were not exactly willing. Evidence was produced for long term assault, coercion, willing and unwilling drug use, and undisclosed...
I think that undersells the state of things. The “prostitutes” were not exactly willing. Evidence was produced for long term assault, coercion, willing and unwilling drug use, and undisclosed recording of sex acts.
Perhaps, but the prosecution could not prove that beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of peers. The conviction was only for the transportation of prostitutes across state boundaries.
Perhaps, but the prosecution could not prove that beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of peers. The conviction was only for the transportation of prostitutes across state boundaries.
Couldn’t prove at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. However, the judge did feel they were at the level of a preponderance of evidence which is all that is needed for increased sentencing —...
Couldn’t prove at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. However, the judge did feel they were at the level of a preponderance of evidence which is all that is needed for increased sentencing — evidence of abuse including photos of bruises and other wounds, hearsay, etc all went towards the higher sentence.
In related news, Trump's 2016 spiritual advisor plead guilty to raping a 12 year old girl for 4 years and got 6 months for it.
You would think being a religious leader would be an aggravating factor. He should be serving years.
I’d sleep easy knowing that series of crimes carries a life sentence.
Also, what does Trump need a spiritual advisor for?
How to better con the spiritual people, obvs
Honestly pretty severe sentencing for the crimes that stuck? I think it’s actually longer than the federal recommendation.
For once I actually think he got more years than your average Joe would.
In thought max for what he was facing was 11 years?
Yeah but the max was ridiculous. Recommendation was 48-52 months, but let's be honest, most people wouldn't even be prosecuted.
Getting 4 years for paying for a prostitute's plane ticket is already draconian. I don't think there's any reason the Mann act should still be in the books, it's like having sodomy laws be enforced.
After looking into the Mann Act a little bit, I have... Mixed feelings on it. Historically it was very vaguely worded to include anything "immoral" or "debauchery" and used to punish people for pretty much anything. And primarily used by racists or for political purposes.
It's been refined since then to refer specifically to sexual acts that can be charged criminally (with a particular focus on minors), and... Well, to quote this other NYT article:
And that's where my internal conflict comes in. I can see where even now it can be abused to suppress someone for being different, just as Combs' lawyers argued. However, with how abysmal the justice system can be in regards to sex-related crimes, I can also easily imagine so many scenarios where it may be the only charges that stick.
Or at least the easiest charges to prove and act on. After looking at the Wikipedia page for notable cases, it seems like the Mann Act was the primary justification for arresting cult leader Tony Alamo, who... Wow. He absolutely belonged in jail and I assume/hope authorities would have found other reasons to charge him eventually, given how public he was about his views, but it at least may have gotten six girls out of that place that much sooner.
So yeah, I'm conflicted. The law, especially in its original form, has been abused and still has the potential to be so. But again, that leaves many cases where it may be the best recourse to seek justice.
That's the crux of it, in the end. It's one of those laws that is used by the government when they can't actually prove someone committed crimes, but the prosecution "feels" that they did.
However, ultimately prosecutors are not judge and jury - they are just that, the prosecution. Tools like the Mann act, while they can be a prosecutor's way to achieve vigilante justice, are not, in the end, justice.
I think this is just a dangerous way to look at it and is basically the same line of logic that’s always used for horrific laws.
We need better sex trafficking laws yes, but justifying the Mann act because it (barely) got Diddy is honestly the same rhetoric you get for all sorts of racist or terrible laws(stopped this one horrible person. Think of the consequences if we didn’t have it!)
It's a concerning trend I think that people who almost certainly did many terrible things are being overpunished for whatever crime prosecutors could most easily prove, instead of doing a comprehensive investigation of their wrongdoing and putting together a really solid case.
I think that undersells the state of things. The “prostitutes” were not exactly willing. Evidence was produced for long term assault, coercion, willing and unwilling drug use, and undisclosed recording of sex acts.
Perhaps, but the prosecution could not prove that beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of peers. The conviction was only for the transportation of prostitutes across state boundaries.
Couldn’t prove at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. However, the judge did feel they were at the level of a preponderance of evidence which is all that is needed for increased sentencing — evidence of abuse including photos of bruises and other wounds, hearsay, etc all went towards the higher sentence.
Ahh okay, and yeah just confirming since there’s a lot going on in this.