John Camp
Well-known
This is not a commentary on public sex or gay sex, but on an interesting legal/justice point.
As many of the US readers will know, a conservative Republican senator from Idaho was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly solicting sex from an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport restroom. He pled guilty, apparently hoping that the arrest would not be noticed by the media -- but it was, and his career is over.
The interesting legal aspect is this: according to a law professor interviewed by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Craig had done nothing at all illegal at the time of his arrest. His foot had touched the officer's in the adjoining bathroom stall, perhaps several times, according to the officer; and his hand, according to the policeman, groped under the stall wall (without touching anything.) When arrested, he argued with the cop, saying that his actions had been misconstrued, that he'd dropped a business paper and that's when the officer saw his hand, and that he hadn't noticed that his foot had intruded across the wall line of the stall. And etc. I think he was probably seeking sex, myself, but whatever the reality of it, the law professor said *none* of the acts alleged were illegal, that they *all* depended on interpretation of intent by the officer, and that Craig (it was all tape recorded) had made no explicit suggestion nor had he performed any explicit act. I should add that gay sex in itself is not illegal here -- only soliciting sex (of any kind) in a public place.
In any case, Craig pled guilty (even though he probably could not have been found guilty in a court) soley because he knew that the arrest itself would end his career, and he felt his only possible hope was that the arrest was so low profile that it would not be noticed.
I find this interesting because there's a hole here in the justice system -- a man feels compelled to plead guilty to a crime that he could not be convicted of, because the worst penalty he can suffer (loss of his position) will be levied upon him whether or not he actually did anything. Having pled guilty, he can't get out of that -- he can't retract, argue his innocence, and have the case thrown out.
Sounds like a dramatic tragedy, almost (although, from my political position, the loss of Craig from the Senate is no big deal.)
JC
As many of the US readers will know, a conservative Republican senator from Idaho was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly solicting sex from an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport restroom. He pled guilty, apparently hoping that the arrest would not be noticed by the media -- but it was, and his career is over.
The interesting legal aspect is this: according to a law professor interviewed by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Craig had done nothing at all illegal at the time of his arrest. His foot had touched the officer's in the adjoining bathroom stall, perhaps several times, according to the officer; and his hand, according to the policeman, groped under the stall wall (without touching anything.) When arrested, he argued with the cop, saying that his actions had been misconstrued, that he'd dropped a business paper and that's when the officer saw his hand, and that he hadn't noticed that his foot had intruded across the wall line of the stall. And etc. I think he was probably seeking sex, myself, but whatever the reality of it, the law professor said *none* of the acts alleged were illegal, that they *all* depended on interpretation of intent by the officer, and that Craig (it was all tape recorded) had made no explicit suggestion nor had he performed any explicit act. I should add that gay sex in itself is not illegal here -- only soliciting sex (of any kind) in a public place.
In any case, Craig pled guilty (even though he probably could not have been found guilty in a court) soley because he knew that the arrest itself would end his career, and he felt his only possible hope was that the arrest was so low profile that it would not be noticed.
I find this interesting because there's a hole here in the justice system -- a man feels compelled to plead guilty to a crime that he could not be convicted of, because the worst penalty he can suffer (loss of his position) will be levied upon him whether or not he actually did anything. Having pled guilty, he can't get out of that -- he can't retract, argue his innocence, and have the case thrown out.
Sounds like a dramatic tragedy, almost (although, from my political position, the loss of Craig from the Senate is no big deal.)
JC
stesm
Established
If the man pled guilty to crimes he is innocent of, then he is a fool and should step down. If he was soliciting sex in a public toilet then he is a disgrace to the people he represents and should step down. Whether or not there is a "hole in the justice system" is debatable, what's not debatable is that Craig's actions and words both then and now are disgraceful. He needs to resign and go away.
steamer
Well-known
The acts themselves out of context may not be illegal, but when combined in a public restroom and performed by a an anti-gay Repubublican senator must be seen in a diiferent light. It is not illegal to write a note that says give me all your money, things change when you pass that note to a bank teller.
gb hill
Veteran
I was listening to Ed Schultz on the radio. He is a talk show host like Rush Limbaugh, except Ed is a democrat. He said on Wednesdays broadcast that the bathroom where the act took place is well known by gay men on the internet as a meeting place. I see that you live in Minnesota. Why don't you take your camera and go there, look in the mirror and take a self portrait and post it here so we can see this famous place. That would be cool! but then again on second thought maybe it wouln't be such a good idea because you might be labled as something that you are not. Maybe you could just take a picture of the stall instead.
Just kidding really.
BTW I think the man was foolish to even put himself in a position like that. I see that he is stepping down which is the right thing to do.
Just kidding really.BTW I think the man was foolish to even put himself in a position like that. I see that he is stepping down which is the right thing to do.
Last edited:
T
tedwhite
Guest
As a former police detective (California), working vice is a slippery slope indeed, a murky area where intent is frequently clear (both to the perp and the undercover cop) but brought into daylight the next day in a court of law turns out frequently to be riddled with ambiguity.
Fortunately, I never had to work the seedy side of law enforcement (obviously "seedy side" as I use it here is a relative term).
However, Craig pled guilty. Kind of like tossing in your cards in a poker game.
Ted
Fortunately, I never had to work the seedy side of law enforcement (obviously "seedy side" as I use it here is a relative term).
However, Craig pled guilty. Kind of like tossing in your cards in a poker game.
Ted
MikeL
Go Fish
As they say, Jesus hates hypocrisy......
mike kim
Established
I believe it's a worldwide news. I've seen it in argentinian newspapers as well...John Camp said:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's a bit tragic really ... it didn't harm George Michael's career!
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I think he panicked and pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge, thinking it would cover up the alleged sex solicitation charge. Either the way the man was doomed. These types of allegations have haunted him since the eighties. Besides it's an election year and with the way things are going in the GOP lately, no one was going to help him. The only person who I saw on TV defending the guy was Tom DeLay.
.
.
irq506
just curious
Personally I think that soliciting sex should not be a crime or should not be treated with the level of repulsion most give it. In some countries solicitation is freely allowed and in others prostitution is freely allowed. I think any level of control (within reason) by a state has to be questionable.
I think vice and under-cover police work is vile and reprehensible in the highest degree. it shows a distinct lack of law enforcement capability and a breakdown in the moral trust between the power and the people and as such is an abuse of that provided power. De-classifying a number of issues in this country could help those law enforcement agencies free up some funds to concentrate on other more pressing issues..
In saying that, any hypocritical politician who is caught or otherwise foiled acting in a manner directly in conflict with their manifesto is a good thing.
I think vice and under-cover police work is vile and reprehensible in the highest degree. it shows a distinct lack of law enforcement capability and a breakdown in the moral trust between the power and the people and as such is an abuse of that provided power. De-classifying a number of issues in this country could help those law enforcement agencies free up some funds to concentrate on other more pressing issues..
In saying that, any hypocritical politician who is caught or otherwise foiled acting in a manner directly in conflict with their manifesto is a good thing.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
This is so far off RFF's raison d' etre that it is difficult to justify writing but .. here goes.
I think the "Republican Ideal" while sounding wonderful has been hijacked from the believers by "lobbyists" and "users". In my opinion this man is one of those people. It is sad to me however that as much as I currently have a distaste for what Republicans have been morphed into that "sex" has become a trump card for delivering a 'death blow' to elected officials. Frankly sex is immaterial and I find the use of it by the "political right wing" against former Democratic President Clinton pathetic. I cannot be less than mystified by the press and public's response to this development for a Republican.
Serious crimes like drug dealing, extortion, porkbarreling , conflict of interest for personal and significant or material personal gain... these should be the reasons for dismissal of public figures. Sex frankly is immaterial and "small change".
I have several adult children and a wife who also hold similar views to my opinions. It is time to take sex off the table as a reason for public stigmatization. There are serious crimes being done that are below this "false moral radar". I'm more concerned about officials who vote against public health, or pass on contracts for public expenditures to the benefit of related or non arm's length parties. These are material reasons for dismissal which directly affect the treasury and the electorate; not someone's sexual adventures or misadventures.
This is just one of the many things the American people must sort out if they want to move ahead as a nation which truly is for "all the people" not just some of the "specially chosen people" Strangely the people who benefit the least or have the most to lose also seem to be the most ardent enforcers of this strange take on what is important to the economic well being of the nation from a long term perspective.
FWIW .. it's just my opinion
I think the "Republican Ideal" while sounding wonderful has been hijacked from the believers by "lobbyists" and "users". In my opinion this man is one of those people. It is sad to me however that as much as I currently have a distaste for what Republicans have been morphed into that "sex" has become a trump card for delivering a 'death blow' to elected officials. Frankly sex is immaterial and I find the use of it by the "political right wing" against former Democratic President Clinton pathetic. I cannot be less than mystified by the press and public's response to this development for a Republican.
Serious crimes like drug dealing, extortion, porkbarreling , conflict of interest for personal and significant or material personal gain... these should be the reasons for dismissal of public figures. Sex frankly is immaterial and "small change".
I have several adult children and a wife who also hold similar views to my opinions. It is time to take sex off the table as a reason for public stigmatization. There are serious crimes being done that are below this "false moral radar". I'm more concerned about officials who vote against public health, or pass on contracts for public expenditures to the benefit of related or non arm's length parties. These are material reasons for dismissal which directly affect the treasury and the electorate; not someone's sexual adventures or misadventures.
This is just one of the many things the American people must sort out if they want to move ahead as a nation which truly is for "all the people" not just some of the "specially chosen people" Strangely the people who benefit the least or have the most to lose also seem to be the most ardent enforcers of this strange take on what is important to the economic well being of the nation from a long term perspective.
FWIW .. it's just my opinion
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
I think the main problem was that he has been anti-gay publicly, and now has the appearance of being gay himself. Apparently his constituants are pretty conservative as well. I also heard a commentator who I beleive related that his name had come up in the congressional page scandal. Put all that together and he probably doesn't have much of a future in congress.
As to some of the other comments, people are often encouraged to plead guilty to a lesser offense by the lawyers. Sometimes because the prosecution beleives the case against them is perhaps somewhat tryable, but somewhat flawed, so they will offer a deal. The defense agrees that although flawed, the chances of being found guilty are high enough that accepting a plea for a lesser offense is probably in the best interests of their client. Ultimatly it is the decision of the accused. TV shows would have us believe innocent men have taken guilty pleas under those circumstances. I don't know if that is true or not. I do know of a case where the defense asked for a deal and the prosecution gave the decision to the victim (a rape case) to avoid having to testify in public as to the details of the case. Not sure how any of this would apply to the case in point.
As to vice cops, don't be angry at them. Talk to the politicians who make the laws and the people in the public who demand they be enforced. The police are just enforcing laws on the books.
As to some of the other comments, people are often encouraged to plead guilty to a lesser offense by the lawyers. Sometimes because the prosecution beleives the case against them is perhaps somewhat tryable, but somewhat flawed, so they will offer a deal. The defense agrees that although flawed, the chances of being found guilty are high enough that accepting a plea for a lesser offense is probably in the best interests of their client. Ultimatly it is the decision of the accused. TV shows would have us believe innocent men have taken guilty pleas under those circumstances. I don't know if that is true or not. I do know of a case where the defense asked for a deal and the prosecution gave the decision to the victim (a rape case) to avoid having to testify in public as to the details of the case. Not sure how any of this would apply to the case in point.
As to vice cops, don't be angry at them. Talk to the politicians who make the laws and the people in the public who demand they be enforced. The police are just enforcing laws on the books.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Importuning in a public toilet is the least of the Republican Party's worries.
both parties are full of hypocrites and deviants.
both parties are full of hypocrites and deviants.
R
RML
Guest
We once had a local politician (and doctor in his "private" life) who allegedly frequented heroine addicted prostitutes. It was a scandal. No matter if he did, or that he visited this area as a doctor available for these ladies to get a health check, he was doomed. And this was in Holland where prostitution is legal, and where we have areas dedicated for street walkers.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Imagine the number of similar charges that could be laid at a public bar on any given day of the week. Anyone been guilty of that? To me the whole thing is a non issue between consenting adults. OTH, the hypocrisy, if the claimed intent was true, is another matter calling for resignation. What else of more political importance to a nation was treated the same hypocritical way?
Bob
Bob
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
So what rangefinder was used in this case...?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
ErikFive said:The rangefinder of love
First laugh of the thread! Well done Erik.
The problem is that we no longer have a citizen legislature- all these folks are spoiled by lobbyists and corporate interests. Do I care what he does in his private life?- not at all. What I do care about is that he has been in office for so long.
VT is just now slipping into the career politican mode in our state legislature, and we are losing a lot for it. My state representative is (I believe) the last dairy farmer in the legislature- when it once was heavily populated by farmers.
leif e
-
But did the media´s field days hurt George M?Keith said:
I agree, it´s tragic and sad. Can´t help feeling sorry for the hypocrite. And, yes; it is international news. We had the whole case presented from most angles in weekend news features today.
John Camp
Well-known
I wasn't so much interested in the crime as in the fact that whether or not he was guilty, his career was doomed. The charge alone, once made, and given his party and background, finished him. That was why he felt compelled to plead, not because of guilt or innocence, but in a desperate attempt to cover up. (Though, like most people here, I do think he was soliciting sex, and there is a serious amount of hypocrisy involved.)
gb hill
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
I told John that he should take his camera since he happens to live in the same state, and go to that now famous rest room and take a self portrait in the mirror. That would then at least make it a little bit camera related.