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