Gov. Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Absolutely, because I don't think this "crime" is a big deal, like I didn't think Craig's "crime" was a big deal, like I didn't think McGreevey's affair was a crime. These are all morality issues. Its a case of a "righteous" few imposing their beliefs on others.(see prohibition) You assumed I thought this wasn't a big deal because of his party, but I wasn't even sure of the guy's party when I had all ready made up my mind that the media reaction would outweigh the "crime".

If some senator from a flyover state that I never heard of got caught with a small amount of pot, I wouldn't think much of it. I would make that decision without having to find out the senator's party affiliation. I am sure the media would do non stop coverage of it and the other party would call for the guy's head, but I wouldn't think it was a big deal.

If Spitzer had killed a guy, stole money from the government, or ran a dog fighting operation, I would say he should get every bit the punishment that anyone else would get. More in fact so that others would learn.

Had this been you or me chances are no one would have ever found out, this is a minor crime at most. Moreover law enforcement generally goes after the supply side of this "crime", much like drug enforcement.

What you don't understand is no matter what your personal views of weather this should be illegal it is illegal in todays world. What he has done is compromised his job and left himself open to black male because of what he did. What if those ladies came back and said we want you to do XYZ or we will go to the press and expose you. Then we now have a person compromising his position and trust of the American people because of what he did. Maybe when he was a prosecuter the only reason he was tough on prostitution was to run the other postitution rings out of business making the one he used more profitable and in return they would make sure his name was protected. Remember the only way he was caught was because of what he was doing with his checking accounts. If he was just some Joe off the street then he would not be in this postion to start with.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What you don't understand is no matter what your personal views of weather this should be illegal it is illegal in todays world. What he has done is compromised his job and left himself open to black male because of what he did. What if those ladies came back and said we want you to do XYZ or we will go to the press and expose you. Then we now have a person compromising his position and trust of the American people because of what he did. Maybe when he was a prosecuter the only reason he was tough on prostitution was to run the other postitution rings out of business making the one he used more profitable and in return they would make sure his name was protected. Remember the only way he was caught was because of what he was doing with his checking accounts. If he was just some Joe off the street then he would not be in this postion to start with.

which black male? Denzel, or Samuel L?

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What if those ladies came back and said we want you to do XYZ or we will go to the press and expose you. Then we now have a person compromising his position and trust of the American people because of what he did. Maybe when he was a prosecuter the only reason he was tough on prostitution was to run the other postitution rings out of business making the one he used more profitable and in return they would make sure his name was protected. Remember the only way he was caught was because of what he was doing with his checking accounts. If he was just some Joe off the street then he would not be in this postion to start with.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Man there a lot of ifs and maybes in there.

Had Spitzer misused his powers or committed a major crime in connection to this, than he should receive punishment. I already said that if he committed a real crime he should receive the max sentence. But not the least bit of what you said has come out.

I would imagine that there are far more of these high services than people think. In my work I have seen more than my share of these girls and their high end clients. The chance of him getting blackmailed is probably less likely than if he was just cheating on his wife. These professionals know where their money comes from and that secrecy is in their best interest.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Man there a lot of ifs and maybes in there.

Had Spitzer misused his powers or committed a major crime in connection to this, than he should receive punishment. I already said that if he committed a real crime he should receive the max sentence. But not the least bit of what you said has come out.

I would imagine that there are far more of these high services than people think. In my work I have seen more than my share of these girls and their high end clients. The chance of him getting blackmailed is probably less likely than if he was just cheating on his wife. These professionals know where their money comes from and that secrecy is in their best interest.

Sorry, I missed the memo - when exactly is a crime not a crime? When am I allowed to say - "Sorry officer, I know the law says it's a crime, but, hey, we both know it's not a REAL crime." ? I can't wait to use that on my next parking ticket.

While enforcement of crimes is sometimes (and, admittedly, more often then is acceptable) uneven, a crime is a crime is a crime. Further, it is the chief executive (whether mayor, governor or president) who is charged with enforcing the penalties for those crimes. To assert that such an individual should not be held accountable for violating the laws he/she is charged with enforcing undermines the rule of law.

In this particular case, the chief executive conspired to avoid detection both by use of the banking system and by avoiding the security officers provided to the chief executive (and who's duty is both to the individual who occupies that office and, on behalf of the state's citizens, to the office itself). The purpose of his avoiding detection was participate in an illegal business operation that, in of itself, was a conspiracy to break the very laws Spitzer was charged with enforcing.

Add to this, the hypocrisy element and Spitzer is simply getting his justifiable due.

Sucks when the karma train rams you in the ass.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, I missed the memo - when exactly is a crime not a crime? When am I allowed to say - "Sorry officer, I know the law says it's a crime, but, hey, we both know it's not a REAL crime." ? I can't wait to use that on my next parking ticket.

While enforcement of crimes is sometimes (and, admittedly, more often then is acceptable) uneven, a crime is a crime is a crime. Further, it is the chief executive (whether mayor, governor or president) who is charged with enforcing the penalties for those crimes. To assert that such an individual should not be held accountable for violating the laws he/she is charged with enforcing undermines the rule of law.

In this particular case, the chief executive conspired to avoid detection both by use of the banking system and by avoiding the security officers provided to the chief executive (and who's duty is both to the individual who occupies that office and, on behalf of the state's citizens, to the office itself). The purpose of his avoiding detection was participate in an illegal business operation that, in of itself, was a conspiracy to break the very laws Spitzer was charged with enforcing.

Add to this, the hypocrisy element and Spitzer is simply getting his justifiable due.

Sucks when the karma train rams you in the ass.

Game. Set. Match

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, I missed the memo - when exactly is a crime not a crime? When am I allowed to say - "Sorry officer, I know the law says it's a crime, but, hey, we both know it's not a REAL crime." ? I can't wait to use that on my next parking ticket.

While enforcement of crimes is sometimes (and, admittedly, more often then is acceptable) uneven, a crime is a crime is a crime. Further, it is the chief executive (whether mayor, governor or president) who is charged with enforcing the penalties for those crimes. To assert that such an individual should not be held accountable for violating the laws he/she is charged with enforcing undermines the rule of law.

In this particular case, the chief executive conspired to avoid detection both by use of the banking system and by avoiding the security officers provided to the chief executive (and who's duty is both to the individual who occupies that office and, on behalf of the state's citizens, to the office itself). The purpose of his avoiding detection was participate in an illegal business operation that, in of itself, was a conspiracy to break the very laws Spitzer was charged with enforcing.

Add to this, the hypocrisy element and Spitzer is simply getting his justifiable due.

Sucks when the karma train rams you in the ass.

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

Well he only spent, what, about a year in office. So that's really not enough time to actually judge his performance, but many of the people that voted him in felt he was failing miserably in a year's time. He also fumbled the ball on the idea of granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in New York, some 500,000 people, then backed away from it only two months later which also put Senator Clinton in a political tight spot and sparked a national debate about the issue.

But the outrage, particularly on Wall Street, over his actions and resignation had more to do with the moral high bar he supposedly lived by, yet used to punish and incarcerate others.

Like I said earlier, I'm no Eliot Spitzer fan and the media has only fanned the flames of his demise more, but Mr. Spitzer himself set in motion this moral code of right and wrong - justice and injustice. He sent one corporate schmuck to prison after another and seemed very self rightous while doing it. So while it may not be "right" for someone to lose their job just because of adultry or even a misdemeanor, as far Eliot as Spitzer was concerned, there was everything right about it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

Part of his job is to make sure laws are inforced. So he losses his job for not doing his job.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Part of his job is to make sure laws are inforced. So he losses his job for not doing his job.

Bullshite he loses his job because it made headlines and half the political system hates the other half. If this guy was me or you, or even someone famous but not political everything is okay and forgotten.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Bullshite he loses his job because it made headlines and half the political system hates the other half. If this guy was me or you, or even someone famous but not political everything is okay and forgotten.

I don't know where you work but I want to work there:

Hijinx: Hey boss, I committed adultery for the last decade or so by soliciting sex from prostitutes and in the process violated banking regulations, not to mention abused special priviliges my job status has given me.

Boss: That's cool. I don't hate.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

1) It was a federal offense for being involved in a cross-state criminal conspiracy and money laundering. Not a simple "$50 to meet me out back" situation.

2) If you were a teacher, and had sex with a student, even she/he was of legal age, people would appropriately call for your job. If you were a pilot and convicted of DUI, you probably would be a) required to report it even if it occurred off hours; and b) subject to sanction or additional supervision. I could go on.

In terms of non-criminal penalties for criminal acts, it is absolutely appropriate to consider the type of job held and the actions charged. As I stated in my earlier post, Spitzler has been implicated in a criminal conspiracy of federal proportions. As such, it is appropriate to consider his unlawful conduct, it's nature and extent, in determining whether or not he should continue in his employment as New York's chief law enforcment officer.