Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Politicians and Sex
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was caught using a prostitution service, the irony was that he was a tough-on-prostitution politician. He took pride in locking up the same kind of people he is said to have done $80,000 worth of business with. He supported "tougher laws" to imprison customers like him.

In his statement to the news media, Spitzer called the scandal a "private matter." Good point. Adults' paying for sex ought to be a private matter, but when Spitzer was attorney general, he didn't consider paid sex private. He's one of many politicians who were eager to punish others for doing what he did.

What's going on here? Maybe these men want to punish others for acting on the same forbidden impulses they know they can't control themselves?

Rep. Mark Foley of Florida was a big advocate of punishing any adult who had sex with minors. "They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," he shouted.

But then ABC News caught Foley sending sexual instant messages to minors.

Politicians should cut back on their grandstanding, says Arizona public defender Chris Phillis, because while it's bad enough to call what consenting adults do "sex crimes," it's even worse to criminalize kids who do what kids have always done.

Phillis, who defends teens accused of sex crimes, says common sexual experimentation is now prosecuted. "If a 15-year-old touches a 13-year-old, touches their breasts, they are now guilty of a felony crime. And I would love to tell you that 13-year-olds aren't engaging in this conduct. I have a 13-year-old. But telling you that isn't going to change the fact."

The Centers for Disease Control reports that 25 percent of America's 15-year-olds say they've have had sex. Nearly 40 percent of 16-year-olds and almost half the 17-year-olds say they have. All are under Arizona's age of consent, which prompted Senate committee chairwoman Karen Johnson to try to change Arizona's sex-offender laws. She wanted to give kids a break.

But the political winds are not on her side. Few politicians want to spend political capital weakening sex-crime laws -- even when such laws have horrendous unintended consequences.

Arizona's Speaker of the House Jim Weiers defends Arizona's tough laws, saying that if you are a sex offender, "Arizona is becoming very quickly known as a state you don't want to stay in." But Weiers acknowledges that Arizona's sex-offender registry has 15,000 names on it.

I asked him how putting young people who engaged in noncoercive sex play on Arizona's registry protects the public. "I don't know if it does. ... You can't take each and every individual ... "

But it is individuals whose lives are wrecked by these laws. When Garrett Daley was 14, his 9-year-old adopted sister, Devon, said he molested her. Their mom called the police.

It turned out Devon had lied. It was she who initiated sex with Garrett. She later told the police, but they didn't believe her. Today, seven years later, prosecutors still won't let her change her testimony.

To avoid a jail sentence, Garrett plea-bargained to "attempted molestation of a child." What choice do these kids have? "They're told they'll go to jail for 90 years or 50 years or something, unless they accept this plea, and the plea almost always requires lifetime sex-offender registry," Sen. Johnson says.

Garrett didn't realize his plea bargain would put him in a different kind of jail. Once you're on the sex offender registry or on probation, your life is wrecked, public defender Phillis told "20/20."

"They can't go anywhere children frequent. So that's McDonald's, that's Jack in the Box ... Children have actually been told if you go to a movie and another child walks in, even if it's a rated R movie, then you're to get up and leave."

I told Weiers about the public defender's comments. "The public defenders say all laws go too far," Weirs replied.

Give me a break. State sex-offender registries could separate consensual teen sex from pedophiles who prey on 5-year-olds. Minnesota does that.

Too often, American criminal law is a blunt instrument designed to make it look as if politicians are protecting us. I think the politicians usually protect themselves, at our expense.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Re: sex offender laws
On a Personal note,I, as one opinion think Americans as a whole are for the most part spineless,and complacent.We deserve what we get.Higher gas prices,corrupt politicians {who we vote into office},which is just the tip of the iceberg.Our political structure is a stain on our flag as far as justice is concerned.Law enforcement is for the most part, a bunch of degenerate opportunists who operates under the guise of serving and protecting the public.And passing new laws relating to sex offenders is nothing more than corporate business at the expense of our loved ones,with the exception of child molesters. Chew on that for a while and don't forget to cower into the nearest corner when its time to vote.

Unca Alby - Yes, ''concision'' is a word
--
I've been ghostwriting academic papers and conference posters for almost a decade now. Boiling down an abstract within the limits allowed (for the abstract is not uncommonly the only thing most people read of a paper, and the second most important eye-grabber in the PubMed universe) is an art at which I freely admit I'm not much good.

As for us Americans....

Sorry. What were we talking about?

--

SJ Doc -- is "concision" a word?
Regarding Rand: "Concision wasn't in her make-up at *all*, was it?"

Hey, whaddya want, she was Russian after all.

Russians LOVE that long-winded stuff. Gives them something to do in those Siberian wastelands.

Americans, shucks ... where else could you find Channel-Surfing as an Olympic Event?

SJ John Galt used to post here
Haven't seen him in awhile.

And no one even *reads* that part of the book, it took me several tries because I kept falling asleep. Skipped it eventually, I got the point already!

SJ
Wasn't attacking anything, and Ayn did write it very sweetly.
I'm still in my "formative years" at 47. May it ever be so!

John Doe - Wasn't accusing you...
--
...of plagiarism, mind.

Rand's bit of Dr. Ferris diatribe in *Atlas Shrugged* was simply a reiteration of something that had been running through American conservative thought for years.

I think there was something along this line in Lysander Spooner's stuff almost a century prior. Or was it Albert Jay Nock?

I only quoted Rand because your remark evoked a memory of that passage.

Does medical school count as part of one's "formative years"? I didn't begin reading Rand until after I'd gotten out of college, and then I'd done it bass-ackwards (in typical Sicilian fashion), running through all her essays before reading any of her fiction.

Did she *honestly* expect that (even with universal pre-emption on all channels) everybody in America was going to sit through that long, long, "just kill me, f'chrissake!" LONG speech of John Galt's?

Concision wasn't in her make-up at *all*, was it?

--

SJ Doc I'm sure that's it
I'm sure I got it from there, or other reading I was fortunate to have bumped into during my "formative years".

Like Robert Heinlein's libertarian streak, etc.

John Doe - Getting Randroid...
--
Says John Doe:

"Criminalization of everything is the only means of control the government has in a 'free society'."


Per Ayn Rand (on the same theme):

"'Did you really think we *want *those laws observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one *makes* them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with.'"

(From *Atlas Shrugged*, 1957)


Even though the supercilious (putatively literate) "Liberals" sniff snottily at the mention of Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, that nasty little lady had the ability to put her points with the impact of a .50 cal sniper's rifle.

--

Criminalization of everything
is the only means of control the government has in a "free society".

So now everything is illegal. Hear about that Marine, on leave in uniform, that crossed an anti-war picket line to TALK to them, and got arrested for "violating Police procedures". The cops warned him it "might not be a good idea". Wusses. H e's a Marine.

Anyway, charges were not filed but the cops these days haul everyone in first and then try to sort it out. Used to be they used common sense.

Not to mention that now, like in the case above, the State presses charges. In the past a Citizen had to press charges or nothing happened (in the legal sense).

Now, you get cuffed for "violating Police procedures"! We are being ruled by an Elite, like the Dukes and Counts of old.

Madmax - - -
Those were definitely double-groaners!

Spitzer as tough on prostitution;
I think the correct statement about Spitzer and prostitution is that he was either:

firm on prostitution or

hard-on prostitution


He really did rise to the ocassion when it came to prostitutes. Now let him arise to go to the unemployment line.

Long live Viagra!

Private matter??
Maybe paying for sex should be a private matter, however, since it's against the law everywhere except in Nevada, it can't be private. I can see it being a private matter if Elliot was with a mistress, but breaking the law makes it a public matter.

para_dimz -- Arrests?
"Has there been one single word written or spoken questioning why this notorious woman has not been arrested for her part in the crime?"

I don't know whether they have enough evidence.

Just because the "john" admits to buying sex, it doesn't mean the "working girl" is going to also admit to selling. And no matter what they admit to publically, it's quite a different matter in a court of law, under oath.

Other than that, I don't know.

Shefali -- Common Sense
"The problem is that because so many of our judges seem to have no common sense, ..."

I don't blame the judges. Although too many of them *are* morons, I don't think that's the problem in this case.

Politicians are removing their ability to "judge" little by little, with mandatory minimums, "3 strikes" types of laws, etc.

If the law says that "crime X" must have "penalty Y", then what's the judge supposed to do? They no longer have the ability to *judge* a given case based on its unique merits.

If we want to improve this situation, we need to get to the politicians and get them to repeal some of the more idiotic laws they've passed. Give the judges back their power to make judgments.

Time out
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Time out. Has there been one single word written or spoken questioning why this notorious woman has not been arrested for her part in the crime?
What is with that?
Is this some kind of conspiracy in the making where the high profile john gets collared and the trick gets hush money and a pass from the law?
Who wanted Spitzer bad enough to concoct the circumstances and had the pull to set the game in motion and carry it off? How do you get an entire media world to overlook the fact that the trick never even got so much as booked?

This is way fishy. Especially since nary a soul has brought it up.


Stossel has a point
Look, if a 14 year old has sex with a 9 year old, it IS an issue, because of the age difference. However, I thought that juveniles were tried in juvenile courts?

Obviously a 30 year old having sex with a 9 year old should be punished while a 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend should be ignored by the law as long as any sex is consensual. (Though the girl's parents may have an issue, and they do have the right to enforce their rules since the girl is a minor.)

The problem is that because so many of our judges seem to have no common sense, and have sentenced pedophiles (30 year olds having sex with 9 year olds) to probation or light sentences, the law has come down heavy-handed.

When the majority governs themselves, few laws are needed. It's because our society has lost the point of personal responsibility and common sense ethics that we have the growth of legalization.

number44 -- Reform? or Repeal?
"These laws, while well-intentioned, need serious and comprehensive reform."

I think they need to be repealed.

I repeat what I've said under other columns on this topic.

1. If the person is not a threat to society, there is no reason to keep any sort of "registry" on their whereabouts. After he's done his time, paid his "debt to society," leave him alone.

And the really nasty ones don't volunteer the correct information anyway. Did you know that it's de-facto voluntary? I.e., if the perp doesn't tell the authorities that he's moved, they don't even know, and won't find out? I forget what the estimates are, but a sizable fraction of these registries is completely out of date, making them next to worthless anyway.

2. If the person IS a threat to society, WHY ARE WE LETTING HIM LOOSE?

Comment about Foley
The comments above are totally false. The age of consent in DC is 16 years old. Therefore, the page was not a minor regarding sexual activity. Second, no actual sexual activity occurred between the sleazy Foley and the intern. Third, if Foley was a Democrat, he would have been praised for his "courage" in accepting his "true" nature. Look at the praise and honors the left showered on Stubbs, a representative who actually did have sex with a drunken 17 year old boy.

Good riddance to Foley, but get the facts straight.

If all male politicians
could just learn to keep their pants zipped...or like the old time pioneers, be sewed into their long johns for the duration, perhaps we would not have to spend so much time discussing and examining and fixating on other peoples' wee-wees.

As for what your kids are up to with other kids, if you have not bothered to establish a trusting relationship with your children, that is not the fault of the police department. You should not learn what your son or daughter has been doing with the neighbours via a telephone call from the Precinct House.

The biggest problem..
and root of the now long term problem is that, since the sixties, a large part of society promotes "free" sex and sex among our youth, then lawmakers try to combat that sex activity with laws, most of which don't work for one reason or another.

Wrong word
"When New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was caught using a prostitution service, the irony was that he was a tough-on-prostitution politician."

Not "irony". Hypocrisy. Blatant, liberal, do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do hypocrisy.

The col. did not point out
that research in sex crimes has shown vast numbers of unwanted teen pregnancies among the youngest girls, fourteen and younger, derive from sex initiated by adult males, 18 and older.

When Kansas and Indiana tried discovering the names of these "boyfriends" in order to cover medical, welfare, and ADC claims, Planned Parenthood went to court to protect the "confidentiality" of these men in the girl's names. In the meantime, the taxpayer funds most of the services provided for these cases, as social program funding aside, the fed. gov't virtually runs PP with fed. grants.

This entire sex business in politics and infected teen girls and rampant rates of adolescent depression is the leftist result of 100 years of trying to make sex just another thing--like a hamburger--in order to break up society, separate parents and children, and institute the millennial utopia of socialist paradise.

Sexual irresponsibility corrupts children, adults, politics, and the nation's life.


sry wrong coloumn
^

Last time I looked....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

I dont see anywhere there that it says the government can regulate "unwanted" speech. Its about time we told our government how it is, or admit and allow ourselved to devolve into a socalist state.

As for me, I will live free or die!

This would work a lot better
if the parents of the kids were also put on the list.

If you ask me...
The laws should be amended where there is no defacto sex crime commited if the two participants are within 2 years of age from each other.

The real question is does a 19 yr old who had sex with a 17 yr old deserve a life (and lets see you try and call sex offender registry anything else) sentence.

Nat
EXCELLANT POINT!!!!!

Govt Again focusing on Simple Outcomes
If the outcome is simply to ensure no teenagers ever engage in sex play (notice no tradeoffs), then Arizona's no-tolerance law works.

If the outcome is to ensure no teenagers engage in sex play unless they are mature enough to understand the consequences, have access to birth control, understand how safe sex works, etc. (many tradeoffs), then the law's a failure.

Why not fine-tune the law? Because government is by nature hopelessly inept at producing optimal outcomes where tradeoffs are involved--a fat-fingered lummox. A better solution is to leave government out of it and let parents and houses of worship persuade teenagers to avoid risky behavoir.

Govt Again focusing on Simple Outcomes
If the outcome is simply to ensure no teenagers ever engage in sex play (notice no tradeoffs), then Arizona's no-tolerance law works.

If the outcome is to ensure no teenagers engage in sex play unless they are mature enough to understand the consequences, have access to birth control, understand how safe sex works, etc. (many tradeoffs), then the law's a failure.

Why not fine-tune the law? Because government is by nature hopelessly inept at producing optimal outcomes where tradeoffs are involved--a fat-fingered lummox. A better solution is to leave government out of it and let parents and houses of worship persuade teenagers to avoid risky behavoir.

You're a little confused, 3wire,
Teens as young as 15 can be tried as adults depending on the crime, and they are then tried in criminal court. As far as the sister recanting her testimony, it shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand. A sex crime counselor should have been allowed to interview her to determine if she was telling the truth about the alleged crime.

There's only one thing worse
than a child molester, and that's a scumbag politician (e.g., Nifong, Reno, Spitzer) who puts innocent people in prison for no otner reason than to advance his own career.

apples and not-quite-apples
< < Eliot Spitzer was caught using a prostitution service, the irony was that he was a tough-on-prostitution politician. > >

< < He supported "tougher laws" to imprison customers like him. > >

Well, not quite. I see Mr Stossel's point about allowing reforming laws regarding consensual sex, but he muddles what Spitzer did in order to make a point about hypocrisy.

Spitzer was especially going after people who paid for sex with those caught up in the sex trade. This may not be a popular idea among uber-feminists, but a high-priced call girl (whom Spitzer went to) is not the same thing as a girl caught in the sex industry in much of the rest of the world, including Asia, where he was focusing on sex tours. The former has a high element of willingness to it, along with the ability to leave when one wants to and resume an otherwise normal life. But the latter typically involves women who are coerced and/or are kept there under threat of physical harm. Not the same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12prostitute.htm l?_r=1&oref=slogin

Still, what he did was illegal and it is appropriate that he resigned. He has destroyed his career and his legacy, which is probably punishment enough. But I am not so sure it is hypocrisy in the way it is being presented.

3wire
Be sure to watch the report that this article is based on.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AgeOfConsent/

"Sex offender" doesn't mean "Pedophile." There are a number of petty crimes (such as public urination within a certain yardage of a school) that can land you on a sex offender list for life. These laws, while well-intentioned, need serious and comprehensive reform.

Juvenile "convictions" aren't
You, sir are misinformed. If a juvenile is accused of a crime the proceedings take place in juvenile. Juvenile court is a civil proceeding. A criminal conviction can only occur if the offender is over the age of 18. So, if Arizona is making juvenile offenders register as sex offenders, change the law. In the meantime, try to focus on the ages of these poor "victims" you refer to. And, BTW, no one has ever successfully prevented anyone from changing their testimony in any place in America. Perhaps the "victim" cannot now recant her sworn testimony that ran her brother down the river. But, so what, she is probably feeling remorse for turning him in in the first place, didn't realize the consequences, and now wants to change her story. Many victims do that.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.