Heartbreaking

What's hardest to read in this New York Times article on teenage runaways who end up working as prostitutes is that many of them seem genuinely to view selling sex under the aegis of abusive and controlling pimps as a step up from their previous living situation. Why is this not the real scandal - the terrible lack of options faced by children in abusive or dysfunctional families, such that their only choices are hellish group homes or employment in the black market?

This bit was pretty disgusting too:

Previously, said Sgt. Byron A. Fassett, who leads the department’s effort, girls working as prostitutes were handled as perpetrators rather than sexual assault victims. If a 45-year-old man had sex with a 14-year-old girl and no money changed hands, she was likely to get counseling and he was likely to get jail time for statutory rape, Sergeant Fassett said. If the same man left $80 on the table after having sex with her, she would probably be locked up for prostitution and he would probably go home with a fine as a john.

Ironic that opponents of legalization point to underage trafficking as an argument in favor of the current regime, when in fact it was de facto decriminalization that allowed the Dallas task force profiled to actually help girls and arrest pimps.

Not that I think legalization would actually solve all, or even many, of the problems these girls are facing, but it would at least make their least bad option slightly less bad.

Obligatory Comments on Scandal du Jour

Blah blah blah Eliot Spitzer blah prostitute blah scandal blah blah hypocrisy blah blah victimless crime private matter blah blah blah.

All that said, how entitled do you have to be to be to a) frequent high-priced escorts b) as a governor of New York c) whose marquee accomplishment in the office to date has been the acquisition of a number of high profile and powerful enemies d) and who built his career on the public exposure and humiliation of those he opposed e) including others who frequented high-priced escorts and f) engaged in the sort of financial shennanigans he himself used in an attempt to cover up his predilection and g) nevertheless think something this juicy will stay secret?

And, is it incoherent for me to think this says something not particularly flattering about his character that could perhaps be relevant to his qualifications to hold the governorship, even though in an ideal world I think this ought to have remained something for he and his wife to work out, privately? (Of course, in my ideal world, there wouldn't be the stink of hypocrisy about the whole thing since prostitution wouldn't be a matter for the criminal courts in the first place.)

Nullify

I haven't seen the final season of The Wire yet (I watch the TV series as it comes out on DVD) but I've found the first four seasons,besides saying a number of painful things about class in America, present the most compelling argument against our current drug prohibition regime I've ever encountered. And, the show does all this while being fantastic entertainment - a suspenseful police procedural overlaid with pitch-black gallows humor and enough tragic hubris to launch a dozen wailing Greek choruses. Now, the creators of The Wire have come out advocating jury nullification as a weapon to fight against the war on drugs.


While I recognize that jury nullification has had a troubled history (to say the least), I'm still incredibly pleased to see them take this stand. Of course, other commenters have pointed out that jury nullification isn't as simple as refusing to convict...many jurisdictions eliminate potential nullifiers in voire dire and committing perjury goes beyond nullification (though certainly one can argue, and I would agree, that it could still be justified). Nevertheless, even though the article doesn't go as far as suborning perjury, I think it does point out that citizens are not sheep, nor are individual actions meaningless.

Radley Balko suggested that laws making jury nullification explicit are a key first step in the fight against the War on Drugs, but frankly I think we'll see heroin sold by Walgreens before we'll see legislatures endorse jury nullification. While there are certainly more robust theoretical justifications for enforcing and obeying laws with which one disagrees, I believe the most common vulgar rationalization tends to follow a basic line of "I agree to respect the body of laws in its totality because I wish others to follow laws with which they disagree but I support." According to the common understanding, jury nullification violates this basic contract - I certainly believe jury nullification can be just, but I don't see how a legal system that includes the ability to selectively decline to enforce laws with which one disagrees can be perceived as fair by the majority of participants.