Comments on D.C. Madam Found Guilty, David Vitter Still at Large

dan! you are on a roll this morning!

I continue to marvel at the idiocy of the contention that what two consenting adults do, with or without the exchange of money, is somehow any of the government's business.

Power continues to operate as planned.

Not so sharp legal analysis, Dan. Suppose 90% of the customers use the service for sex. Then a boss who arranges 1000 liasons is more than 99.999% sure to have arranged sex for money, far beyond the reasonable doubt standard. But an individual customer is only 90% likely to have bought sex, far below the reasonable doubt standard. Without more evidence than a transaction record, there is no way a prosecutor can get a conviction.

Politically motivated? What political party benefits?

I have to second "infrequent". I'm on east coast time and thus daily amused by how many posts dan can get in before the morning news rolls out.

damn you morning people.

I'm not up on these things, but considering the market, isn't $250 for 90 minutes (or $167/hour) a bargain?

Hell, I can think of plenty of things that cost like that and involve no sex whatsoever.

David Wright: Nu uh. Not if they get the sex worker to testify by threatening her with prosecution. Is the standard of proof for prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt?

Note also the prosecutors' harassing, truly creepy interrogation of the alleged prostitutes (like one who "worked briefly for the escort service nearly 15 years ago"):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041003486_pf.html

Wednesday, prosecutors forced a

Wednesday, prosecutors forced a 63-year-old retired PhD -- her name, like those of other witnesses, now a matter of public record -- to testify about inducing orgasms in her client; the government's lawyers had similar questions for a mother of three who worked briefly for the escort service nearly 15 years ago.

First - yeah, fuck the prosecutors.

Second - "63-year-old retired PhD"? Really? Wow.

if it's a crime for the madame, they should go after the johns.
sooooo....could some enterprising alternative weekly publish the black book with all the names of all the johns?

Still not stunning legal analysis. The standard for any criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's not just up to a reasonable doubt. And your other analysis is statistical analysis, not legal analysis - a jury is qualified to make the decision that Dan is asking for. A prosecutor not prosecuting the case is a political decision, not a purely legal decision.

$250 for 90 minutes is probably less than what the lawyers involved are charging. She should have answered, "Legal consultation."

Hey, you know that joke about the difference between a lawyer and a hooker...

so what does a person donating $1,000 to a political campaign expect?