ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

[Beerina]

No. They are saying that posting a sign and having a uniformed officer patrol occasionally is a more effective deterrent than undercover stings that do nothing more than pad an officer's collar count.

Unfortunately, if they can prevent the crime they can't make any arrests. Many people seem to associate more arrests with being tough on crime. I see more arrests as a failure to prevent crime.

To my Canadian eyes, law enforcement in the U.S. appears to be an industry rather than a public service. Maybe that's not accurate but it's the way I see it.

I'll never forget when I fought a "blocking" ticket in court. This was from crawling through a yellow light, then getting stopped halfway through when it turned red. They were happy to "take it under advisement", as long as I paid, and not put it on my record if, after a year, I had had no more incidents.

My lawyer quickly explained, "You know where the money goes, don't you? 1/3 to the police department, 1/3 to the state, and 1/3 to the judges' retirement pool fund."

It's unfortunate that people who get so bent out of shape over conflict of interest in the private sector have no issues with this.

 

[Michael Redman]

In my state you can get on the registry for being charged with a crime and not convicted.

That makes me angry just to think about.

 

[Michael Redman]

My lawyer quickly explained, "You know where the money goes, don't you? 1/3 to the police department, 1/3 to the state, and 1/3 to the judges' retirement pool fund."

Your lawyer was distracting you from the realization that attorney fees were going to add a hefty premium to the fine, and you probably would have come out with the same deal if you had not been represented.

Good lawyer.

 

[strathmeyer]

The ACLU seems to think the police won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. That is what I'm talking about.

If you have more information than we do, please, enlighten us.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

Senator Craig entered a public bathroom stall and solicited a stranger for public sex, who happened to be an undercover police officer. Why are being condescending toward me when you yourself don't seem to understand the facts of the matter?

 

[tsg]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

Senator Craig entered a public bathroom stall and solicited a stranger for public sex,

Whether the police can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt is what is at issue here.

Why are being condescending toward me when you yourself don't seem to understand the facts of the matter?

Because you do not understand the argument in the slightest and have no intention to.

 

[RandFan]

This is the third thread about Craig and given that I've been involved in heated debate in the other two (I have to accept personal responsibility for that) I really didn't want to get involved in this one, but hey, it's Sunday and I've nothing else to do. I will try really hard to keep a level head here. Of course I just might be too late for the dance and everyone including Elvis has left the building. That would be fine with me.

The facts and or events and inferences to be drawn the way I see them:

• The evidence strongly suggests that Craig was in the bathroom to solicit sex.
• Craig denies this.
• There is a taped discussion between Craig and the arresting officer.
• The tape, in my opinion, goes against Craig.
• The officer sounds credible and Craig sounds evasive, IMO.
• Craig concedes some points but the significance of a few of these concessions are given more weight than I believe that they deserve by many in this forum, again, JMO. I'm not dismissing them but I am a bit skeptical of a number of the conclusions drawn from them.
• Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
• Innocent people have been known to plead guilty to save themselves embarrassment.
• Considering Craig's status and outspoken stance on homosexuality this is potentially very embarrassing for him (IMHO Craig is a hypocrite) and therefore there is good reason that Craig, assuming that he is innocent, would plead guilty.
• I think the law is clearly unconstitutional.
• I think Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
• I think it very likely that past Supreme Courts would have found the law unconstitutional.
• I think it more likely than not that the current court will also find it unconstitutional.
• Not liking Craig is a poor reason to ignore the problems with this case.
• I'm not saying that those who think that Craig is guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt are saying so because they dislike Craig. I do suspect that though.
• Presumption of innocence is a concept in the law that is important to American jurisprudence.The concept is a legal one and does not preclude citizens from forming an opinion based on the evidence outside of court.
• Any of us, if we were innocent and accused of a crime would want others not to rush to judgment (see Duke Lacrosse Rape Case).
• Caveat: Though a firm supporter of the ACLU I have not always agreed with them. In fact I have taken a hard stance against them in at least one case regarding the criminality of the possession of child pornography.

 

[RandFan]

THe ACLU seems to want there to be a real sex act taking place, communication is not enough.

Yes. under these circumstances that is what they want. Communication is Protected under the first Amendment of the Constitution.

There are few exceptions to this. One is solicitation. To stand up in court the solicitation must be clear and unambiguous. If I proposition an undercover officer $50 for a BJ then that is clear and unambiguous. If I wink at the officer and hold up 5 fingers that's not so clear. It might hold up in court it might not.

However, the ACLU has indicated that it is possible to reduce this behavior with uniformed officers. If an undercover officer can spend his time in a bathroom then a uniformed one could regularly patrol.

 

[tsg]

This is the third thread about Craig and given that I've been involved in heated debate in the other two (I have to accept personal responsibility for that) I really didn't want to get involved in this one, but hey, it's Sunday and I've nothing else to do. I will try really hard to keep a level head here. Of course I just might be too late for the dance and everyone including Elvis has left the building. That would be fine with me.

The facts and or events and inferences to be drawn the way I see them:

• The evidence strongly suggests that Craig was in the bathroom to solicit sex.
• Craig denies this.
• There is a taped discussion between Craig and the arresting officer.
• The tape, in my opinion, goes against Craig.
• The officer sounds credible and Craig sounds evasive, IMO.
• Craig concedes some points but the significance of a few of these concessions are given more weight than I believe that they deserve by many in this forum, again, JMO. I'm not dismissing them but I am a bit skeptical of a number of the conclusions drawn from them.
• Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
• Innocent people have been known to plead guilty to save themselves embarrassment.
• Considering Craig's status and outspoken stance on homosexuality this is potentially very embarrassing for him (IMHO Craig is a hypocrite) and therefore there is good reason that Craig, assuming that he is innocent, would plead guilty.
• I think the law is clearly unconstitutional.
• I think Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
• I think it very likely that past Supreme Courts would have found the law unconstitutional.
• I think it more likely than not that the current court will also find it unconstitutional.
• Not liking Craig is a poor reason to ignore the problems with this case.
• I'm not saying that those who think that Craig is guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt are saying so because they dislike Craig. I do suspect that though.
• Presumption of innocence is a concept in the law that is important to American jurisprudence.The concept is a legal one and does not preclude citizens from forming an opinion based on the evidence outside of court.
• Any of us, if we were innocent and accused of a crime would want others not to rush to judgment (see Duke Lacrosse Rape Case).
• Caveat: Though a firm supporter of the ACLU I have not always agreed with them. In fact I have taken a hard stance against them in at least one case regarding the criminality of the possession of child pornography.

I agree.

I will only add that my point is not whether Craig's intention was to have sex in a public bathroom, and neither is the ACLU's. My point is that there can be no discussion of whether the ACLU is right or wrong if their arguments are misrepresented.

 

[Michael Redman]

I think Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea.

Why?

 

[RandFan]

Why?

• Because it is arguable that he entered a gulty plea only out of fear that exposure would be embarasing and cost him his Senate seat.
• Because the law that he was originaly accused of is unconstitutional (IMO) and I would like to see it challenged.
• Because (IMO) the law he pled guilty to is vague and overly broad.

 

[RandFan]

My point is that there can be no discussion of whether the ACLU is right or wrong if their arguments are misrepresented.

I had intentionally not followed the thread. I'll go back and look. In any event, yes, misrepresenting the arguments makes the discussion impossible.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing if you do it in private. A public bathroom is not private. And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, children use public bathrooms and little boys go in without their parent at very young ages, especially in public parks which is a common location for this perverted pleasure.

How often is the sex act exposed? In other words, isn't this kind of behavior something that happens in a closed stall?

 

[RandFan]

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal.

Could you demonstrate this? It might be, I don't know. It seems that so much is simply assumed in this case.

Lewd conduct

The definition and penalties for lewd conduct crimes depends on the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case.

The definition for what is considered a lewd act varies greatly. According to http://www.nolo.com/index.cfm, the legal definition for the term "lewd” is: “Any conduct that is considered indecent or offensive. Today the term is often used when referring to pornography, prostitution and indecent exposure."

...

For example, many people have been made to believe that having a sexual encounter in a public restroom is considered lewd conduct in California, but in many cases no laws have been violated. If the restroom is empty and no person witnesses the act, the violations which amount to a lewd act have not been committed and the individual in question (defendant) is not guilty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In my state you can get on the registry for being charged with a crime and not convicted.

Well let's not exaggerate there, DD. While true, the way you put it here is misleading. I think they're just allowing for plea bargaining which is common in the justice system in every state.

Illinois sex offender registry information

Persons required to register as Sex Offenders are persons who have been charged of an offense listed in Illinois Compiled Statutes 730 ILCS 150/2(B) when such charge results in one of the following:

(a) A conviction for the commission of the offense or attempt to commit the offense,

(b) A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity of committing the offense or attempting to commit the offense, or

(c) A finding not resulting in an acquittal at a hearing for the alleged commission or attempted commission of the offense.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How often is the sex act exposed? In other words, isn't this kind of behavior something that happens in a closed stall?

Slate article by C Hitchens on "The Tearoom Trade".

In his study of men who frequent public restrooms in search of sex, Laud Humphreys discovered that 54 percent were married and living with their wives, 38 percent did not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual, and only 14 percent identified themselves as openly gay. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Personal Places, a doctoral thesis which was published in 1970, detailed exactly the pattern—of foot-tapping in code, hand-gestures, and other tactics—which has lately been garishly publicized at a Minneapolis-St. Paul airport men's room. The word tearoom seems to have become archaic, but in all other respects the fidelity to tradition is impressive.


...snip...

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

Since the thrill includes the publicness of the act, one has to assume it isn't completely privately carried out. If it were, then why do it in the bathroom in the first place?

And it appears the stall being public or private is debatable, but not paying to enter the stall argues it is public.

Again, the nusiance of this crime gets lost in this argument over the rights of consenting adults. Parents shouldn't have to worry sending their kids into a public bathroom in a park or elsewhere that the child will come across two men butt(rule8) between two toilet stall dividers. If these guys were so discreet, who would have known to complain which is why the police were in the bathroom in the first place.

 

[RandFan]

Since the thrill includes the publicness of the act, one has to assume it isn't completely privately carried out. If it were, then why do it in the bathroom in the first place?

And it appears the stall being public or private is debatable, but not paying to enter the stall argues it is public.

Again, the nusiance of this crime gets lost in this argument over the rights of consenting adults. Parents shouldn't have to worry sending their kids into a public bathroom in a park or elsewhere that the child will come across two men butt(rule8) between two toilet stall dividers. If these guys were so discreet, who would have known to complain which is why the police were in the bathroom in the first place.

A few points.

• This is the first time I've seen a direct reference about foot tapping and hand gestures. I've been asking for days for something like this. It's not been tested in a court of law but it's good.
• I'm a huge Hitchens' fan. I like reading anything and everything that he writes.
• I'm not sure why you posted all of that. While I like Hitchens' I don't think it is appropriate to post so much when a paragraph or two would suffice. You make it difficult to have a discussion.
• You didn't answer my question.
• As to your assumption, 4 legs and feet under the door are likely enough to fulfill the public titillation these people require.
• It's easy to tell when more than one person is in the stall and an adult would have no problem deducing what is going on. A child I'm not so sure and even if they did I'm not sure how much damage would be done.
• I would like to see something concrete that people are having sex in full view of everyone in the bathroom.
• I've never bent down to watch what is going on between bathroom stalls. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that a child would go into a bathroom and do so.

I'm not saying it's not an important issue. It is. I'm just wary about how serious the issue is. It seems mostly a nuisance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The same arguments keep being repeated in these threads. They really need to be broken down into their separate issues. Otherwise it's like we are playing "rock-paper-scissors" -> rights of consenting adults, nuisance of this behavior in a public bathroom, Craig solicited the sex but didn't get caught carrying it out.

rock: I'm sure we all agree consenting adults should be able to have the sex of their choice.

paper: Is it or is it not private in a public bathroom and is it a nuisance crime to have sex in public bathrooms?

It may seem innocuous if you forget about the inadvertent consequences. Kids are going to use the bathroom, they are going to see the activity, condoms may be left around (and they could be anyway but lets not pretend having sex in the bathroom doesn't increase the likelihood), people obviously notice or they wouldn't be complaining, the perps are getting some of their jollies out of the danger of being noticed.

I would also add it is a public health problem having random sex encounters. It increases the risk of STDs including HIV and these guys are often married to unsuspecting partners. Risky sex can result in death from HIV and that includes innocent participants (namely the spouse).

scissors: Was the sting operation legit or entrapment? Did soliciting the sex cross the line or was more needed to constitute lewd behavior?

I think it's absurd to argue Craig was doing something else. And this kind of behavior includes the public sex. The legal standard is reasonable doubt and it is unreasonable to assume the gestures were anything but soliciting sex based on the fact there was a combination of gestures with no other reasonable explanation (wide stance is not reasonable*), and unreasonable based on the documentation by psychology researchers about this behavior to presume the sex was intended to be carried out somewhere besides in the bathroom.

Perhaps in this case the cop should have waited for more steps in the ritual to have occurred before making the arrest such as waiting for a more specific statement of intent. But frankly, arguing this point as if Craig's rights were denied is beyond what I think the ACLU should be concerned about. If all the worry is merely over a hasty judgment call, then a plausible alternative should be presented as to what else the stall peeking, foot tapping, foot bumping, stall divider rubbing ritual could have meant besides sex in the public bathroom.

If the ACLU is arguing men should be able to get it on in a public bathroom stall then they need to explain why that doesn't interfere with my rights as a parent to send a young child into that bathroom unaccompanied.

*Don't read if you don't want to ruin your day with a particular mental picture.

*Wide stance is not conducive to defecating as it results in a tightened anal sphincter.

 

[RandFan]

Social interaction and freedom is often a messy thing. An important American freedom is expression. We should be careful when and how we infringe upon it.

Arresting someone for expressing to another the desire to have sex in a public place shouldn't per se be illegal IMO. On the other hand, a parent should be able to feel secure sending his or her child into a bathroom.

How do we balance the right of expression with the rights of parents? Is a sting operation the best way to do that? I don't think so. I think there are better methods that don't infringe on the right to free speech.

I think the ACLU is right on this one.

As to the rest, if Craig is allowed to withdraw his plea then he is entitled to a fair trial. Saying that we should give him a fair trial and then punish him because we have gone over all of the evidence and have concluded that Craig is guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt seems a bit premature in my mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A few points.

• This is the first time I've seen a direct reference about foot tapping and hand gestures. I've been asking for days for something like this. It's not been tested in a court of law but it's good.

Oh come on, Rand. I posted the Tearoom Trade book reference, the police manual and the website which spelled out the foot tapping ritual for anyone wanting to engage in the activity.

• I'm a huge Hitchens' fan. I like reading anything and everything that he writes.
• I'm not sure why you posted all of that. While I like Hitchens' I don't think it is appropriate to post so much when a paragraph or two would suffice. You make it difficult to have a discussion.
• You didn't answer my question.
• As to your assumption, 4 legs and feet under the door are likely enough to fulfill the public titillation these people require.
• It's easy to tell when more than one person is in the stall and an adult would have no problem deducing what is going on. A child I'm not so sure and even if they did I'm not sure how much damage would be done.
• I would like to see something concrete that people are having sex in full view of everyone in the bathroom.
• I've never bent down to watch what is going on between bathroom stalls. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that a child would go into a bathroom and do so.

I'm not saying it's not an important issue. It is. I'm just wary about how serious the issue is. It seems mostly a nuisance.

Your argument you can't imagine how this would harm kids is not evidence, it is your naive opinion. Of course kids would see something 'weird' was going on whether or not they understood it. As a parent, excuse me but I don't need to justify to you why I would prefer men not be butt(rule8) in the bathroom I send my child into (when he was younger) and any defense that it's no big deal is quite frankly, ludicrous. And once again, people complained. Obviously they had to have noticed something.

 

[RandFan]

Oh come on, Rand. I posted the Tearoom Trade book reference, the police manual and the website which spelled out the foot tapping ritual for anyone wanting to engage in the activity.

You posted copious amounts of material and I could not find the reference. I asked and asked for it.

Why not simply post the relevant part if it is so important?

Your argument you can't imagine how this would harm kids is not evidence, it is your naive opinion.

I make no such argument. I ask you to demonstrate that it does.

Of course kids would see something 'weird' was going on whether or not they understood it.

I'm sorry but this is not at all specific. What do you mean? What is this something "weird"? Four legs under a stall?

As a parent, excuse me but I don't need to justify to you why I would prefer men not be butt(rule8) in the bathroom I send my child into (when he was younger) and any defense that it's no big deal is quite frankly, ludicrous. And once again, people complained. Obviously they had to have noticed something.

Of course you don't have to justify anything to me. If you want others to agree with you then you should be able to make an argument as to why they should agree with you.