A state district judge faces possible censure by the Louisiana Supreme Court after the state’s
Judiciary Commission found she committed judicial misconduct in dismissing a lawsuit without legal grounds or a proper hearing.
The request for
censure marks the commission’s fourth formal charge in 12 years against Judge
Janice Clark, of the 19th Judicial District, but is only the first to be made public, court records show.
Clark’s attorney, Bob Downing, said Thursday that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the case has already taken its toll on Clark, who has spent “an enormous amount of money” responding to the allegations.
He said the case, which comes as Clark heads into her next election campaign, might also have cost her an opportunity for a federal appointment.
A message left for Clark at the District Court went unreturned.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments March 26 in the case, which stems from a defamation lawsuit Marie Reed filed against the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office in 2010.
The commission found Clark dismissed the lawsuit in April 2011 despite neither party having a motion to dismiss pending before the court, and after a hearing in which Clark questioned Reed about two motions without her attorney present.
The commission said Clark’s actions “constituted an egregious legal error that rose to the level of judicial misconduct” and showed “a lack of professional competence in the law, a deviation from the high standards of conduct expected of a judge, and a failure to uphold public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Clark gave multiple conflicting reasons for her actions, a fact the commission found “troubling” and indicative of a “lack of candor” toward the investigative body.
Clark initially told the commission she dismissed the case because she intended to revoke Reed’s status as a pauper — one who cannot pay court costs — but knew Reed then would be unable to move forward with the case.
Clark also said the Sheriff’s Office had asked for dismissal. Court records show Clark had already denied that request.
Clark told the commission that the Sheriff’s Office was still “clamoring for it, re-urging it,” but the commission found no evidence of that in the court record.
“Rather than dismissing the suit, she should have issued an order revoking the prior order granting pauper status,” the commission wrote in its motion to the Supreme Court.
Clark also insisted the April 19, 2011, hearing at which she questioned Reed without her attorney wasn’t actually a hearing.
Clark said she had already dismissed the case by signed order on April 18, despite having given Reed another 24 hours to update her financial information, and was just giving Reed one last chance to change the court’s mind.
Clark later said the second court date was simply for the purpose of “spreading the minutes,” which she defined as putting on the record a decision that had already been made. Court minutes and hearing transcripts indicate otherwise.
“The lengths to which Judge Clark has gone to deny that the proceeding on April 19, 2011, was a hearing, and her unresponsive or factually inaccurate responses to questions about why she did not grant Ms. Reed time to pay the costs ... suggest that Judge Clark knows on some level that she should not have done what she did,” the commission concluded.
“Yet, she has taken no responsibility for her actions. The only regret she expressed to the commission was regret over how the proceedings before the commission have affected her.”
In her testimony before the commission, Clark said she would do things differently in the future, not because she had done anything wrong, but because of the pain and expense of fighting the allegations.
“The pain, the agony, the consternation, the expense, the loss of an opportunity, an opportunity to be chancellor. I had to give that up. Federal appointments,” she said.
Clark asked the commission for a “deferred recommendation of discipline agreement,” a private agreement in which the judge admits to some or all of the alleged ethical violations and agrees to take certain remedial steps or else face discipline.
The commission denied Clark’s request in this case but granted one for three prior charges.
In 2003, Clark was formally charged with violations relating to her public endorsement of a voting redistricting plan, making a loan to herself in violation of campaign finance laws and failing to recuse herself from a case in which the Louisiana Board of Ethics was a party when she was being investigated by the board.
Those charges were resolved privately, with the commission issuing Clark a letter of admonishment after she complied with the terms of the agreement.
Clark also received letters of caution from the commission in 2002 and 2011.
The first was for jailing a party for contempt without following proper procedures.
The second was for failing to disclose that a lawyer appearing in a case before her was representing her in a personal legal matter and for failing to refer a recusal motion to another judge.
Downing, Clark’s attorney, said the commission should have agreed to another private reprimand.
“They go page after page after page of saying Judge Clark wouldn’t admit this or that, but the very first letter I drafted to the commission (in response to the charge) admits she shouldn’t have talked to Ms. Reed without her attorney,” Downing said.
Downing also questioned the commission’s decision to make public Clark’s prior run-ins with the investigative body.
Commission investigations are typically confidential unless and until the commission recommends to the Supreme Court that a judge be disciplined. However, the commission filed information about Clark’s prior charges into the court’s record when it recommended discipline in the current case.
“All of that was supposed to be confidential,” Downing said, adding, “This has been over her head for a long time. I think she had an opportunity with the Obama administration to have been appointed to something. That’s gone. The damage has been done. It doesn’t matter what they do.”
Martin Cole heads the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the group that disciplines lawyers for misconduct. His office is located in the Landmark Towers in downtown St. Paul.
Comments
Mar 19, 2014 6:55 AM CDT
How long are they going to keep passing her out whippings for this? Can it possibly have been material to her qualifications to practice that she used the trade name “Nikita”? As for the question about “employment,” how clearly was it phrased? It isn’t like she was on payroll, getting W-2s for these two instances they have brought up. It isn’t even clear from the account above whether they paid her. With everything else that is going on in our society, this sort of thing can scarcely even be of note, and they shouldn’t be inquiring about it for bar admission anyway.
Mar 19, 2014 8:03 AM CDT
I agree, B. McLeod. Three year suspension? Sounds like Illinois is stuck in the 50s. At most, a reprimand. Bet lawyers who have hurt their clients have gotten far less.
Mar 19, 2014 9:03 AM CDT
McLeod, a lawyer that lies on her application and commits crimes while holding her license deserves to have her license suspended; a lawyer’s veracity is on par with a doctor using sterile instruments, remove either and you have potential disaster. How was “employment” phrased? Are you kidding me? So if I’m not on someone’s payroll or receiving a W-2 I’m not employed? By your il-logic I guess it then follows that people that fit that description don’t owe income tax either? That said, I’m fully in support of legalized prostitution, I believe its illegality is ridiculous. But, until such time that it is decriminalized it remains a crime. Commit crimes while you’re a lawyer and fail to disclose those facts to the body that governs the profession and it absolutely warrants disciplinary action.
Mar 19, 2014 9:13 AM CDT
Time to legalize prostitution in the US. No reason it should be illegal.
What two consenting adults do in the bedroom is no concern of ours.
Mar 19, 2014 9:23 AM CDT
The penalty stuck me as Draconian.
I wonder how much of this penalty is the result of a failure to disclose, and how much of this penalty is the result of a sense of embarrassment that a former prostitute will become a member of the bar?
When somebody makes an effort to turn their life around, we need to make an effort to be as supportive as we can reasonably be.
Mar 19, 2014 9:53 AM CDT
From a client’s point of view, the difference between hiring a lawyer and an escort is the certainty that the latter will get you off.
Mar 19, 2014 10:30 AM CDT
If your employment is considered a crime or an act of moral turpitude, is it REALLY employment? This doesn’t even make sense. Ordinarily, I’d hope she’d appeal; but I have a feeling the level of prudery only increases as one climbs the food chain of the Illinois judiciary.
Mar 19, 2014 11:23 AM CDT
Marc, you shouldn’t conflate income and employment as if they are the same thing. If you’re not on someone’s payroll and not receiving a W-2 from them, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that you are not their employee. You can receive income from many sources other than employment.
Anyone who’s spent any time in private practice understands that an aspiring attorney who can demonstrate a willingness and ability to engage in a bit of self-prostitution should receive extra credit, not discipline.
Mar 19, 2014 11:38 AM CDT
Being a prositute,being a lawyer - there’s a difference?
Mar 19, 2014 11:47 AM CDT
mental and emotional prostitution- lawyers.
somewhat different from regular prostitution.
3 years seems high. that said, I don’t see myself as particularly prudish, and i think prostitution should be legal, yet I will admit this doesn’t look good. i think.
on the other hand, maybe it would make a great combo busines- you know those combo coffee shop/law practices, or the guy who has a hot dog/law practice stand in CA/
a brothel/law firm…. would be unbelievable publciity.
forget the sex. maybe just a nude law practice? would that be unethical?
Mar 19, 2014 12:14 PM CDT
So is every Illinois lawyer who used a screen name on a website and failed to disclose it on their bar application subject to disbarrment? What if they have done so since admission, do they need to disclose that to the ARDC? Is “Abelinc65” on match.com subject to losing their license if they don’t tell the bar about that? What about “lawstudent14” posting on the ABA site? Unfit to practice if they don’t disclose?
Let’s say abelinc scalped tickets to a sporting event twice while in law school and/or college, and made a profit. Should he lose his license if he doesn’t disclose that on bar application? Does that count as employment?
Mar 19, 2014 12:31 PM CDT
She should have claimed it was a hobby, not a job.
I still have trouble with the concept of the word “ethics” appearing in the same sentence as “Illinois”.
Mar 19, 2014 12:35 PM CDT
You are all missing the point. This is not about the prostitution. The main thing she is probably being punished for is she lied to the Displinary Commission in testimony after they started the investigation. That, you can’t do.
Mar 19, 2014 12:47 PM CDT
@13, is the “lying” really the “main thing”? She denied she participated in an illegal activity—perhaps she should have taken the Fifth. Kinda like ole Bill Clinton “I never had sex with that woman” lie.
I seriously doubt that she got a 3 year suspension for lying that she had not engaged in criminal activity.
I am sick to death of being told that the purpose of the ethics discipline is not to punish the lawyer, but to “protect the public.” Really? How is the public of Illinois protected by a three year (which, is, in essence, a total destruction of her legal career) suspension?
I think many of the above writers have made excellent points.
Mar 19, 2014 12:53 PM CDT
Lying on a bar application will subject the applicant to discipline. She forgot that practicing law is a privilege, it is not a right. Bottom line, selling sex is illegal conduct and she lied to the bar about it. If it were consensual sex without a money exchange, it would not be a misdemeanor.
Mar 19, 2014 12:58 PM CDT
CGR, re-read my comment and that of James above. You’ve clearly missed the point. But I’ll join you once again in the ‘employment’ rabbit hole & suggest to you that I’ve conflated nothing. As the ‘world’s oldest profession’, prostitution is in every sense of the word the oldest means of ‘employing’ someone for money in exchange for the given end. You can split hairs all you want in defense of her actions but it doesn’t change the facts. As I said above, I’m on board with most on this topic in my belief that prostitution remaining illegal is flat out ridiculous & is probably on par with the absurdity of marijuana being illegal in the same country where alcohol is justified and legal. But such beliefs are irrelevant until the given legislature holds the same. I’ve likewise spent more than enough time in private practice to understand your point, but again, it doesn’t change the facts.
Mar 19, 2014 1:06 PM CDT
Marc,
She did not “lie” on her Bar application; at most she omitted reference to illegal activity.
How many lawyers have failed to disclose past misdemeanors (which prostitution is) or even felonies (marijuana use in some states) on their bar applications?
And is the new standard that an admitted can be suspended for not referencing all past on-line avatars and screen names on websites that they have frequented as “a/k/a’s”.
Two words come to mind: hypocrisy and bullshit.
Mar 19, 2014 1:40 PM CDT
I think there may be grounds to discipline for not disclosing her business but i wonder, had she disclosed she was a prostitute, would they have denied her admission for that reason? So, it is damned if you do and damned if you don’t???
By the way, she charged money for sex? Have we really received sex without paying for it, even from our spouses??? Nothing is free in life, at least not anymore!!!
Mar 19, 2014 1:45 PM CDT
Please. Some of you make me laugh, questioning the action, questioning the C&F language, etc. Google, friends. Google is your friend.
Question 2A: “Have you ever been know by any other first, middle, or last name?” Nikita is a first name.
Question 25: “List every job (other than those listed in response to preceding questions 23A and 24), including without limitation all temporary, part-time, full-time, and self employment, paid or unpaid, you have held for the ten year period immediately prior to the date of the filing of this application.” Being a prostitute is most certainly a job that should have been disclosed.
Question 53: “Is there any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualification or general fitness on your part that is not otherwise disclosed by your answers to questions in this application?” Yes, she was a prostitute. That is misconduct, as prostitution is illegal.
Here’s the thing most of you whining about this seem to have forgotten: Character and fitness is not a joke. The Bar doesn’t want to admit criminals, those who have committed criminal activity, and/or those who have bad morals and ethics. Why? Because someone who is willing to break the law in their own private lives are likely willing to violate the ethical rules we are all held to.
We are supposed to be held to a higher standard. The idea that some here would forgive that higher standard are examples of why our profession is held in such low esteem.
Let’s be clear - she got lucky to only be suspended and not disbarred. She exchanged money for sex while in law school and is accused of trading sex for office supplies after becoming an attorney. This is not an innocent girl who got hosed by the system. This is a girl who was a hooker, and likely used some of that money to pay for school, books, and client costs.
She deserved worse for the damage she’s done to the perception of the legal community.
Mar 19, 2014 1:56 PM CDT
there is nothing immoral about being a hooker. she traders her service for money just like a lawyer does. only difference is society has not socially accepted her services.
Mar 19, 2014 2:15 PM CDT
“there is nothing immoral about being a hooker. she traders her service for money just like a lawyer does. only difference is society has not socially accepted her services”
The definition of “immoral” is: “violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.”
Lying on the C&F section is immoral. Committing a vice crime like prostitution does not conform to usually accepted principles of social ethics.
Society has not socially accepted sex for money yet? Mmmm hmmm. So you are close friends with hookers and would let one watch your kids, right?
Lawyers are supposed to be ethical. Ethics require a sense of morality. Lying on your bar application and subsequent C&F questionnaire is neither ethical nor an example of morality. Keep fighting the good fight - nothing is better for the perception of the practice of law than excusing hookers that lie on their application for their license.
I don’t care if she’s a prostitute. I care that she was a lawyer leading a double life and breaking the law as a prostitute. I care that she lied on her application. I care that because of her, the public has another reason to think the profession I love and care deeply about attracts scumbags and prostitutes.
Why don’t you nominate her for judge? Maybe she should be President of the ABA? Supreme Court Justice? Oooh! Let her teach classes in law school about Professional Responsibility!
Mar 19, 2014 2:16 PM CDT
One more difference between a prostitute and a lawyer? Prostitutes don’t need to graduate from an accredited school and pass an exhaustive exam, nor are they held to a higher ethical standard.
Mar 19, 2014 2:58 PM CDT
porn actor. sex for money. not illegal.
prostiute; sex for money. illegal.
moral of the story. just keep a camera rolling, and disclose “actress” on your bar app.
Mar 19, 2014 3:26 PM CDT
Three years is a travesty. The disciplined meted out appear to be wildly inconsistent.The reason in this case is because of the sex job, not lying. I believe that lying about sexual activities such as this should be acceptable. It should be okay to lie about having worked at a strip club, or massaging while nude with or without the happy ending. I know law students who have helped finance their education with those jobs. I might feel differently if telling the truth was not used against the applicant. The moral judgements are so significant that lying is the only alternative. If applicants were asked if they have committed any crimes, would they have to confess to every gay sexual act, to every act of intercourse or genital rubbing on a date or with your fiancé or with any person who is married to someone else. Became fornication is a crime in Illinois. Adultery is still a crime in Illinois. But it is no longer condemned by most and never prosecuted by State’s attorneys. Even so it should be okay to commit those crimes in secret, without having to disclose them and lying when asked. Prosecuting escorts is preying on poor women who are doing their best at making money to pay their bills and support their families. The ARDC should not ban her from practicing law. Three years and until readmitted is often a lifetime ban. She cannot get a job in the field she studied or in the world’s oldest profession. All because she did not confess to being an escort. Reprimands and censures, not three years suspension, are often given to lawyers who have done really bad things, with victims. She, on the other hand, was providing a valuable service (and if news stories were correct, she was so desperate that she was charging the market rate for poor men).
Mar 19, 2014 3:59 PM CDT
@24 - agreed. If she’d lied about being a clerk at a 7-11, she’d have received a slap on the wrist, at most.
Mar 19, 2014 4:50 PM CDT
@ 18: RE: “By the way, she charged money for sex? Have we really received sex without paying for it, even from our spouses??? Nothing is free in life, at least not anymore!!! “
Dude, it could be worse. Just be thankful we don’t expect you to slay a mastodon for us, at least once a week!
Mar 19, 2014 6:27 PM CDT
The only thing disturbing about this article is that it’s old news. This was published many months ago and it’s now just rehashing the same. As for Ms. Bajaj, she knew what she was doing was against the ethics code and the law. She chose to break the law all the while representing that she would uphold the laws of the United States and the State. Furthermore, she lied to the character and fitness board. Lie and lose your ability to be in the profession? Sure, it happens all the time. Police officers are fired for lying; firemen and others too. Sorry, but that’s the risk you take when you step over the line. I’m disgusted at how many people want to justify her actions based on the low amounts charged or that it’s an action between two consenting adults (by the way, she testified to the ARDC that sometimes it was for money, sometimes, for DVDs, sometimes for office supplies. Seriously? I think a psych. eval. is needed here.) If the legislature makes it legal, then fine. I truthfully think it’s ridiculous too. But until that time, she stands in line with everyone else in being required to obey the law. We can’t pick and choose, folks.
Mar 19, 2014 6:52 PM CDT
I don’t agree with other comments that cite this as an example of why prostitution should be legal because of the broad social implications of allowing for people to be bought and sold, but that’s not really central to this article.
I can’t help but wonder if the 3 year suspension had less to do with the lack of disclosure on the lawyer’s part and more to do with the disciplinary committee’s feelings about women and sexuality. I have seen lawyers do much worse with less severe consequences.
www.lwablog.com
Mar 19, 2014 7:00 PM CDT
By way of comparison, look at latter ABA postings. Lawyer who posted video on YouTube which injured client and undermined a criminal prosecution received 5 month suspension. Lawyers who faked illness and did not show up for oral arguments gets 60 days. Client was unrepresented at last minute and lost.
Now compare those actual client injuries with this lawyer who did not injure any client.
Anyone still want to argue the length of this suspension makes any kind of logical sense?
Mar 19, 2014 9:43 PM CDT
JeffIsLouie,
I know nothing about the process of applying to the Bar. My only interaction with a bar is to ask what is on tap.
But the conviction seems to have come 2 years after the application so not saying she was guilty at the time seems reasonable since it is not at all clear when money changed hands.
Do you think that anyone shown to have used illegal drugs prior to applying should also be suspended unless they confessed at the time? And should that confession itself bar them from the Bar?
Mar 19, 2014 9:54 PM CDT
@ 19: RE “Here’s the thing most of you whining about this seem to have forgotten: Character and fitness is not a joke. The Bar doesn’t want to admit criminals, those who have committed criminal activity, and/or those who have bad morals and ethics.”
The State Bars in many jurisdictions have admitted people with a past criminal history. And the profession is chock full of attorneys with questionable morals and ethics—which is one of the reasons we have disciplinary committees.
As several posters have pointed out, numerous other attorneys have received lighter sentences despite ethical breaches that exposed their clients to severe detriment. That doesn’t seem to be an issue here.
As for the prostitution, someone who allows herself to be pawed by men for a couple of cartridges of HP toner and boxes of copy paper has suffered enough punishment, IMO.
Mar 19, 2014 10:05 PM CDT
Every female lawyer who flashes anybody with the intent to excite is also committing a crime. 720 ILCS 4/11-30. How long should they be suspended?
Mar 20, 2014 2:13 AM CDT
Comment removed by moderator.
Mar 20, 2014 2:26 AM CDT
Ms. Bajaj should be commended for finding a way to earn money in a loving activity that brought happiness and joy to another person. Ms. Bajaj may be too honest for a career in law. She should have argued Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Reema Bajaj is a beautiful young woman who simply exercised a liberty interest. She did not engage in prostitution, because this set of facts makes that impossible. Any money exchanged was for Ms. Bajaj’s time and companionship. What happens between consenting adults in private is a personal choice between those consenting adults. Ms. Bajaj successfully graduated law school, and thus established that she has superior intelligence. I have seen photographs of Ms. Bajaj that show she is a beautiful woman, with big expressive eyes, and a perfect smile and face. Anyone of her intelligence and beauty would be sought-after in the employment marketplace.
If you read this Ms. Bajaj, don’t let the legal system grind you down. Any shame and wrongdoing is on behalf of the discipline authorities. Be proud of your photos, and of your beautiful female form. Think twice before you throw your life away on the practice of law. You are a special and gifted person with far more to offer this world.
Comment above was intended but not posted for the story below about Reema Nicki Bajaj because the moderator turned-off comments
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/suspended_lawyer_drops_suit_over_her_nude_photos/
Mar 20, 2014 5:58 AM CDT
George (comment 29) I also reviewed other cases involving attorney suspensions and found a disparity between the length of suspensions for ie stealing clients’ money, failing to show up for court hearings, throwing client files that contained confidential information in the trash, and the suspension ordered in this matter.
Mar 20, 2014 8:48 AM CDT
Apparently this penalty was imposed by consent. Was she facing even graver sanctions?
I agree with the commenters here who think the suspension is excessive, though some sort of suspension was probably warranted. Lying under oath about criminal conduct, especially after pleading guilty to it, is never a good strategy for a licensed attorney who wants to keep her license. It is precisely the kind of easy-to-prove violation that a Bar is most likely to bring the hammer down on. Little effort required.
Mar 20, 2014 1:41 PM CDT
sure…and while we are at it, lets open up the field to liars, cheaters, thieves, tax evaders, swindlers, pimps, etc; wait a minute…it’s already…
Mar 20, 2014 1:50 PM CDT
By the way as a medical practitioner, I agree with Marc’s comparison to sterile procedure practice, although comparisons do break down, the comparison drives the point.
Mar 20, 2014 2:04 PM CDT
Hey-I have a better idea! Let’s legalize lying, cheating, theft, tax evasion, swindling, pimping…wait a minute…they’re already…
Mar 20, 2014 2:10 PM CDT
That way, cases should be fairly easy to adjudicate! Isn’t that what other countries have done? I think they called it “SOCIALISM! (or is it ANARCHY?...I just cannot decide…)
Mar 20, 2014 2:25 PM CDT
By the way, history has shown that legalizing an act does not, and never will, remove the criminal element inherent in such an act, nor does it resolve the moral dilemma attached to it. That is why we have rules and regulations, whose sole purpose is to establish some standard of ethical, moral, and yes, clinical homeostasis, that benefits us, within it’s limits boundaries, and capacity to engage, whiich is not possible without them.
Mar 20, 2014 2:36 PM CDT
Here is quote from Wikipedia concerning the “Red Light District” of Holland, a primary center for legalized prostitution: “The Netherlands is listed by the UNODC as a top destination for victims of HUMAN TRAFFICKING.” Legalizing prostitution only shifted the crime element’s focus to other endeavors within prostitution.
Mar 20, 2014 2:37 PM CDT
Someone should enact a rule against posting 5 consecutive times on this site.
Mar 20, 2014 4:09 PM CDT
I think many of you are missing the point. She used a screen name on an adult website and met people for sex. Having a screen name is not going by another name. She denies exchanging money for sex. The committee, in its’ infinite wisdom, decided her testimony was false (no explanation given in the article as to what evidence was presented to establish her perjury). If she is telling the truth (and I believe SHE believes her testimony), she did not commit an illegal act or fail to report income as she denies being a prostitute. She admits to being involved on an adult website and having sex with strangers. That’s not illegal or an immoral act. People do it all the time. And she’s single so it’s not even adultery. She may have screwed some strangers but the Illinois Supreme Court REALLY screwed her.
Mar 20, 2014 6:44 PM CDT
Luis, some people use “human trafficking” to describe completely voluntary service in the sex trades, and without knowing the definition they attach, it is hard to know if there is any real issue in the Netherlands.
Mar 20, 2014 9:13 PM CDT
murff @ 44 brings up some interesting points. How much of a distinction is there really between a woman who will have sex in exchange for office supplies, and a date who will only “put out” if the guy springs for lobster or filet mignon at that first dinner out?
Besides, sex is therapeutic, as it alleviates stress—which incidentally is what leads approximately 52% of all attorneys to abuse drugs or alcohol, and may bear a significant relationship to attorney trust fund issues in many jurisdictions.
Mar 20, 2014 11:52 PM CDT
Thanks B. Mcleod! As a rebuttal (and to the chagrin of Nolelaw) please permit me to introduce the following additional quote from Wikipedia:“Many people who support legal prostitution argue that prostitution is a consensual sex act between adults and a victimless crime, thus the government should not prohibit this practice.
Many anti-prostitution advocates hold all prostitutes are themselves victims, arguing that prostitution is a practice which can lead to serious psychological and often physical long term effects for the prostitutes.[8][9][10] They may also argue that the act of prostitution is not by definition a fully consensual act, as they say that all prostitutes are “forced” to sell sex, either by somebody else or by the unfortunate circumstances of their lives (such as poverty, lack of opportunity, drug addiction, a history of childhood abuse or neglect, etc.).[citation needed]
In 1999, Sweden became the first country to make it illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute). A similar law was passed in Norway and in Iceland (in 2009). As of 2012, the Republic of Ireland is considering a similar model to that of the Nordic countries (Denmark excluded).[11]
Economic and health issues[edit]
It is argued[citation needed] that street prostitution is not victimless as it may damage the reputation and quality of life in the neighbourhood and diminish the value of property. Peter De Marneffe notes that many prostitutes have not finished school, affecting their ability to be able to have a career that they might have preferred. Therefore, prostitution also affects the application of their talent in other areas of the economy in which they can succeed. Maxwell (2000) and other researcher have found substantial evidence that there is strong co-occurrence between prostitution, drug use, drug selling, and involvement in non-drug crimes, particularly property crime. Because the activity is considered criminal in many jurisdictions, its substantial revenues are not contributing to the tax revenues of the state, and its workers are not routinely screened for sexually transmitted diseases which is dangerous in cultures favouring unprotected sex and leads to significant expenditure in the health services. According to the Estimates of the costs of crime in Australia,[12] there is an “estimated $96 million loss of taxation revenue from undeclared earnings of prostitution”. On top of these physical issues, it is also argued that the there are psychological issues that prostitutes face from certain experiences and through the duration and/or repetition. Some go through experiences that may result “in lasting feelings of worthlessness, shame, and self‐hatred”.[13] De Marneffe further argues that this may affect the prostitute’s ability to perform sexual acts for the purpose of building a trusting intimate relationship, which may be important for their partner. Because of the lack of a healthy relationship, it can lead to higher divorce rates and it can influence unhealthy relationship to their children, influencing their future relationships. Although this is more difficult to control by law, it should be considered when creating policies in protecting prostitutes’ psychological health.”
Mar 21, 2014 2:29 AM CDT
I am with McLeod and those who feel the penalty is much too severe. She wasn’t convicted of any crime, so she shouldn’t have been forced to incriminate herself or punished for exercising her Fifth Amendment rights. Perhaps she should run for governor now.
Mar 21, 2014 5:18 AM CDT
This lady committed the crime of getting caught, that is all, and as such had a traceable police record.
I am surprised they did not use the IRS failure to report income paid in cash.
Gee, wasn’t she punished enough?
What in the world are the police doing cursing web sites looking to see if there is any exchange of money for sex?
But think of all the lawyers who could be disbarred for running a lemonade stand and not reporting the income?
Can somebody PLEASE get us out of the bedrooms?
Mar 21, 2014 6:32 AM CDT
Prostitution is a “crime” not a “job.” If non-disclosure is the issue, it should have been diclosed in the application’s “Criminal History” section, not employment. Have you ever seen anyone list robbery, fraud, or tax evasion as prior employment? And I too am sick of the reporting of this story. This woman’s personal tragety has become the sport of too many authors.