I love this kind of stuff. Partly because I have watched government try to control, regulate and restrict adult entertainment. So I am amused when a lawman or prosecutor gets caught in flagrante delicto, ( in the very act of committing a misdeed : in the midst of sexual activity.)
I oppose most regulations over individuals. I would like my governments to monitor, regulate and restrict stuff like pollution, transportation, garbage, and services or products which pose a danger to the quality of our societal well-being. Thus, if you are sending a stream of toxins in the air, and I may have to breathe it, you should be monitored, regulated or restricted.
On the other hand if you wish to quietly participate in activities to entertain, refrain from activities meant to entertain, or quietly self-destruct, I am your advocate. If the act has no victim, there should be no penalty imposed by government. Seems so obvious to me. Yet, prostitution is illegal as is drug use. This criminalization of activities has the effect of pushing them underground and creating entrepreneurial criminals to fill the void. Besides the obvious lack of victims there is a lack of quality, security and taxation. And in this way do we send otherwise good people into the waiting hands of black-markets with their attendant gangs, pimps and cartels.
Victims of drug rip-offs will not report their loss. Prostitutes and their customers will not report related crimes. It is an environment designed for the amoral to thrive.
There was a time when societies would rely upon distorted, anecdotal evidence to create laws which were well-intentioned but simply ineffective or unresponsive to a real problem. In todays’ world, there is access to global information, empirical studies, and historical evidence which should be the foundation of regulation and legislation. So why do we pursue actions which are demonstrably ineffective? What is the impetus to penalize and incarcerate persons “guilty” of victimless crimes? I have heard the arguments about the impact of availability of drugs or porn on the fabric of society. NONE of which holds up to the evidence. Morality and self-interests are the controlling motivations behind these laws. Pay-offs to protect an economic interest or pandering to psuedo-religious constituencies is the only motivation that makes sense.
So the only way to prevent that is to remove religion and corporations from influencing legislation. It is not enough to get government out of religion, religion must get out of government. And as my bumper sticker says on my van, I will believe corporation are people when Texas executes one. We do not permit non-citizens to vote or to legally effect elections and we shouldn’t let corporations either.
lawdisorder.blog 
I love public officials in sex and violence scandals. It restores my faith in the democratic process. Chicago democrats at least
I have to admit that I agree. Public officials just cry out to be brought down a notch.
Certainly you digress. The woman bit someone and I don’t think he was a wiiling participant. She was obviously out of her mind, crazy drunk or on some mind altering drugs. I saw the video of her being held by the police. It wasn’t pretty. If she were a public defender, would you still have that smug look on your face?
She is really tangential to my point except for being a prosecutor. I only used that news story because it is funny because she is a prosecutor. It would not be as funny if she were a defense attorney because they don’t prosecute anti-adult entertainment laws.
Sent from Ken Goldberg