'D.C. Madam' sighs as jury finds her guilty
A federal jury convicted a woman Tuesday of running a prostitution service that catered to members of Washington's political elite.Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 52, sighed as the verdict was read.
She had repeatedly denied that the escort service engaged in prostitution, saying that if any of the women engaged in sex acts for money, they did so without her knowledge.
My favorite part of the article:
Three of Palfrey's clients testified during the weeklong trial in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, explaining how they found the service, how often they called, what they were hoping for and whether they got it during their visits.
"When a man agrees to pay $250 for 90 minutes with a woman, what do most men expect in that time?" prosecutor Daniel Butler asked during closing arguments Monday. "In that context, it's pretty clear. Most men want sex."
Well, if they pay for the time, expect and want sex, of course it's a prostitution service. And by all means, those whores should put out. They're getting paid after all! I mean, if you go on a date with a girl and pay for dinner, she owes you. [/sarcasm]'
Edit: I remembered someone recently had written something good about the trial recently and just found it.
Some highlights of the article about the trial from the Washington Post include how the prosecution asked irrelevant and invasive questions about the escort's sex lives such as "Did you specifically discuss what happened when you went in the shower?" and "What would happen if you were menstruating?" and from the article, "[The prosecutor] had her talk about when she was 'aggressive' with a client, when she was 'more submissive,' when she had a difficult client ('he tried to remove the condom') and how often she got 'intimate.'"
Vanessa over at Feministing has it right: We all know who should really be ashamed here.
Posts
10 comments:
Wow. See, what about that thing called consent? I mean, I believe that things should be expressly spelled out before they are done. Giving me $250, in my opinion, is not the same as, "Let me give you this money for sex."
Bah. Something's missing, no?
"When a man agrees to pay $250 for 90 minutes with a woman, what do most men expect in that time?" prosecutor Daniel Butler asked during closing arguments Monday. "In that context, it's pretty clear. Most men want sex."
I don't know? A nice conversation? Human companionship? Tea ceremony?
It depends too heavily on the *wink wink* you know, and that the women would have had to know that that's what was going on. If that's what they were doing, then fine but it's a big presumption that they would only pay that for sex. What about stripping?
That logic means that if a man pays $150 for a 70 minute dinner, clearly it's a prostitution ring since you don't get something for nothing.
You can't assume that just because they are paying that much money, that they automatically want sex - there are escort services that do not involve sex but are simply to accompany someone to an important event.
It is extremely likely that they are in fact paying for sex. What else would honestly cost $250 for only 90 minutes?
Whether or not there was prostituting going on is a side issue from the important point you're making about language. What the prosecutor was implicitly saying is Why else would a man spend $250 for 90 minutes with a woman is not for sex? And answering his own question--that nothing about being with a woman is worth $250 but sex.
And that's despicable.
It is extremely likely that they are in fact paying for sex. What else would honestly cost $250 for only 90 minutes?
A plane ride?
A ride of some sort... Definitely not the conversation.
Ah, just kidding. Lindabeth's right.
What the prosecutor was implicitly saying is Why else would a man spend $250 for 90 minutes with a woman is not for sex? And answering his own question--that nothing about being with a woman is worth $250 but sex.
ok, some of you... your comments could be construed as demeaning to women (although i am sure that is not how you meant it.)Most if not all guys can get 90 minutes of conversation from some girls with a little effort. So to say that a guy would pay a girl who is exceptionally good looking for her to spend time with her seems like saying that only very attractive women are worth a guy's time. Just my thoughts, and those are worth 3 cents because of inflation. That said, I actually do see where you are coming from here... there are a lot of things that do not involve sex a person of either gender could be paid to do.
You also have to remember, the prosecutor's job is to try and get the defendant convicted (granted it should be to find the truth, but lets acknowledge reality.) He should use his best rhetorical strategies to do so. We have no idea of his personal feelings on this matter, merely that he is trying to convince the jury that she is guilty of running a prostitution ring. So, he wants them to think that is what it was.
IMHO, there is something wrong with our system if this guy can say things like that and be taken seriously. The fact that he said that is what bothers me. A lot. I understand the prosecutor's job, but if he really has a case against her, I'm sure he could do without the demeaning language, no? That would make him a better prosecutor in my eyes.
So to say that a guy would pay a girl who is exceptionally good looking for her to spend time with her seems like saying that only very attractive women are worth a guy's time.
No one said anything about the woman being attractive. Attractive or not, the prosecutor implied that spending money on time with a woman means that you expect - or even deserve - sex.
What Lindsay said.
Post a Comment