Posted April 7, 2015 Springs is posting convicted johns' mugshots on their Facebook page. http://gazette.com/colorado-springs-police-try-public-shaming-to-fight-prostitution/article/1549233 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Springs is posting convicted johns' mugshots on their Facebook page. http://gazette.com/colorado-springs-police-try-public-shaming-to-fight-prostitution/article/1549233 They're mixing prostitution and human trafficking. The men are convicted of solicitation of prostitution, but LE is "hoping" it will reduce human trafficking. The lines are blurred to justify their existence. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Just wrong. The judge is supposed to determine the punishment for a crime, not the police department. I hope they get their asses sued and it costs them a lot of money (even if it's my taxpayer money). 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 They're mixing prostitution and human trafficking. . ... It's about funding & garnering public support, about keeping their task forces alive & well fed. Prostitution is losing what shock factor it had - legalized in NV, Amsterdam's red light district, the move from street walkers to the Internet. But everybody dislikes "slavery", ie. human trafficking. What they fail to realize is that most human trafficking is not for sexual purposes. But being forced to work in some garmet factory or harvest someone else's crop doesn't fill NGO pockets quite like the image of someone being pimped against their will. Nor does the thought that for many the alternative to being a victim of trafficking is starvation. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Just wrong. The judge is supposed to determine the punishment for a crime, not the police department. I hope they get their asses sued and it costs them a lot of money (even if it's my taxpayer money). I thought our Constition was supposed to outlaw the pillory ? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 They're mixing prostitution and human trafficking. The men are convicted of solicitation of prostitution, but LE is "hoping" it will reduce human trafficking. The lines are blurred to justify their existence. If you're looking for logic, anything remotely like consistency, data-based decisions or solutions that address core problems rather than symptoms, public policy is the wrong place to look. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Unfortunately, this is not new. Read an article late last year regarding "John Shamming", basically the article says the practice does not deter from john's soliciting nor put a dent in the availability of PFP. I'll try to find the article and post later this evening unless someone else finds it. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) I saw this on the news. I thought its a shame, we have people who commit major crimes such as [snip}, murder, and yet they have their IDs kept a secret. Just another way police cross the lines and we are supposed to respect them?????? So Wrong Edited April 8, 2015 by boink36 Forbidden topic removed. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) I saw this on the news. I thought its a shame, we have people who commit major crimes such as [snip}, murder, and yet they have their IDs kept a secret. Just another way police cross the lines and we are supposed to respect them?????? So Wrong I agree, they are willing to protect the peoples identity who commit these nasty crimes you listed. But they will cyber bully a john by publicly outing him. This is terrible. I am starting to notice that the risk is increasing way too much. SMH I am speechless. Edited April 8, 2015 by boink36 Quote edited. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Unfortunately, this is not new. Read an article late last year regarding "John Shamming", basically the article says the practice does not deter from john's soliciting nor put a dent in the availability of PFP. I'll try to find the article and post later this evening unless someone else finds it. Your right they have been doing this for a while I don't recall all the cities and states. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) I thought our Constition was supposed to outlaw the pillory ? The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment", this is neither. I saw this on the news. I thought its a shame, we have people who commit major crimes such as [snip}, murder, and yet they have their IDs kept a secret. Just another way police cross the lines and we are supposed to respect them?????? So Wrong Nonsense, this information is published all the time. Your right they have been doing this for a while I don't recall all the cities and states. In looking for an article about "John shaming" that Heidi referred to(which I was unable to find that specifically referenced no change in activity), one did mention that this is being used by over 800 jurisdictions around the country; and it's been going on forever(anyone remember the debut of Johns TV? That was how many years ago?) There is nothing new here. It is just another of the myriad risks associated with this business. Edited April 8, 2015 by boink36 Quote edited. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Boy, I feel a lot safer knowing those guys' faces are published and they have been convicted. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Yes this wonderful protection the task force feels is in desperate need to protect the city from us lowly women of the night, is a bunch of shit. They are fully up and running at full force. No this is not anything new, BUT it is here in the Springs. Things used to be quiet here, cops didn't bother you as long as you were quiet....not anymore. It will die down, but not before they make a big fat point. STAY OFF BP!!! Unless you know the lady is well reviewed, tell your dick NO. Also, screening is important to the ladies right now. If she doesn't screen and just says yeah come on over....RUN! I know you guys do not want to give out any info because of the possibility of the girl getting crazy, BUT if you get busted what the hell do you think is going to happen? They are going to be putting up ad's on BP so do your homework. I would be very, very careful out there. I would really hate to be watching TV and see anyone I knew on the evening news. The risk is suddenly getting less beneficial to me. I am taking every precaution and sticking to my regulars. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment", this is neither. Nonsense, this information is published all the time. In looking for an article about "John shaming" that Heidi referred to(which I was unable to find that specifically referenced no change in activity), one did mention that this is being used by over 800 jurisdictions around the country; and it's been going on forever(anyone remember the debut of Johns TV? That was how many years ago?) There is nothing new here. It is just another of the myriad risks associated with this business. I'm still looking for that one as well, I'm double checking post I made here in Florida. Here is one though where the Richmond Captain has second thoughts. http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-john-shaming-20141120-story.html#page=1 There are some interesting articles on Johns TV regarding Public Shaming, postcards. Valid arguments against this current trend too, which I found surprising. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 7, 2015 Boy, I feel a lot safer knowing those guys' faces are published and they have been convicted. sad way how the system works you guilty until you prove your innocence and that will cost you some $$$$ for the attorney's fees .....justice for all ?:confused:I think NOT .... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Here us the press release from January http://www.koaa.com/story/27864826/will-public-shaming-of-johns-decrease-commercial-sex-trade-in-colorado-springs Here is an editorial from http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1964925 hope that's the correct link. I'll post this link separately, but, want laws changed, can't sit on your ass https://liberatetoemancipate.tilt.com/liberatetoemancipate 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Here is today's Gazette http://m.gazette.com/colorado-springs-police-try-public-shaming-to-fight-prostitution/article/1549233 Which mentions some of what I've read previously. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 The end of the Denver Post also mentions that studies have not shown to be deterrent although some say it has. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27859893/colorado-springs-police-start-john-shaming-sex-trafficking 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 In my neck of the world, everyone arrested has their booking shot posted daily on the sheriffs web site. we're a pretty small community. It's a very handy for a lot of things ranging from party planning to making a more informed decision regarding who's not likely to show up for work in the morning. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 At least the Gazette to its credit at least tries to be somewhat objective. But for a more instructive media piece relative to the unadulterated bull shit that is driving these task forces etc. see this local tv piece. http://www.krdo.com/news/springs-police-begin-releasing-photos-of-people-convicted-of-hiring-prostitutes/32213106 In particular their use of the founder of "Heart to Heart Counseling" who has made a lucrative national business of "sex addiction." Quoting the "good" doctor from said tv piece: Weiss said he has worked with men who solicit prostitution for 25 years. He said getting caught is often good for them, as it leads to the beginning of a new life. He said prostitution is not a victimless crimes, but that it hurts everyone involved. "I've worked with prostitutes, and they tell me how they get conned into doing this, how they are drugged, how they are used, how their soul feels totally destroyed after doing this, even if they feel like they volunteered, they're totally destroyed," he said. "Ive talked to the guys who have used prostitutes, and the guilt that they feel and the desperateness and the dirtiness and the secrets that they feel." He said if the people soliciting prostitution are married, their spouses are also deeply hurt. "They're hurt, they feel betrayed, and now it's publicly known," Weiss said. "To them, I would say, 'It's got nothing to do about your sexuality at home. Nothing about your age or your size. These men would've done it no matter who they are married to." That is a good taste of what and who is behind the booming anti-trafficking industry. His total drivel defies comment and pretty much speaks for itself. Up next for Springs more new innovative crime fighting measures - maybe scalet letters and stocks. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 I wonder if any of these johns have become suicidal after being humiliated publicly? That kind of reaction does not seem so outlandish to me. What would it take to demonstrate that the humiliation does not fit the crime? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Particularly idiotic in the context of the story is the quote "their spouses are also deeply hurt". Soooo ........ if the worry is innocent spouse being hurt, their husband's picture in the newspaper as a convicted sex criminal will not be hurtful to the spouse and the whole family!?!?!?!?! Nice, real nice. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Particularly idiotic in the context of the story is the quote "their spouses are also deeply hurt". Soooo ........ if the worry is innocent spouse being hurt, their husband's picture in the newspaper as a convicted sex criminal will not be hurtful to the spouse and the whole family!?!?!?!?! Nice, real nice. Exactly. I find the part about "it doesn't have anything to do with your sexuality at home" to be particularly ludicrous. That is patently and totally false. I never, ever considered the hobby until many years went by with rare physical affection. During the decade-plus of wonderful and fulfilling affection, all was great. I think it's a fairly reasonable test. Withdraw affection and man will seek it out. Others have sought affection when SOs were ill or injured, and they did not want an affair with its emotional landmines. And it hurts the marriage? Isn't a divorce far more hurtful for the wife and family? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Others have sought affection when SOs were ill or injured, and they did not want an affair with its emotional landmines. And it hurts the marriage? Isn't a divorce far more hurtful for the wife and family? No one has the right to unilaterally declare an end to someone else's sex life. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Just wrong. The judge is supposed to determine the punishment for a crime, not the police department. I hope they get their asses sued and it costs them a lot of money (even if it's my taxpayer money). Mess with me and I'll contact the ACLU and a rainmaker lawyer. I'll get a lot of unwanted publicity but the Police Department and, possibly, Facebook will have to pay me a lot for damages. So who gets hurt the most? It could be called a "lose-win situation" where I'd come out ahead. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Unfortunately, this is not new. Read an article late last year regarding "John Shamming", basically the article says the practice does not deter from john's soliciting nor put a dent in the availability of PFP. I'll try to find the article and post later this evening unless someone else finds it. Well you can do some research but... The Gazette did their homework and already looked up the effectiveness of this lame-brained policy. Here are some nuggets: "Not all programs have run smoothly, though. "The Denver Police Department's "Johns TV" initiative, which aired pictures of people convicted of soliciting for sex on the city's TV channel, ended after a few years. It failed to meet several goals, including reducing recidivism, said Sonny Jackson, a Denver police spokesman. "It didn't give us the end results we wanted," Jackson said. "In Kansas, the Wichita Police Department ended its initiative when the pictures "were being used for purposes that the department feels were inappropriate," according to a department statement detailed in the 2012 review. "A Richmond, Calif., police captain stopped his program 72 hours after it began because Facebook users posted johns' home addresses, workplaces and schools they attended, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times. [Now there's an unintended consequence!!!] 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Yes, I posted the links yesterday not only from Gazette article, but Richmond shutting down after 72 hours, another source. Denver Post also states at end of their article pretty much the same thing, link also posted yesterday. Like I said, I read about this last year. I'm still looking for the Florida article regarding department here contemplating Public Shaming. Basically says they see no evidence that Public Shaming works, citing Richmond PD and various other outlets. Again, not a new practice. Those who get caught up will most likely be those who 1) don't do research with that said, the last sting conducted here in Palm Beach County, they used actual pictures of undercover female vice. Something to consider when doing research. That is also the new trend. This will be interesting to watch, especially the unfortunate collateral damage. For a Community that Focus on the Family is part of, I'm surprised the possible collateral damage would even be tolerated. Talk about making someone's stupid mistake into a never ending nightmare. Well, gotta run, sun is coming up 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 I feel LE needs to leave all the lades/johns alone who are willing, not being forced. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 Mess with me and I'll contact the ACLU and a rainmaker lawyer. I'll get a lot of unwanted publicity but the Police Department and, possibly, Facebook will have to pay me a lot for damages. So who gets hurt the most? It could be called a "lose-win situation" where I'd come out ahead. I've never heard of a shamed-john going after the police for damages. Are there any real-life examples out there? Aren't the mugshots public records? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 8, 2015 I've never heard of a shamed-john going after the police for damages. Are there any real-life examples out there? Aren't the mugshots public records? Mugshots are one thing; posting on Facebook is another. Yes, suing police departments and Facebook needs some research. BUT, any crazy person can find a crazy lawyer to start a lawsuit. Plus, it looks like the ACLU is in the fight. According to the Gazette article the Facebook postings take on an whole new life: "In Kansas, the Wichita Police Department ended its initiative when the pictures "were being used for purposes that the department feels were inappropriate," according to a department statement detailed in the 2012 review. "A Richmond, Calif., police captain stopped his program 72 hours after it began because Facebook users posted johns' home addresses, workplaces and schools they attended, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
