Elliott Spitzer: Latest victim of the Mann Act

[clayfoot]

Of course, it's all very embarrassing and sad that Elliott Spitzer's name was leaked to the press, along with an affidavit alleging his involvement in prostitution. Now, will someone please explain why this case was prosecuted by the Public Integrity Section under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910? Also known as The Mann Act, this law has been

Comments

[ikkarus01]

I read somewhere that it has to do with the fact that he paid to have the prostitute cross state lines. I don't know the details, though, and I'm way too lazy to look.

[clayfoot]

That is, indeed, how the Mann Act can be applied to such a case. The Supreme Court ruled on the Act in 1913 that, while Congress could not regulate prostitution, per se, it could regulate interstate travel for the purposes of prostitution or other "immoral purposes." Not the best law on record, but very useful if you want to bring down a public figure.

[clayfoot]

Just to clarify a bit, it doesn't really matter that Spitzer transferred a prostitute across state lines. Under the Mann Act, Spitzer (or anyone else) can be prosecuted under the Mann Act for transferring someone across state lines for any kind of extramarital sex, including consensual sex between two single people.

[ikkarus01]

Really? Well that's a pretty bizarre interpretation. That sounds like it's open to a whole array of potential misuses.

[clayfoot]

And from the Supreme Court, no less (via Wikipedia):

• Hoke v. United States (227 U.S. 308, 322) (1913). The Court held that Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or “immoral purposes.”
• Athanasaw v. United States (227 U.S. 326, 328) (1913). The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to “debauchery” as well.
• Caminetti v. United States (242 U.S. 470, 484-85) (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of “immoral sex.”


• Gebardi v. United States (287 U.S. 112) (1932). The Court held that the statutory intent was not to punish a woman's acquiescence; therefore, consent by the woman does not expose her to liability.
• Cleveland v. United States (329 U.S. 14, 16-17) (1946). The Court decided that a person can be

[ikkarus01]

Bell v. United States (349 U.S. 81, 83) (1955). The Supreme Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.

Well, at least they have a two-for-one deal. Good to know that importing a threesome is only considered a single act of "immoral sex".

[clayfoot]

Right! It's the transportation that the law addresses; moving two women is only one act of transportation, according to the ruling. The particular number of sex acts committed is unregulated by this act, and is presumably left to the imagination.

[ikkarus01]

But what if the women were transported separately for the purposes of a single act? If they arrived in separate cars, that would constitute multiple violations?

I guess, like many things, prostitution benefits from bulk shipping.

[clayfoot]

I presume it would be one violation for each separate act of transportation. One wonders whether lesbians can ever be prosecuted under this act, since one of the Supreme Court rulings specifically exempts women from liability if they are consenting.

[ikkarus01]

Lesbians get all the breaks.