Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Senator Craig’s Innocence

Phil Hoskins wrote:

Phil, you pose a very good and troubling question. Moreover, it appears you are correct. Even if everything in the police report is true, what Larry Craig did does not constitute a crime. There was no basis for arresting Larry Craig.

From another blog:

Minnesota Law


Other sources I read online would support the fact that no actual crime occurred. It is probably most unfortunate for the former senator that he did not have the presence to muster the considerable resources at his disposal to make this easily go away. Likely terrified, and thinking or hoping it would get buried, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct.

Phil is also apparently correct in that there is no legal basis for people being protected from solicitations for sex in public places. Legally, then, public washrooms present a great way to solicit new and different partners for anonymous sex. Foot tapping and hands under the stalls are pretty weak, and may cause confusion. The meaning may be lost, or misinterpretted. Online discussions I read related that more direct methods of solicitation are also not clearly illegal. These involve venues like locker rooms, showers, beaches, urinals, etc. The common denominator being places in which men are exposed or undressed as part of the intended purpose. Men soliciting for sex in these circumstances can push the envelope on what would otherwise constitute lewd behavior, which is usually illegal.

The caveat to this wholly legal dating game is that when the sex starts in a public place, then it becomes lewd behavior. And not even sex. Exposure of private body parts, and then, of course sexual acts in public (and sometimes in private)whether by one or more persons can be lewd behavior. There are a ton of legal definitions, as one migh expect.

The red flag that this whole Craig incident raises is police entrapment of gays cruising for sex. Solicitation for (public) lewd acts: not a crime. Public lewd acts: crime. The problem with the solicitation is where is it going? If one solicits anonymous strangers in a public bathroom in an airport, is he then going to fly home with them? No. The intent is to commit the act right then and there. Both consensual adult males having sex in a public bathroom. This is lewd behavior and criminal. The issue of entrapment, then, is that the vice cop will only lure his target into solicitation. While there may be intent to commit a lewd act, this is not a crime, at least in Minnesota.

True, most likely we're dealing with a sickness here when discussing Senator Craig. When I made that statement, I was thinking from the point-of-view of someone living in Idaho his entire life - and now I throw this in as well: having never traveled.

Good comments, Phil and Will. This is getting to the core of the "innocence" issue.

I go back to the case of the State Representative in FL, who was not arrested until he and the undercover agent left the rest room to go to a more private place for their activity.

I also go back to Phil's earlier observation, that a heterosexual couple rocking the back seat of a steamed up car will not be arrested nearly as often as a homosexual couple.

I think there are two different problems that have to be addressed, preferably simultaneously. As someone else pointed out earlier, we have to be mindful that there could very well be children present in certain public places, who ought not be exposed to certain behaviors, regardless of the gender of the participants. Or perpetrators. That's why people go to bars for the purpose of picking up a sex partner much more frequently than to a PTO meeting.

We do need laws that protect children from premature exposure to mating behaviors. But the laws must be gender-neutral, naming the dances that are prohibited without respect to whether the dance partners are of the same or opposite sex.

If the little girl didn't actually get into the van, how could you charge the man who just wanted her help to find his lost puppy?

Let's say that Craig was intending to do what has been suggested. And let's say the person in the stall next door was a receptive and willing participant. I assume that some sexual activity would have happened in one of the stalls there in the airport bathroom.

I know that if I were traveling, I would prefer not to encounter that in the course of my trip. And I do not think it is unreasonable for police to take steps to discourage that sort of behavior.

And as far as I understand it, the punishment for this "crime" was not unduly harsh. And in fact for most normal situations the whole encounter might well have simply been a slap on the wrist directed at encouraging people to find other more appropriate venues for their predilections.

If the person in the bathroom had been some known gay (Barney Frank for example) we would probably would not hear so very much about it. Didn't the severe punishment of this case result from public reaction to the exposure of Craig's hypocrisy?

99% chance the casual traveller would have no idea anything was going on. Unless one were to intentionally look into the stall of one or the other participants, nothing would tip them off. participants in t-room sex are quite cagey and careful not to be visible to others. In fact, if it were not for the undercover policeman's presence, if Craig and been have sex with the man in the other stall, no one would know. Almost all these criminal prosecutions involve undercover police officers. Almost never is it based upon a complaint of a citizen offended by what is going on.

Nearly ever poster here who is not gay was surprised at the 'dance" moves that go into t room sex. Many may have had it happen to them and never known it. We are not talking about an epidemic of men whipping it out all over the place.

Tempest in a tearoom I say.


I am quite sure that the fact of being arrested, possibly in front of many people, would embarass anyone. It is not a slap on the writ to be taken to a police station. Again, let's look at proportionality. Tapping one's foot leads to all this.

Just not right.


Ardy you cannot be that naieve -- had Barney Frank been arrested in this situation there would be no end to the public reaction and press, most of it of the "see, they are all dirty pervs" variety.

Sarah Keshaw from the NYT op-ed pages:
When Fighting Crime Means Enticing Crime

Ms. Kershaw offers examples and a discussion of when law enforcement actually makes people commit moral offenses by enticing and luring them into it.

In the Larry Craig case, had the vice cop given lurking Larry the finger as he initially peered, or had he not tapped his foot in response, would that have been the end of it? Would Larry wait and solicit the next guy and the next? Regardless, the question is, did the vice cop contribute to the situation, when he could have defused it, showed his badge and sent Larry scurrying off to catch the rest of his life? Kershaw cites a quote from Craig during the tape made after his arrest. He said to the cop, "You're out to enforce the law, but you shouldn't be out to entrap people, either." The large larger issue is whether one believes that anything has been gained from all of this.

Again, I have to say that if Larry Craig had made a couple of calls (John Ashcroft? The Gov. of Idaho?) someone could have pulled the strings to get the Minneapolis DA and the police to probably put this one away. Better yet, if he had gone to the Red Carpet Club to use the bathroom there he would have been a lot better off. By any measure, the punishment from collateral damage does not fit the "crime."

Will,
You would then agree that the little girl was enticing the man in the van, probably with that lolita getup she wore to kindergarten. Glad you cleared that up.

NEW RULE:
Whenever a man goes to the restroom, he should say in a loud voice, "I am not Gay! I have never been Gay!!" If he is constipated, he should remember to announce it every 3 1/2 minutes or so.
(In fairness to the Republicans, it's the least we could do.)

Again I say, good posts all. Except, I'm really confused by your posts, Fermi. I thought you were just being cute with the first one, but now I'm wondering, are you serious?

Phil, an interesting irony here.
According to the police reports, in this case it was based on citizen complaints.

I agree with you and Will that the punishment was completely unfitting to the crime, and that in fact no "crime" had been committed. What is that wonderful term that a knight invented? Oh yes, the vicissitudes of specificity. Quoting him:
That is why the reaction to Craig's circumstances seems so topsy turvy, with his fellow Republicans falling over each other in their efforts to expel him, and Libruls like us proclaiming his "innocence".


I'll drink to that.

I am not sure why police would bother to spend their time doing this sort of thing... or for that matter even know where to do it ... if there were not complaints.

Phil
Surely there are an abundance of options that do not involve having sex in a public bathroom?Aren't women are prosecuted for solicitation on similarly innocuous behaviors

Probably so, although I think Barney would still have his job. And also, Barney would probably find less public way to meet his needs... and so less likely to encounter the situation to begin with.