Comments on: Doing vs. Inducing

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:22:04 +0000

Doing drugs, vs. Selling drugs.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:33:48 +0000

Fair enough; however, I’m pretty sure neither alienation of affection nor tortious interference with contract requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant flashed first. In both cases it’s no defense that the breaching party initiated the offending transaction.

By: LTEC

LTEC — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:10:22 +0000

I am against “alienation of affection” laws, but to answer your question: if one has to assign blame for an affair, it would not be completely ridiculous to assign it to that person who flashed his/her thong first.

By: nk

nk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:45:07 +0000

I have only seen it with clients, BTW, because that’s how the police stings are set up. They send out a lady cop as a possible prostitute, not a guy cop as a possible client.

By: nk

nk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:42:56 +0000

In Illinois, soliciting for the purposes of prostitution (applies to pimp, prostitute or client) is a Class A misdemeanor (364 days) but patronizing a prostitute is a Class B misdemeanor (six months).

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:30:17 +0000

LTEC, I like your reasoning, but let’s take it a step further. Suppose that DC (or Arkansas, or New York, or France, or Mars, or whatever the hell other state had jurisdiction over the Clintons’ marriage at the time of the Blewinski affair) had an alienation of affection law. Suppose further that Bill hadn’t just had a little fleeting fun with Monica, but had instead gone on to leave Hillary for her. Now what? Is Bill more culpable than Monica for her perjury, while Monica is more culpable than Bill for his adultery, in both cases because A “merely” committed the act in question while B committed the apparently greater sin of encouraging it?

By: Phelps

Phelps — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:22:20 +0000

For #1, touching your weenie?

#2 is easy. Suicide.
Phelps´s last blog ..Killing the Word

By: LTEC

LTEC — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:22:11 +0000

You’re right: the power relationship matters. That’s why some might consider a weak husband to be less guilty than his seducer.

I don’t like these laws, but I am just trying to take your challenge seriously.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:01:30 +0000

Do we really think suborning perjury is worse than committing it, or is it just that the suborner was the President while the subornee was a lowly staff member? Suppose Monica had suborned perjury from Bill. Same analysis?

Ditto for mob bosses vs. hit men; they don’t just “suborn” the crime; they order it from a position of power. My understanding is that Sammy “the Bull” Gravano got away with all sorts of crimes by pleading to being the lowly ordered assassin, when in fact it later came out that he had put his own bosses up to ordering the hits he turned around and carried out. Presumably, he wouldn’t have gotten the sweet deal he got if this had been known from the outset.

By: LTEC

LTEC — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:31:46 +0000

I think most people feel that Bill Clinton was more wrong in suborning perjury than Monica was in committing it. My guess is that when a powerful, knowledgeable person suborns perjury from a scared, weak, ignorant one, the subornor is treated as the more guilty.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if a mob boss who orders hits is considered more guilty than the people who actually carry out the hits.