The Wichita Police Department’s new prostitution Web page is its most viewed, averaging more than 1,500 hits a day. The page has pictures and names of people arrested and charged in connection with prostitution. It’s a pretty scary bunch. The purpose is to shine some humiliating light on both prostitutes and, perhaps more important, their customers. It’s a good idea, though some have raised concerns about posting pictures of people who haven’t been convicted yet of a crime. And one Opinion Line contributor suggested that the site might be used in an unintended way: for customers to determine who is really a prostitute and not an undercover police officer.
Meanwhile, Eagle columnist Mark McCormick wrotetoday about a growing problem of teen and preteen prostitutes.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Everything really should be on the budget table
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/7
53 Comments
While I applaud Wichita PD in their efforts to combat crime on the streets in Wichita, there’s a problem with one of the ordinances they’re highlighting:
City Code Section 5.68.200 Sodomy.Any person who commits sodomy is guilty of a misdemeanor.(a) For purposes of this section, “sodomy” is oral or anal copulation between persons who are not husband and wife or consenting adult members of the opposite sex, or between a person and an animal, or coitus with an animal. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of sodomy.
Note that this is *not* the same statute as “Sodomy for Hire,” which is rightfully against the law. This ordinance targets gay and lesbian Wichitans, and lumps us in with people who abuse animals.
First of all, I didn’t know that people having sex with animals was a big problem in Wichita.
Second, the US Supreme Court, in Lawrence, et al, v Texas, overturned all sodomy statutes that targeted consenting adults.
I’ve been keeping track of this web page for a couple of months now, and haven’t yet seen anyone charged under 5.68.200. However, I do know that in another jurisdiction in Kansas an arrest was made on a similar ordinance. Leaving this law on the books, and actively enforcing it, is nothing but intimidation against adults engaged in lawful behavior. It needs to go.
Good point Tom. I also wonder abuot going after consenting adults. HOWEVER: The topic of McCormick’s column is particularly disturbing. Adult men who prey on underage girls (and I am not referring to 18-17 here) should have their butts nailed. Then put them in the general jail population and make clear that 5.68.200 will not be enforced.
Then put them in the general jail population and make clear that 5.68.200 will not be enforced.Posted by: Ben Huie | April 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Hear hear!
Laws prohobiting consensual sex between adults should be removed as archaic, though I haven;t heard of that many cases. Perhaps even prostitution should be legalized and regulated. I am not sure. Adults having sex with children should indeed be placed in the general jail population,or, as I propound, nail their scrotum to a stump, set the stump on fire, give them a dull knife. They now have freedom of choice.
I am however, convinced that pasting pictues of someone who has yet to be convicted, is wrong. As I am equally convinced that the drug seizure laws, property being consfiscated from those who have yet to be found guilty, is wrong and I think Unconstitutional
Littlejohn,
I don’t know if posting their pictures is unconstitutional, but it sure is questionable. Arrest records are public, but this takes it a step further. It has a very “scarlet letter” feel to it that contradicts the “innocent til proven guilty” principle in a not so good way.
Laws outlawing types of sex going on between consiting adults is the heavy hand of goverment at its worse. Just look at the illogical way it is laid out, banning the sell of something that prefeclty legal to give away. Its also a waste of taxpayer money and police reasources to combat a victimless crime that no matter how much money you throw at it.
I meant the seizing of property under the drug laws seem like should be unconstitutional. The photos are just wrong. After conviction, fine if need be. Before conviction it should be off limits.
I’m not from Kansas, so just general comments… The TV show COPS blurs out some of the ‘perps’ faces. I always thought it was because they didn’t get convicted. Wondering about the legitimacy of this page as well. I am hoping that they passed it by a lawyer at some point.
How about dead beat parents who don’t pay child support?
How about dead beat parents that don’t spend the child support on their children?
The ‘Page of Shame’ seems like a very attractive deterant!!!
Actually, I think the blurring is due to COPS not getting their signed release to show their face.At least, I was told something similar in a photo class I once took. The subject was model release. Maybe not pertinent, but that is always what I thought
It certainly possible that this will backfire as most things the government does usually do. Isn’t this free advertising for prostitutes if a John is looking for some action he can verify he’s getting the right person and not an undercover cop. Although that isn’t hard as cops are usually better dressed, looking and have all their teeth.
BUT, I thought the teens werent capable of saying yes or no…
My goodness, are the laws being two-faced? Naaahhh. So its only the Males that are in on this eh.
In the sexual predator list perhaps we need a list for underage girls that do actually give consent and are partners of these young males that get tagged as “predators” for life for consensual sex.
Perhaps we should not only have a “Predator” list, but also a “Slut” list to go with it. That way these girls can forever be tagged with the same “no job”, “live over here”, “harrassment”, as the males do.
See if the Soccer moms belly up for that one.
Mrbill,
You just made me throw up a little in my mouth.
You’re not even close to amusing. Sexual abuse of children is vicious, wrong, and disgusting.
Given that arrest records are public records (even prior to any court action), it seems, at first thought, that posting on the web is not illegal. Whether it’s a good idea is another matter; it may or may not be. Wichita is hardly the first to use this tactic to combat prostitution. If shame drives down the business, so much the better.
As to the sodomy statute, I’d agree. Enforcement of the statute as written would be unconstitutional per Lawrence v. Texas. I’d note that Kansas statute still has a basically identical statute on the books. KSA 21-3505(a)(1). Likewise, I think that enforcement of said subsection would be illegal.
Big difference between a tv show and police officers posting those who have been arrested. Arrest records are public information. If someone does not sign a release (whether convicted or not) the tv show blanks out their faces and sometimes their voices. It has absolutely nothing to do with convictions, but permission.
Why are they posting the picture of those arrested and not yet convicted. One of these people is going to be acquited at some point and have a great lawsuit for defamation!
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
PW:
I don’t think so. Truth is an absulute defense; that the person was arrested is true.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.Posted by: Political Watcher | April 11, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Should arrest records no longer be public record?
The fact is, the internet is becoming the “publication of record.” Is there a reason why arrest records should be closed, or handled differently?
What about the downside – which is, people getting arrested, and the arrest records *not* made public? Isn’t that part of the debate that’s been going on over Guantanamo, etc, for the past few years now?
try “absolute”
Stopping in…
PW, as has been pointed out, arrest records are public records; there is, to my mind, no difference between printing the names of those arrested and the booking photos thereof insofar as “defamation” is concerned; truth is a defense, and the individuals involved were arrested for an alleged violation of the law.
GMC, as I am late to this party, I see you have posted my thoughts on the sodomy statute. You, I am sure, would agree that it might take a motion by defense counsel citing Lawrence v. Texas to obtain a dismissal, if the prosecutor was not inclined to do so pre-trial.
Now that I think about it…
Let’s say some gay man *does* get arrested for suspected violation of 5.68.200. The PD’s web page is the perfect place for civil rights groups to monitor such police activity.
I like open records.
I am a proponent of shaming punishments such as this.But by looking at the suspects, I’m not sure they have the ability to feel shame (I’m speaking more of the “Johns”).
it might take a motion by defense counsel citing Lawrence v. Texas to obtain a dismissal, if the prosecutor was not inclined to do so pre-trial.Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | April 11, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Vaughn,
Those kinds of arrests have no business being made, and every law enforcement officer in the nation should know that.
It’s sad to know that some in Kansas are still making arrests under these laws, in full knowledge that a judge is going to order charges dismissed.
Reminds me of the line from Dirty Harry about why he shot the guy chasing a woman and how Inspector Callahan could believe it was an attempted rape.
Dirty Harry replied,
“Well when you see a naked man running after a woman with a butcher knife and a hard-on I don’t think there was any mistake on what his intentions were.”
Tom, I agree with you on this; the law enforcement officers should not be making these arrests given Lawrence v. Texas. However, to make an argument for sake of this post only, I can see someone in authority taking the position that as the Lawrence case dealt with the Texas law, and did not specifically deal with the Kansas statute, until a court rules on the Kansas statute, it is not affected thereby.
While the hypothetical argument set out above is, IMHO, absurd, I seem to recall similar arguments in various jurisdictions over Furman v. Georgia, for example.
This entire thing disgusts me.
If a man desires to use his body to make money – Pro Football, Basketball, whatever – agents court and sign him and those who want to watch pay big bucks to cheer him on.
But if a woman desires to use her body to make money – it’s a crime.
Anyone FORCING a gal into a life of sex for hire should be castrated – but if a woman chooses to make money that way – it is between her – and the person who pays her.
But the website taught me something I didn’t know – ho’s are mostly ugly. Only two gals close to the bottom were halfway cute at all, the rest look like walking diseases. I guess I’ve seen too many movies where the hookers were really pretty and classy.
Hey – while we’re on the subject – has anyone seen or heard from Farmie in the past couple of days?
I surely hope she hasn’t been arrested.
lol
(just kidding)
We haev seen the Duke case unravel with charges being dropped today. What troubles me with all of this is parading the ACCUSED as though they are the CONVICTED.
I recall a judge (Mary Waters) in Los Angeles lecturing defendants about their bad behavior. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
GS -
I understand where you’re coming from, but the distinction isn’t using your body to make money.
Prostitution is selling SEX ACTS. A professional athelete does not do so, whether male or female. What is the distinction between say, Tiger Woods and Venus Williams? None, I’d say. But if either were selling SEX ACTS, the statute would apply.
Vaughn; I know of no prosecutions for adult consentual sodomy in Kansas for a very long time, though admittedly I haven’t researched it. And no prosecutor (I hope) would take such a case before a judge. The statute’s a dead letter; it ought to be removed.
I’m with you on that one, Ben. What happened to the Duke players was an out and out crime, and the DA in that case may face some serious charges.
The sad thing is – even though the players have been vindicated – and all charges dropped – they are out tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars. They can’t recover from the stripper/whore that lied about them – she has no money.
These boys will never be the same. Their families have been through hell.
The woman who fabricated the story should spend at least a decade in prison for what she did. Not only did her accusations cause financial and emotional damage to the boys and their families – but she has damaged the integrity of EVERY real victim of rape.
Disgusting.
GMC – I understand that sex, if it is treated as it SHOULD be, would never be taken lightly, but my son was on the same floor in the Jayhawk Towers as the BB players in Lawrence one year and the girls that came and went were a real eye opener.
I don’t approve of that, either, but no one is trying to make the athletes quit spreading it around.
Promiscuity, whether free, or for hire, causes a lot of problems in society – but to target these poor women who walk the streets and those who frequent them is just ‘feel good’ measure.
The businessmen that pay high-class escorts – to ‘accompany them’ are no different. It just happens in a higher rung of society – and law enforcement turns its head.
I think Norman Williams should be fired. Not because of this – but because I think he is incompetent.
GMC, the statute should be repealed; no question. I seem to recall that the former Kansas death penalty statute remained on the books, although all agreed it was unconstitutional, until it was finally repealed by the adoption of the current one, so I hold out little hope.
Anyone on that web page has been arrested for a prostitution-related crime. That being true, there’s no defamation involved. There is a disclaimer at the top of the web page that states that all persons are considered innocent until proven guilty.
I’ve not heard of anyone EVER being arrested in Wichita for simple sodomy, except maybe for doing it in public. Some folks get caught going at it in the parks now and then. Public sex of any type is still a no-no and not protected by the Lawrence decision. But the web page does say that anyone charged with sodomy would show up in the web listings. Doesn’t say that they’d get detailed enough to know if they were with another consenting adult, or their pet pony.
Yeah, they ought to take 5.68.200 (a) off of the books and sub in a beastiality staute. Just to have fun comparing the sodomy and the sodomy-for-hire statutes, I note that while it’s illegal simple sodomy to have sex with animals, there’s no penalty for hiring out the animal, as the sodomy-for-hire staute does not mention animals. Pony pimps are safe.
Also, sodomy-for-hire is non-discriminatory as to gay or straight or marital relationship. Careful what playful deals you make with your partner…they might turn you into crimestoppers!
I think the war against prostitution is a waste of resources, as well as an infringement as to what consenting people are able to do.
- but she has damaged the integrity of EVERY real victim of rape.
Disgusting.
Posted by: GSheridan | April 11, 2007 at 03:21 PM
I’m glad you said it GS, ’cause that is what has me hot under the collar for the most part!!!
GS – I also agree – she HAS “damaged the integrity of EVERY real victim of rape.”
She and Nifong – especially Nifong – should be prosecuted.
Having looked at the pictures, for the life of me I can’t imagine anyone going to a prostitute for sex. I have never been drunk enough or desperate enough to have sex with anyone that ugly.
Well, maybe Kasie or Amanda…
Ed,
Your email address has “1946″ in it. I assume that’s the year you were born, right? That would make you 61 this year. The girls pictured that you just named are probably still in their teens.
You are exactly the kind of person Mark McCormick was writing about in his column today.
Creep.
Actually it’s an address, not that it matters. And I do believe they are adults.
I don’t have a problem with putting criminals on a web site but I just don’t see the crime here. To me prostitution is no more morally wrong than women who marry men because they are weathly- which they do all the time. Or women who sleep with men who spend money ON them instead of giving it TO them. And I wonder why Wichita does not see fit to put up a website for DUI offenders, shoplifters and other assorted criminals.
and not 1 nappy headed Ho?
Kinda blows the image of the “pretty woman Julia Roberts” type prostitute with a heart of gold, doesn’t it? Reality sure isn’t as glamorus as the Hollywood version.Most (maybe all) prostitutes are drug addicted…do something about addiction and the problem of prostitution may go away. Look at the Johns and think about it…what woman would WANT to humilate herself with someone who looked like that unless she had an addiction so powerful that it had taken over her soul?
Mary,Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. Some cultures embrace it ( or at least accept it) and some, like this country, condemn it. The simple fact is, though, it will never go away.
I don’t know what could be done to stop it. It is degrading to most women, but can that be said that all women feel that way? Like drugs, government will spend copious amounts of money to control it, but to little avail. Like drugs as well, there is a dark side to it, so maybe government needs to address that.
Prostitution really is a strange bird. How do you stop it? you really can’t. But that still doesn’t make it right.
KSA 21-3505(a)(1). Was being used heavily back in the eighties to combat gays in Herman hill on S. Broadway. I have my suspicions that in part that is why there is a substation there now. I used to point out that under the law even a married, straight couple could be charge under this law. But as tides change enforcement dropped and like a number of laws fell off the radar.
But a point of order, as a former L. E. O. I will say that under the system it is not the place of law enforcement to decide which laws to be enforced. They are sworn to enforce all laws local, state and federal. If a law is unjust or outdated it is up to the legislation and the courts to decide the issue. Granted, that not all are enforced either by ignorance or willfully dismissed. Such as if you are charged with having a dirty license plate it is a sure bet that it is because you acted a fool to the officer. To be true though a officer is not in the position to decide that such a law is outdated or unjust. There were a number of time I arrested someone not because I felt that they were wrong or morally guilty. It was because I was sworn to enforce the law. But at trial I would make a point to state to the judge that I felt the defendant was not wrong or consciously guilty. In some case I then would suffer a “butt chewing” from the judge that lead into the question as to why I was wasting the courts time? I would then point out that my job was not to decide the right or wrong of the law. That was the courts job to decide and that can only be done if the case is brought before the court. They generally agreed and the defendant was found not guilty.
It is the duty of the courts to temper the law with justice not the beat cop’s.
The only reason why prostitution is a problem is because it is illegal. Make it a legal business, where it’s regulated like all the other businesses.
Writerdog,
Thank you for that insightful post into why and how law enforcement officers enforce the law. It helps me, and I’m sure others, understand the predicament beat cops sometimes find themselves in when faced with difficult enforcement choices.
That said…
I know that patrol captains and lieutenants brief their officers on what the enforcement emphasis is going to be. This is true whether it’s a stretch of highway known for speeding, an apartment complex known for drug dealing, or a stretch of Broadway where prostitution is rampant. Captains also tell their officers things like “don’t spend time on this type of offender.” It’s all a matter of prioritization.
What I find most disturbing about WPD’s emphasis on enforcement of 5.68.200 is that, well, they’re emphasizing it. I’m reasonably certain that Chief Williams and his staff understand that this ordinance is unconstitutional. It bothers me to no end that they believe it should be emphasized for enforcement anyhow.
It’s the oldest profession for a reason. There are always customers and there are always providers.
The streetwalkers on the website reveal that the Wichita PD has been gathering the low-hanging fruit. Show up at the bar of an upper-class hotel with five or six crisp hundred-dollar bills and chances are pretty good you can get a party with a better-looking, better-smelling stranger. But those people are harder to arrest.
Charge a desperate junkie with “mapping violoations,” however, and a cop’s collar rate skyrockets. But to what benefit to society?
So many vice crimes seem to be contrivances of politicians. If, for example, every law against possession and private use of marijuana were revoked, do you really think bank presidents, preachers, surgeons, and soccer mom’s would run out and start smoking reefer? I think not. I kinda think the people who smoke pot are smoking pot and the law’s not preventing much of anything. The law merely criminalizes a recreational activity and, by doing so, introduces people into the criminal subculture.
Okay, so I’m a pig. I’ve paid $300 for a Valentine’s Day dinner where I expected, and got, sex at the end of the evening. How is it all that different if I fix a ham sandwich and pay her the money and eliminate the middle-man? I’ve never done that, but I’m not sure I understand the difference.
For every undercover cop struttin’ her stuff on South Broadway, there’s one fewer cop cruising your neighborhood look for burglers and rapists and the next BTK. How many people did Dennis Rader kill while the WPD was busting hookers where the busting was good?
The WPD has proven itself to be highly competent in capturing and prosecuting a guy who has $2.10 worth of hotdogs. They’re obviously capable of nabbing ugly women for “mapping violations.”
But just exactly how does this make my life better?
W-dog
I understand your position. I also know, as you do, that LEO’s have discretion on when to arrest and submit a case for prosecution, with only two statutory exceptions in Kansas: domestic battery and DUI – in both of those cases, if there is PC, an arrest must be made. In all other cases, officers (perhaps through the chain of command) have discretion as to how to proceed.
Many’s the time I’ve looked at a case and wondered “why am I getting this piece of crap case?” The officer (or his superior) was simply doing the classic CYA and kicking discretion upstairs.
Once you get over the “it’s sex” problem, just how is prostitution among adults different than say, a construction job?Time was, prostitution was literally the only way a single woman could make a living wage. While less true today, it’s still true enough for uneducated women. Licensed and regulated, with law enforcement protection, it’s no riskier than a lot of other jobs.
Tom you are correct in that often at the squad meeting before a shift change there is a listing of crimes to focus on. In fact often this listing is driven by the number of complains about a certain crime in the area.Prostitution is no different along with the crack down on gays using Herman hill as a meeting place and sexual place of opportunity. I knew some of the cops who use to go into Herman hill to try and bust the gays having sexual relations in the restrooms. The cause of the push was because of families complaining about the gays being there while their children were there.
In reality the WPD has always been more reactionary in their enforcement. Driven more by the number of complains. Then a over all seeking out crime, patrol tends to more just drive around waiting for a call. Not being a force of investigators searching the allies and streets. But in their defense, often the number of calls and handling the volume leave little time to doing anything else. But to hand the calls and do the associated paperwork. The formation of the “SCAT” teams was an attempt to have a group of officers that did nothing but look for crime in area. Only on the most serious crime will they respond to calls.
Along with the protitutes comes the drugs and violence, also. Just ask the folks who live on South Broadway how they feel about it…it’s not really a victimless crime. What sad is that many of them have children, and it can’t help but affect their lives also. I once remember a young woman who was selling herself to support her drug habit, her baby was exposed to things that we can’t imagine. The baby was finally taken away and put into a foster home..an innocent victim of her mother’s choices. There are many things to consider before we just blow it off to “the world’s oldest profession”, the truth is that women sell themselves and expose themselves to such danger because they’re desperate…and it’s not just their life being affected.
“The page has pictures and names of people arrested and charged in connection with prostitution. It’s a pretty scary bunch”. Of course it’s a scary bunch, regardless of weather or not their “profession” is to support a drug habit, children, or whatever these women obviously feel they have no other option but to degrade themselves for a few dollars. I wonder out of the 1,500+ hits to this page a day how many of these people or representatives from an organizations are prepared to help these individuals correct their walks of life, instead of pointing and laughing at their obvious misfortune. Notice the looks on their faces, they all look the same- weary, addicted, and tired. I mean, my God a few of them have gray complexions. How quick society is to recognize these individuals as objects instead of what they really are- our fellow man. The idea that this page was put up to (quote) “shine some humiliating light on both prostitutes and, perhaps more important, their customers. It’s a good idea…” is just as disgusting as the acts they feel they need to commit. Instead of putting them out there for anyone with a computer to see, send this information to organizations who are committed to their rehabilitation. That page is nothing but sheer and utter exploitation. Shame on anyone who has nothing better to do than go along with the idea of humiliating these women, and shame on you Mr. Brownlee for your degrading and completely un-sympathetic reporting on this subject.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Devi. We need to focus on the causes and how we can help, rather than punishing or humiliating those with harmful and self-destructive behaviors.