Rampart Redux?

The big scandal in Baltimore right now involves one of the police department's "flex squads," special units with elastic duties. Among other things, members of the Southwestern District's squad have allegedly planted drugs on suspects, stolen cell phones from arrestees, and -- the most explosive charge -- committed rape. From one of Gus Sentementes and Julie Bykowicz's reports in The Sun:

A woman's allegation that one member of the flex squad forced her to have sex in exchange for her freedom has opened a more expansive inquiry into a squad whose members, according to a search warrant affidavit, kept heroin, cocaine and marijuana stashed in their desk drawers and lockers….

Three officers were indicted Jan. 6 on rape charges. Three others, including the squad's supervisor, Sgt. Robert Smith, have been implicated in wrongdoing. Mengel is facing gambling charges in an unrelated case.

Prosecutors have compiled a list of about 375 District Court and Circuit Court cases investigated by the officers indicted on the rape charges, saying they are no longer credible witnesses.

After the rape, the woman claims, "she was driven back to her neighborhood and given back her drugs."

The Sun's coverage of the scandal is collected here.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

This story lends itself to all kinds of sick jokes. The whole damn story reads like a sick joke. If guilty, these cops should be crucified.

[Evan]

Not to take away from the gravity of the situation, but perhaps this is a new angle that could be explored by The Wire. McNulty'll straighten em out...

[Eryk Boston]

Not to justify their actions in any way but is even a casual observer of drug prohibition surprised that these things happen under such incentives?

[ChicagoTom]

A woman's allegation that one member of the flex squad forced her to have sex in exchange for her freedom has opened a more expansive inquiry into...

So if the members of the squad didn't go so far as allegedly raping someone, how much less "expansive" was this inquiry be?

Maybe I am being overly sensitive, but reading this line my first impression is that things like planting drugs on suspects and stealing their personal property wouldn't warrant an "expansive inquiry" and most likely be investigated by a white-washed inquiry. Is planting evidence on subjects really not something that would warrant an expansive inquiry by itself?

[Jennifer]

I think planting drugs on people who don't have any is far, far worse than offering a non-violent 'criminal' freedom in exchange for sex.

[Evan]

Jennifer: however, we all know that anything involving coerced sex, especially if the "R"-word is mentioned, is automatically priority one. Or, failing that, priority two (if priority one is operating a motor vehicle with alcohol in your bloodstream).

[wayne]

"I think planting drugs on people who don't have any is far, far worse than offering a non-violent 'criminal' freedom in exchange for sex."

At first I was startled to read this, but after a little contemplation, I agree. I think it politically incorrect to say it out loud though.

[Lowdog]

My friend from Jersey (now living here in Arizona) has a sweet story about cops trying to plant shit on him and his friends. Basically, the cops thought he and his friends had a lot of drugs on them, so they (cops) tried to plant a joint on them (my friend and friends) so they (cops) could shake 'em (f and f) down and take their shit.

[Jennifer]

I think it politically incorrect to say it out loud though.

As a woman, I suppose it's easier for me to get away with it.

But seriously--framing somebody so that they would go to jail for a long time is a hell of a lot worse than telling a "criminal" who has harmed nobody "I'll let you go if you have sex with me." (Granted, her "crime" should not be a crime at all, but that's another matter.)

[Jennifer]

Jennifer: however, we all know that anything involving coerced sex, especially if the "R"-word is mentioned, is automatically priority one

Strictly speaking, how is this coerced? If the woman had not had any drugs, and he planted them on her and THEN said "I'll let you go if you fuck me," then yes, I'd agree that this was the most egregious of the cops' crimes. But no--the woman was, in fact, guilty (of breaking a bullshit law, but guilty nonetheless), and if she had refused to have sex with him she wouldn't have been facing anything worse than what she would have faced anyway.

It's like the difference between my boss saying "I'll fire you if you don't have sex with me," versus me doing something which would make me deserve to get fired, and then him saying "I won't fire you if you have sex with me." In the former case I stand to lose something by not having sex; in the latter case I stand to lose something anyway, and sex offers me a chance to not lose it.

[wayne]

The great thing about libertarians is that they are completely politically incorrect, so anything said here is acceptable, and especially so if grounded in logic and reason. I agree that a cute girl screwing her way out of jail time is not the worst thing that could happen.

[Evan]

Jennifer:

I thought I'd have some way to argue your point, but I can't come up with anything. Maybe it's cuz I'm still getting over this bastard of a stomach flu, or maybe it's because you're so right.

I guess the only thing I would object to in this case is the fact that the meting out of "justice", or punishment, is entirely at the discretion of one person---who has, by the circumstances, been gifted with more power than any one man deserves.

[Jennifer]

I guess the only thing I would object to in this case is the fact that the meting out of "justice", or punishment, is entirely at the discretion of one person---who has, by the circumstances, been gifted with more power than any one man deserves.

I agree. And the cop is a complete sleazebag. But what he did was not rape. It was immoral and illegal, but it wasn't rape.

[thoreau]

I think the bottom line is that when the alternative to having sex is going to prison, it's not a free choice in any meaningful sense.

Hey, as long as we're talking about dirty cops, there's a long and dishonorable history of cops in this country using torture...um, I mean, frat hazing rituals...to get confessions. How reliable have those confessions been?

Cuz, you know, maybe that accuracy rate might have some kind of relevance to questions facing us right now. Just a thought.

[Jennifer]

I think the bottom line is that when the alternative to having sex is going to prison, it's not a free choice in any meaningful sense.

I view it the opposite way, in this instance--the alternative to going to prison is having sex.

It wasn't, "Have sex with me or else you lose your freedom," it was "you've done something to lose your freedom, but you can escape that consequence by having sex."

[Bob Smith]

>I think the bottom line is that when the alternative to having sex
>is going to prison, it's not a free choice in any meaningful sense.

I would agree with you, if she was being framed. Since she wasn't, your point fails. Failing to save somebody from their likely fate is not coercive.

[io1029]

Except, how can you know that the cop wasn't threatening to plant even more drugs, have sex with her whether she consented or not (maybe it was "Be good and do this and I'll be nice and let you go, but I'm getting laid either way right now"), or any sort of crap some sleazball with that much power can pull.

Just because she was already going to jail for her "crime" doesn't mean things can't get worse if she chooses not to have sex. Things can always get worse.

[Jennifer]

Except, how can you know that the cop wasn't threatening to plant even more drugs, have sex with her whether she consented or not (maybe it was "Be good and do this and I'll be nice and let you go, but I'm getting laid either way right now"), or any sort of crap some sleazball with that much power can pull.

Well, we don't. Certainly what you say is possible, but based on the currently available information, what happened wasn't coercive. If anything, it was more like solicitation (ha!) of a bribe.

[parse]

Jennifer, the fact that her "crime" should not be a crime is not another matter whatsoever. People have the right to possess drugs. The state is guilty of coercion when it puts people in jail for having them. The cop is taking advantage of the coercive action of the state in order to coerce the woman to have sex.

[joshua corning]

I think planting drugs on people who don't have any is far, far worse than offering a non-violent 'criminal' freedom in exchange for sex.

Replace mother, wife, daughter, girlfiend or sister for "non-violent criminal" and then see how you feel.

eh, still a tough call...it is pretty fucked up no matter what.

[Jennifer]

Replace mother, wife, daughter, girlfiend or sister for "non-violent criminal" and then see how you feel.

To hell with that, Joshua; I can replace "non-violent criminal" with "myself." And I say: if I committed a crime and the cop said "I'll let you go in exchange for sex," that wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as if I were innocent and the cop framed me for a crime. Not even close.

And the fact that Baltimore views soliciting a sexual bribe as worse than framing innocent people and taking their freedom away suggests that they (along with the majority of Americans) have some seriously fucked-up priorities. "Oh, locking an innocent person away for years is kind of a bad thing, but that's not what we're getting upset over. He also let a woman go in exchange for sex! Aaaaaaah! The horror!"

[tomWright]

Maybe America should replace the Eagle with the porcupine as the national symbol.

Both seem to approach sex with the same conflicted sense of lust and terror.

[mediageek]

Jennifer, I say it's wrong because it shows that justice isn't blind.

As any high school-level civics course will tell you, we're all equal under the law, regardless of how attractive.

Or, maybe it's bullshit, and I'm just chagrined at the fact that I'll never be busted by a pretty authoritarian who comes with a libido and her own set of handcuffs...

[William H. Depperman]

(long, off-topic post deleted)

[Tom Greaves]

William H. Depperman, I can always count on you to bring the crazy. For that, sir, I and all the workers of the world salute you.

[Ron Hardin]

Since when is it rape to offer drugs back for sex? It might be other things but it's not rape.

Rape started going downhill when it was found by some court that a man could rape his wife, that is, that it was rape rather than assault.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I thought Reason's slick new comment spam filter was in place.

On another note, I once had drugs planted on me by the Secret Service. Nanny!

[belle waring]

um ron, a man can rape his wife by the simple expedient of forcing her to have sex with him against her will. I really don't see the conceptual problem.

[jf]

After one or two William H. Depperman posts, I feel like I've been raped.

[bob]

So what happens when you refuse sex with the cop? He fucks you anyway and throws you in jail? Not a far stretch for the typical "bad lieutenant". Why are we arguing as to the degree to which these non-criminals were violated? Can't we all agree that the excessive power given to police forces (thanks to WOD/WOT/ETC..) give rise to horrible abuses?

[Vic Mackie]

These guys are pikers.

[Phil]

Certainly what you say is possible, but based on the currently available information, what happened wasn't coercive. If anything, it was more like solicitation (ha!) of a bribe.

I'm pretty sure that soliciting a bribe from someone who you have the power to punish for not giving it is by definition coercive. Particularly when you have no legal or moral obligation to honor your end of the bargain. The cop was under no obligation to let her go after the sex, and in fact I'm surprised he did.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Most cops are pretty violent and very dishonest.

[Jeff P.]

Tell me "Flex Squad" doesn't sounds like some gay BDSM group...

[amazingdrx]

When the agenda is set from the top down with a wink and a nod, like duuuhbya saying "We do not torture", and winking. Or the chief of police placing the drug war over and above people's civil rights.

Well then people who see their uniform as an excuse to engage in crime, like these cops, will go ahead and "do what thou wilt".

Hedonism, about 1% of any population is twisted enough to get pleasure from the degradation and pain of others.

That is why we are a society of laws, instead of a society ruled by (the tyranny of evil) men.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/quotes

Tools of the police state, you have been warned! Hehehey.

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, I say it's wrong because it shows that justice isn't blind. As any high school-level civics course will tell you, we're all equal under the law, regardless of how attractive.

I agree that it is wrong, Mediageek; I'm just saying it isn't rape, and isn't the worst aspect of this bad-cop scandal.

And I don't know where the hell Ron Hardin got the idea that once a woman gets married she has, therefore, lost the ability to ever tell her husband she's not in the mood.

Damn. People with unhealthy sexual ideas aren't exclusive to Baltimore, that's for damned sure.

[amazingdrx]

"People with unhealthy sexual ideas aren't exclusive to Baltimore, that's for damned sure."

Good point, and in defense of Baltimore it IS the home of A.E. Poe, John Waters, and "Serial Mom".

[amazingdrx]

E. A. Poe. (Must be caffiene poisoning.)

[Ed]

To sum up the nut post:

Capitalism is bad.
Join the nut in a whackjob crusade.
The end.

[tomWright]

"Tell me "Flex Squad" doesn't sounds like some gay BDSM group..."

No, more like a poly-sexual BDSM group from Cirque du Soleil.

"Oooo, put the cuffs on tighter sarge! Merde!"

Followed by a bunch of people riding around, doing bizarre things on bicycles, while Asian dwarves demonstrate gymnastics.

[Dave W.]

It's like the difference between my boss saying "I'll fire you if you don't have sex with me," versus me doing something which would make me deserve to get fired, and then him saying "I won't fire you if you have sex with me." In the former case I stand to lose something by not having sex; in the latter case I stand to lose something anyway, and sex offers me a chance to not lose it.

In the hypothetical where you did the crime and got out of it with sex, the harm isn't to you. It is the fact that all the people who aren't afforded the same opportunity are then discriminated against on sexual and/or gender frounds. This form of discrimination is a form of sexism. You, the released criminal, would be the benficiary, not the victim. But there would be victims, at least under traditional theories about what sexism is.

For example, Monica Lewinsky wasn't the victim of sexism, but anybody not afforded a similar opportunity to suck the president's penis was discriminated against and was a victim of sexism there.

[Jennifer]

In the hypothetical where you did the crime and got out of it with sex, the harm isn't to you. It is the fact that all the people who aren't afforded the same opportunity are then discriminated against on sexual and/or gender frounds.

True, but this has nothing to do with my original assertion that this wasn't the worst thing the cops did. Framing innocent people for crimes that could lock them away for a long time is.

[Dave W.]

I agree with that. I always thought that sexism stuf they went on and on and on about at Berkeley had a grain of truth, but was way overblown. Happily, Bill Clinton showed a lot of those co-eds that sexism could be pretty petty and excusable. Niiiiice. I don't think they woulda learned any other way!

[Warren]

...this wasn't the worst thing the cops did. Framing innocent people for crimes that could lock them away for a long time is.

Which is worse? I guess if I had to choose I'd agree that planting drugs on people is worse than extorting sexual favors from criminals. (But on TV they only plant the drugs on people they know are guilty but beat the system on a technicality).

But why choose? Both practices are completely corrupt. I want any cop who did either of these things prosecuted and convicted. It doesn't matter so much to me if they serve five years or twenty. But convicting bad cops is more important to me than convicting most other criminals.

[Jennifer]

But why choose? Both practices are completely corrupt

Based on Jesse Walker's excerpts (I haven't read the article because I don't feel like registering) it seems that the sex, not the drug-planting, is what made everybody decide that Baltimore had a bad-cop problem on its hands. Which, as I've said before, suggests that people have priorites absolutely backwards; whenever anything sexual is involved they apprarently lose the ability to think straight.

I mean, think about it. Which is worse: a police force that never, ever commits any sexual improprieties, but routinely frames innocent people; or a police force that never, ever frames innocent people, but occasionally lets drug users go free in exchange for sex? I'd say the former is far worse than the latter.

But not the good folk of Baltimore, or any other American city for that matter. Framing innocent people is practically SOP in a lot of police forces; that's not what makes people finally decide they need to wipe out the corruption. A cop having sex, though--that's what gets people upset. That's where people draw the line and decide the corruption is too deep.

Jesus wept.

[Jennifer]

I'm pretty sure that soliciting a bribe from someone who you have the power to punish for not giving it is by definition coercive.

But again--it's not "I will punish you if you don't have sex"; it is "I will help you avoid punishment if you DO have sex." Maybe it's just a semantic argument--what the cop did was definitely wrong. But I don't think it should qualify as rape.

[David]

The innocent person who was sent to prison stands a good chance of getting raped when he gets there. Repeatedly, for the duration of his sentence.

[Qbryzan]

I haven't read the article because I don't feel like registering

Are you familiar with http://bugmenot.com ?

They will give you logins that allow you to bypass this type of registration.

[R C Dean]

Jennifer - its a semantic argument. Break it down this way - in both instances, if you give it up, you don't go to jail, but if you refuse, you do go to jail.

After all, its blackmail to threaten to report or publicize what someone did unless they pay you off, even if what they did was in fact a crime.

Thanks to Dave W., I now feel like a victim of sexism because Bill Clinton hasn't told me to suck it.

[Jennifer]

Break it down this way - in both instances, if you give it up, you don't go to jail, but if you refuse, you do go to jail.

But think of this: let's say there is some type on non-fatal, non-drunk-driving traffic violation that is still considered so heinous you lose your license on your first offense. We'll call this violation X. (Original, huh?)

Now, two scenarios: One, I am driving and following every single traffic law, but a cop pulls me over and says "Give me $500 or else I will say you did X, and you'll lose your license."

Two: I am driving and actually did X, and the cop who pulls me over says "Give me $500 and I'll pretend I never saw you doing X, so you can keep your license."

Scenario one would be blackmail; the cop is telling me if I don't pay him he will make me suffer an undeserved punishment that means (where I live, anyway) it will be impossible for me to hold a job or do any of the other minutiae necessary to live.

Scenario two is solicitation of a bribe; the cop is saying if I DO pay him he'll let me off the hook for a punishment that I'm supposed to get, according to the law.

In situation one I am threatened with a punishment I do not legally deserve; in situation two I am offered a way OUT of a punishment I DO legally deserve. If I don't pay up in situation one I am unjustly penalized, but if I don't pay up in situation two I'll be no worse off than I would have been had an honest cop pulled me over.

That's how I'm viewing this Baltimore sex thing. What the cop did was clearly wrong, but it was situation two, the solicitation of a bribe, rather than the blackmail of situation one.

And I think if the Baltimore cop had demanded money instead of sex, there wouldn't be such a brouhaha over the whole thing. It's just that most people lose the ability to think rationally about anything once sex enters the equation.

[amazingdrx]

"I am driving and actually did X..."

Since I am of legal age, that would not be a crime jen. While driving?

I guess it depends who was at the wheel.

Perhaps moving this hypothetical past the thought experiment stage would clear this matter up a bit.

[wayne]

Jennifer is correct here.

[Jim]

I would sort of tend to agree with Jennifer on the technicality of this situation. What we are all missing here of course is the actual court testimony and whether any other threats were made or implied. One could argue on libertarian grounds that the fact that it's a bullshit law and the penalty for it is either jail or sex is coercive enough to call rape, however since the same justice system that convicted these cops doesn't view it as a bullshit law I don't think that was the reasoning they used.

I suspect it's something along the lines of the fact that the police, being the sharp pointy tip of law enforcement, are expected to be held to higher standards when carrying out their duties than the average civilian would be held to in similar circumstances. An analogy might be the fact that a doctor can be sued for providing faulty medical advice, whereas you or I as non-medical professionals can offer bad advice with impunity.

[Jennifer]

I suspect it's something along the lines of the fact that the police, being the sharp pointy tip of law enforcement, are expected to be held to higher standards when carrying out their duties than the average civilian would be held to in similar circumstances

They should be, but they are not. I've lost count of how many times I've read articles like "Cop uses Taser on man, and it turns out to be completely unjustified," and the cop's only "punishment" is a week off with pay. Whereas if a civilian Tasered someone for no reason, we'd go to jail.

Cops are generally held to a lower standard than the citizens they are paid to bully. I mean, protect.

[amazingdrx]

Yes cops, like corporations, generally gave a get out of jail free card.

[parse]

As I understand Jennifer's comparision, it's a moral or ethical question as to whether framing an innocent person or demanding sex from a person guilty of drug possession is worse. Then she acts as though whether drug possession is legal or illegal is an important factor in answering the ethical question. Unless you agree that it's wrong to violate any law, even an unjust one, the fact that drug possession is illegal is irrelevant to the ethical question at hand.

As I suggested above, taking advantage of the state's illegitimate coercion of a drug user to demand sex is a coercive act.

As far as I'm concerned, the ethical question is not "Is it worse to frame a person not proven guilty of a crime or to let a guilty person go free in exchange for sex?" The question is "Is it worse to frame a person not proven guilty of a crime or extort sex from a person who's vulnerable because of unjust laws that impinge on personal liberty?" I don't think there's an obvious answer to that question.

[wayne]

"The question is "Is it worse to frame a person not proven guilty of a crime or extort sex from a person who's vulnerable because of unjust laws that impinge on personal liberty?" I don't think there's an obvious answer to that question."

There is an obvious answer if you are facing jail time for your legitimate infraction, and you don't mind exchanging personal favors for a street pardon.

[parse]

Yes, wayne, and there's an obvious answer if you are facing a $10 fine and the very idea of exchanging personal favors for a street pardon is enough to bring you to the verge of a psychological collapse. My point is not that you couldn't make a judgement in the face of two scenarious rendered in considerable detail, but that I didn't think there was an easy answer to the question posed generally, as it is in this care where we have little specific information. Jennifer, I think, was proposing a general rule, not an opinion on a specific instance.

[wayne]

"Yes, wayne, and there's an obvious answer if you are facing a $10 fine and the very idea of exchanging personal favors for a street pardon is enough to bring you to the verge of a psychological collapse. My point is not that you couldn't make a judgement in the face of two scenarious rendered in considerable detail, but that I didn't think there was an easy answer to the question posed generally, as it is in this care where we have little specific information. Jennifer, I think, was proposing a general rule, not an opinion on a specific instance."

I think Jennifer's general point is that we live in an absurd society where everybody gets all breathless about a simple bribery, and only because the payoff is S E X.

I also think you are making things too complicated. There are USUALLY no simple, generalized, pat answers to any human interaction. It seems to me quite likely that the woman in question here proposed the exchange, ar at least as likely as the cop saying, "blow me bitch, or you are gonna spend the next three months in jail." Not that it matters who made the proposal, really. Personally, I would rather have sex than go to jail, so it seems to be a relatively simple matter to me. Yes, I realize that women are different than men, and that women would probably be more reluctant to take such a trade, but in this case the trade was made.

[wayne]

"Yes, wayne, and there's an obvious answer if you are facing a $10 fine and the very idea of exchanging personal favors for a street pardon is enough to bring you to the verge of a psychological collapse."

By the way, I don't follow you here. I would not exchange sex for $10.00, well OK, maybe I would but I would not expect a reasonably attractive woman to do so.

[Jennifer]

I think Jennifer's general point is that we live in an absurd society where everybody gets all breathless about a simple bribery, and only because the payoff is S E X.

That, and I find it downright obscene that cops framing people for crimes they didn't commit, or stealing the personal property of those whom they arrest, are considered less offensive than a case of bribery, regardless of what goods or services were accepted as a bribe.

[parse]

wayne, what I was saying in the $10 fine example was in that case, there obvious choice would be to refuse the sex. So you can construct an obvious example either way.

I agree with you that there is usually no simple, generalized pat answer to any human interaction. You will notice I never proposed one, merely disagreed with Jennifer's attempt to provide one.

[Jennifer]

Parse, do you think that the sex-bribe was worse than the framing of innocent people?

[parse]

Jennifer, I have disagreed twice with your description of the sex extorted from the woman as a bribe, and you haven't responded to that. The cop raped that woman. He forced her to have sex. He used the coercive power of the state, which left the woman vulnerable to incarceration, to put her in the position where she was forced to pay for her own freedom. If someone has a gun to your head and offers not to kill you for $100,000, he's not soliciting a bribe.

Also, how do you know the people who were framed were innocent? When I was in prison, I don't think I met anyone who wasn't guilty of some crime. I did meet a significant number who probably weren't guilty the particular crime they were serving time for.

[parse]

Also, Jennifer, several folks have suggested that your major point was the hysterical reaction to sexual activity--that framing innocent people wasn't enough to rouse people's concern over police misbehavior, but that extorting sex from the woman prompted outrage. I think that is a valuable insight. I'm not ready to say that planting drugs on people was a worse offense than raping that woman, but I certainly wouldn't say it was less serious, either, especially if the amount planted was enough to result in signficant jail time.

[wayne]

"...but that extorting sex from the woman prompted outrage."

What make you think the sex was extorted? It seems as likely as not that the sex was offered as a bribe for the cop to "look the other way". Personally, I do not buy the "he/she was a person in authority, so it was rape.." argument.

[parse]

I think the sex was extorted because the woman's allegation was that she was forced to have sex in exchange for her freedom. For the general discussion of ethics, I thought it safe to assume that the allegation was true, as I similarly assumed allegations of planting evidence were true.

I didn't say it was rape because one of the participants was a person in authority. I said it was rape because the person in authority exploited the coercive power of the state to take advantage of a woman who's freedom was at stake.

[Jennifer]

I think the sex was extorted because the woman's allegation was that she was forced to have sex in exchange for her freedom.

But if she didn't have sex she would have faced nothing worse than what she was facing already. If you look at my allegory at 1:08 yesterday, it wouldn't be accurate to say that, after committing a traffic violation which would result in the revocation of my license, I was "forced" to pay $500 to keep my license; I was offered the opportunity to keep my license in exchange for $500.

If the woman hadn't had sex she would not have lost anything she wouldn't have lost already.

Yes, I agree with you that it is appalling they way our stupid drug laws give the cop this kind of power over people, but within the boundaries of the law what he did was tell a woman" Have sex with me and you'll avoid the legal consequences you are supposed to be facing."

The cop raped that woman. He forced her to have sex.

No, he didn't force her; had she refused she would have been no worse off than if the concept of sex never raised its ugly head.

[wayne]

Jennifer is correct. Judgement for Jennifer.

[Jennifer]

Also, how do you know the people who were framed were innocent? When I was in prison, I don't think I met anyone who wasn't guilty of some crime. I did meet a significant number who probably weren't guilty the particular crime they were serving time for.

Well, gee, if you put it that way, then I suppose it's a good thing the cops planted drugs on people, huh? Baltimoreans should be grateful rather than outraged. And, in addition to guns, radios and badges, perhaps all cops should be issued baggies of cocaine to plant on people who deserve to go to prison but cannot, due to those pesky "standards of evidence" laws.

Jesse Walker, if you're reading this: the cops planted drugs on those people to keep you and your family safe. What a fucking ingrate you must be, posting a thread which implies they did something wrong.

[parse]

Jennifer, I try to say what I mean and not anything more, which is why I didn't say it's a good thing that cops planted evidence. I think it's a horrible thing, even if they planted it on people who were drug dealers. You might have guessed that when I said I thought the action of planting evidence was no better than rape. I just mentioned that I thought the assumption that the victims of the cop's bad behavior were innocent was an unwarranted one.

You still refuse to deal with the argument I'm raising: the sex was inherently coercive because the cop relied on the power of the state. It's true the woman wouldn't have been any worse off if she refused the offer than she would have been before the offer was made, but the position she would have been in would be to endure the coercive action of the state to incarcerate her. The cop said "Instead of doing what the state forces you to do, do what I force you to do." Her freedom of choice was limited to the identity and style of her oppressor. That's a better choice than no choice at all, but it's not in any sense a genuinely free choice.

Go back to your analagy about being fired--you described an offer of sex from you boss after doing something that deserved termination of employement. The difference here is that the woman didn't do anything that deserves punishment. That's the element you haven't dealt with it.

[parse]

That's funny, wayne, the way you join the argument on jennifer's side and then remove yourself from it in order to award her the judgement. Why don't you help her deal with the point I raised regarding the inherently coercive nature of the woman's choice rather than merely declaring victory?

[Jennifer]

The difference here is that the woman didn't do anything that deserves punishment.

I agree; I think all drugs should be legal. I am simply saying that what the cop did didn't meet the standard of rape.

However, while the victim did not morally deserve punishment, legally she did. And the cop was offering to overlook this fact if he got something in exchange for it. Reprehensible to be sure, but not rape.

And despite what you think, I am not saying that the woman had a truly free choice. It just wasn't rape. And to say it was cheapens the suffering of genuine rape victims.

[parse]

Well, Jennifer, we're moving closer. Maybe I'm just confused about the meanign of the word rape. If the woman didn't have a truly free choice, I would say that the sex was non-consensual and that all non-consensual sex is not rape. But perhaps I'm missing something.

Is there some sex with is the result of a choice that's not truly free, but is still consensual sex?

Or is there sex that is non-consensual but not rape?

I still have trouble understanding why, from a moral or ethical point of view, you think the legal status of the woman's behavior is in any way important. There's a case recently, I think in Pakistan, where a woman is being forced to marry because a male relative raped a woman from another clan. As I understand it, you could accurately say under the law of her region it's "illegal" for her to be related to a man who behaved in such a way. I'd still say if the man she's being forced to marry has sex with her, he's raping her. Would you agree with that?

[Jennifer]

Parse, let's forget about sex altogether for the moment and pretend that instead of letting the woman go in exchange for sex, the cop let the woman go in exchange for money. Would you call that theft, or asking for a bribe? I'd call it solicitation of a bribe.

[parse]

Ooops, I meant to say that all non consensual sex IS rape.

[parse]

I would call it theft. I think a bribe is what you give somebody so they will let you have something you aren't entitled to have. Let's forget it was a cop offering to let somebody go.

If someone was holding you at gunpoint and said "I'll let you go for $100," would you call it theft or soliciting a bribe?

In this case, state power is the gun. That's the weapon the cop is using to steal money or sex.

[Stevo Darkly]

(long, off-topic post deleted)

Comment by: William H. Depperman at January 20, 2006 01:34 AM

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! And there was much rejoicing.

BTW, I also believe that Jennifer's arguments are correct here.

Break it down this way - in both instances, if you give it up, you don't go to jail, but if you refuse, you do go to jail.

But this breakdown skips the crucial difference.

(A) You have committed no crime, but a cop arrests you. The cop will let you go in exchange for giving him something. If you give it up, you don't go to jail, but if you refuse, you do go to jail.

(B) You commit a crime and get caught. The cop will let you go in exchange for giving him something. If you give it up, you don't go to jail, but if you refuse, you do go to jail.

In (A) you are a victim of theft. In (B) you are being solicited for a bribe.

It's a question as to whether the crime in this particular instance should be a crime, and as libertarians we all agree it should not be. But under the currently existing rules, it is a bribe and not a rape.

[ted bottles allendorf]

hey depperman, do you still deliver diapers for the cia?????