breaking the prostitution law

[mackler]

I like the idea of keeping CD family-friendly, but this law is written so broadly that you can break it without doing anything too extreme.

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he solicits another to indirectly touch his buttocks for the purpose of gratification in return for consideration.  RS 645:2.

Consideration can be anything...a penny or a potato-chip.

There doesn't have to be any touching, just the mere solicitation is illegal.

Also the law seems to be written so that trading anything for sex is illegal, even if you're dating or even married.  This gives me some ideas, but not so family-friendly.

[J’raxis 270145]

I'd suggest consideration larger than a few bucks, otherwise the same excuse they may've used to ignore the gambling at the Keene Freedom Festival could again be used: De minimis non curat lex—so small the law doesn't care. A single silver round is nearly $20, and if this were to make the news, it'd make a nice little mention of the idea of hard currency in the popular press.

You'd have to peruse the entire chapter of the RSAs covering marriage to confirm that RSA 645:2 can be applied to married couples; an exception could be written into there somewhere. They make it damned near impossible sometimes to figure out what the law actually is (try reading RSA 632-A or 318-B in their entirety), saying something in one place, and then elsewhere saying "notwithstanding the provisions...".

RSA 645:3 (adultery) might be a good candidate for any of our married and polyamorous freestaters.

RSA 645:3 and 645:2 (except 645:2, II) are fortunately sex-crime laws that could be broken without worrying about being placed on the sex-offender registries.

As for violating these laws, one making it clear that they and their partner(s) intend to do so, and then announcing the next day that they've done so, would, I believe, legally be enough evidence for the system to attack. It certainly doesn't have the same effect as openly flouting the law in public view, but this all can be kept "family-friendly" this way.

[Lloyd Danforth]

$0.25!  25 Cents!

Two Bit Whore CD!

[doobie]

Gee, how many married women or men work and the SO doesn't.  Based on that law it sounds like if they have sex it becomes prostitution.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

Oh, shucks.. *Crawls back out of the thread*

[Giggan]

I'd suggest consideration larger than a few bucks, otherwise the same excuse they may've used to ignore the gambling at the Keene Freedom Festival could again be used: De minimis non curat lex—so small the law doesn't care. A single silver round is nearly $20, and if this were to make the news, it'd make a nice little mention of the idea of hard currency in the popular press.

That's an interesting point...I'm wondering how a series of CD events would work, where at each one you add a quarter, for example, to the price until you get an arrest. At the least we can establish a threshold at which they start caring what people do. Could make for interesting press coverage as to how laws should be enforced if enforced as written at all.

[highline]

I'd suggest consideration larger than a few bucks, otherwise the same excuse they may've used to ignore the gambling at the Keene Freedom Festival could again be used: De minimis non curat lex—so small the law doesn't care. A single silver round is nearly $20, and if this were to make the news, it'd make a nice little mention of the idea of hard currency in the popular press.

That's an interesting point...I'm wondering how a series of CD events would work, where at each one you add a quarter, for example, to the price until you get an arrest. At the least we can establish a threshold at which they start caring what people do. Could make for interesting press coverage as to how laws should be enforced if enforced as written at all.

Can someone tell me how the gambling laws do not violate the contracts clause of the federal Constitution?

[Free libertarian]

 Highline if you swear to uphold the constitution and a law is clearly unconstitutional what are you to do when it comes to enforcement? Is it your duty to "do as your told" in conflict with the constitution or to uphold your oath?  Are you allowed to ask your higher ups that kind of question?

To me the gooberment is supposed to (by the Constitution anyway)  stay out of contracts entered into knowingly and willingly by two parties.  Yet  clearly that hasn't happened.  If you choose to gamble and make a "contract" (bet) with somebody on the  outcome how is that any different than speculating in the stock market? How is  that any business of the state?
  Gambling in this state is laughable...it's only allowed if the state runs it / profits from it...hypocrisy.

  So to answer your question...the constitution can conveniently be ignored and the rules can be made up as we go along.  I like the bill of rights but I'm taking a real hard look at the "no gooberment" point of view because the one we're supposed to have is in such a sorry state and seems to be getting worse rather than better.  I haven't thrown in the towel yet on small government being okay, but I'm real close to being an anarchist and recognize that particular philosophy has alot of merit. I'm still not ballsy enough to go for it...yet...more stupid laws will surely lead others to opting out, maybe me.

  Maybe as an act of civil disobedience someone ought to have a low stakes poker game, with money on the table and see what happens?  Ever play poker Highline? For money?

[Roycerson]

Can someone tell me how the gambling laws do not violate the contracts clause of the federal Constitution?

Same could be said for laws regarding prostitution, usury, professional licensing, minimum wage.......

It's just a piece of paper

[highline]

Highline if you swear to uphold the constitution and a law is clearly unconstitutional what are you to do when it comes to enforcement? Is it your duty to "do as your told" in conflict with the constitution or to uphold your oath? 

The police are to follow the constitution as interpreted by the courts.  Whether or not we personally disagree with the courts interpretation is irrelevant.

We are not the legal scholars and do not wear the black robes.

[Lloyd Danforth]

The very first thing that police should be required to know is the Constitution, backward and forward, as it is written.

[Free libertarian]

 Thank you for replying Highline.  I guess if I wanted to interpret your answer as "you swear an oath to the court / judges" you couldn't really argue the point? 

I don't think the wording of the Constitution and bill of rights are irrelevant, I think they are being rendered irrelevant because those who swear to protect it, don't.  Some answer to their own impulses and either ignore the constitution (President Bush) or as you stated answer to judges who continually bring us farther from the true intent by building new interpretations on poor examples of "case law".  In essence saying well since we got that last one past you, we'll inch a little further away by interpreting things this way now now. Soon the original intent of law, to protect individuals, property rights etc.  becomes muddied and we end up where we are now, with a ton of stupid laws and more in the pipeline.
All enforceable. Few that actually protect anybody's rights.
 
I realize you probably have to keep your job so some of your answers may be evasive if we were to get into a long discussion. Doesn't that in and of itself seem troubling in order to keep your job you must follow a certain script while knowing it's not right ?  Isn't a preplanned DWI roadblock a contradiction to freedom?  Why should I have to pull over if there is no "probable cause". Why should I have to wait in line while searching for my "papers" while others ahead of me are being questioned?  This example of a direct contradiction to our freedom and presumed innocence has been interpreted by judges as okay, right? It's not okay and will only lead to more theft of freedom.  I don't care how nice the cops are when they let me go. My freedom to travel unmolested no longer exists. Clearly this was not the intent of those who framed our laws years ago...yet that what's we have today.  So as long as police follow the poor judgement of judges, you aren't protecting and serving "the people". You are protecting and serving, enabling if you will, the theft of more rights. That must be a burden. When does "just doing my job" cease to be a valid excuse?  Weren't the concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany just doing their job too? What about those who incarcerated ethnic Japanese, American citizens in this country during World War II? Weren't they just doing their job? Is there ever a time "when just doing my job" is not a valid excuse? If people keep just doing their job when they know it's wrong, where does that lead?           

Does doing your job allow you be in conflict with the Constitution? Not according to your oath.
So why is Prostitution something you'd arrest somebody for?
Where in the constitution does gooberment have the right
to meddle in this? It's a private contract between two consenting adults, I thought that wasn't government business, private contracts were private?  Sure, I wouldn't want my daughter to be a prostitute, but that has more to do with the indoctrination I got growing up than anything logical.  Maybe one of the  failures in our system might be we don't seem to have a good mechanism for "judging judges".  If as you state they interpret the laws, that sounds an awful lot like the old Josef Stalin quote...
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes" or something like that.

Well anyway thanks for responding. I wouldn't want your job, I think I would feel too guilty enforcing victimless crimes.  I'll go so far as to say the enforcement of victimless crimes, is the real crime, whether judges say so or not.  The fact that you are here in this discussion forum is commendable but the fact that you are still caught in the dilemma of "just doing your job", when we both know that can sometimes be a contradiction to protecting and serving "the people" is troubling...to me anyway.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

So, government need to make a law about that issue.

"An act, in full force and effect, in which all laws criminalizing the consentual sexual activity of willing individuals is hereby null and void.".

How's that? 

[stemmebot]

So, government need to make a law about that issue.

"An act, in full force and effect, in which all laws criminalizing the consentual sexual activity of willing individuals is hereby null and void.".

How's that? 

if theres gotta be a law that one works for me.

[leetninja]

giggidy?