On the new Prostitution and Solicitation Arrests page, there are basically three crimes: Soliciting for prostitution, loitering for prostitution, and Soliciting for Crimes against Nature. While I know that local authorities are only responsible for prosecuting violations against Raleigh’s laws, I have a few questions (JD, feel free to chime in):
1. What are the difference in penalty for Prostitution and Crimes against Nature?
2. Is the only difference in crime about the gender of the people involved, or does CaN not involve money? If CaN involves money, does it then become prostitution?
3. I thought the Lawrence v Texas de-fanged state CaN laws, at least as far as they apply to consenting adults?Or is that only for consenting adults who are inside? Standing outside Scandals to pick up a trick doesn’t count?
It’s my understanding that Lawrence did invalidate CAN laws and anyone charged with that would not have to worry a whole lot. These laws are still on the books in NC because the General Assembly hasn’t removed them yet and probably won’t until the General Statutes are rewritten. It took several decades before the miscegenation laws were taken off the books here.
By: Dad on February 11, 2008
at 6:01 pm
Sorry for the slow response – Dad’s pretty right on. It will likely take soemone challanging a CAN arrest up to the NC Supreme Court before the law will be declared invalid. This requires two v. prohibitive things 1. a lot of money (or being the primo test case that Lambda Legal wants to adopt) and 2. the willingness to not only come out but also admit that you were soliciting.
I would love to expound on the intricate legal issues and perhaps will after a couple of beers this weekend. Right now however, my brain is filled with family law stuff and is very very heavy. Most of it should be emptied after court tomorrow. Perhaps I’ll be able to think more then…
By: jd on February 13, 2008
at 6:03 pm
First up, I’d just like to say that I’m a really big stinkin’ dork because my attorney let me keep her old NC Crimes textbook and I got reeeally excited.
1) All of the adult prostitution charges are Class 1 Misdemeanors. (Promoting or Soliciting Prostitution of a Minor is a felony but I think you’re curious about consenting adults.) A CAN charge, however, is a Class I (the letter, not number) felony. The essential difference is a fine and a few days in county lockup and/or probation versus a mandatory probation of at least 3 months up to a maximum of 12 months in jail (if you have a very extensive criminal record and the judge finds that there were aggravating factors).
2) CAN encompasses anything and everything outside consensual, vaginal, heterosexual sex between adults. All sexual acts between married men and women in private are exempt (as interpreted by the NC Appelate Court, not by statute). Thus fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus and anal/penal sex are all CAN regardless of gender of the participants.
By: Doobie on February 14, 2008
at 12:25 pm
Yay for Doobie for giving me the details I so desperately desired!
So the answer to questions 2 is that straight johns are eligible to be charged with CAN too, but the police don’t cause that’s just for Teh Gays. True? And there is a substantially greater penalty for CAN prosecutions, but these are unconstitutional, but unless you have a zillion dollars or are an upstanding citizen that Teh Gay lawyers want to use as a test case, you’re up shit creek. And if you make it to the Perp Walk, you are no longer an upstanding citizen.
Thank God I’m reading Catch-22, otherwise I would be outraged.
By: Pixiedyke on February 14, 2008
at 1:41 pm
Yeah for Doobie’s dorkdom and for Pixie’s excellent synopsis!
The other piece of the CAN statute is public sex. Lawrence made it constitutionally protected to perform sodomy or any other creative, non-missionary, unmarried sex in the privacy of one’s home but it can still be illegal to perform (and possibly to solicit) sex acts in public (which includes cars).
Here’s the Lawrence opinion if you’re interested in reading it: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf
The best part is actually Scalia’s dissent in which he states:
“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists di-rected at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
and then concludes
“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate con-duct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,”; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,”
And for the first and quite possibly last time I say Justice Scalia you are exactly right! The homosexual agenda is alive and well and there is no justification for denying marriage benefits to same sex couples! (though I’m not sure that’s what he meant…)
By: jd on February 15, 2008
at 10:11 am