Should Herman Cain be prosecuted under the Mann Act?
The full text of the Mann Act as passed in 1910 is available here:
http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblacknes ... _text.html
Some historical details on the Mann Act are available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act
Here is a summary of some Mann Act case decisions by the United States Supreme Court:
Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U.S. 326 (1913). The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to “debauchery” as well.
Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of “immoral sex.”
Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112 (1932). The Court held that the statutory intent was not to punish a woman's acquiescence; therefore, consent by the woman does not expose her to liability.
Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946). The Court decided that a person can be prosecuted under the Mann Act even when married to the woman if the marriage is polygamous. Thus polygamous marriage was determined to be an “immoral purpose.”
Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955). The Supreme Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.
The Law as is presently stands is available here: http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/mann.html
Quite relevant to whether Herman should be prosecuted
We have the following statements on record from Ginger White
“I was pretty amazed at how a person could just come up to you at a cocktail party, and an hour and a half later he wanted me to follow him to his hotel room to plan our first trip to Palm Springs,” said White, who was then working as a clerk at a transportation company. “It was intriguing. He was a good speaker, he told a lot of jokes, and I thought he was very intelligent and funny. He was very flirtatious, and he complimented me a lot. I was excited; I came home and told my mother, and I told my sisters when he phoned me the next day. I had to make arrangements for my kids, and my sisters were going to babysit.”
In response to these comments, Cain’s attorney said, “I don’t believe he has acknowledged that her version of that initial meeting is totally accurate.”
From the outset, according to White, her relationship with Cain was “pretty straightforward—trips, dinner, drinks, sex, and that was it,” she said. “I saw him the most at the beginning, at least one trip a month for several months.”
Given that Herman and Ginger lived in Georgia, and they planned at least one trip to Palm Springs (in Florida), it is obvious that Mr. Cain knowingly transported Ginger to other states for sexual activity.
If Herman could be charged with a criminal offense for this sexual activity, then he would be in violation of the Mann Act.
According to Georgia State Law: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/201 ... 6/16-6-19/
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 16-6-19 - Adultery
A married person commits the offense of adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.
Herman knowingly transported Ginger to other states for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity which could have been charged as a criminal offense in his home state.
The violation of the Mann Act is quite obvious. Should Herman be prosecuted?
How could he have violated the law when there is evidence to suggest that the affair didn't even take place to begin with.
Someone undergoing chemo like that isn't likely to be able to have an affair, much less if they've had surgery on top of the chemo.
What competent legal authority has made that assertion. Has Cain been indicted? Is he likely to be indicted? If no charges are brought there is no violation, from a legal point of view.
ruveyn
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
What competent legal authority has made that assertion.
Moi.
No, and no. If the Mann Act were really to be enforced, it would be tragic for our nation's resort business. Out-of-state couples checking into a motel would have to prove their legal authority to have coitus. If either of the couple were from Georgia, then the individual from Georgia would have to prove either that he was unmarried, or that he was married to the person with whom he intended to have coitus. It would also be up to the motel manager to remain aware of each state's anti-sodomy laws, and warn the couple, for example, not to have oral sex if oral sex was forbidden.
ruveyn
No charges does not mean no violation. No charges just means no charges.
http://prostitution.uslegal.com/federal-mann-act/
Under the Mann Act, transportation for the purpose of prostitution need not be with a commercial intention to be made liable. If a person is transported for non-commercial sexual activity, it will amount to an offense under Mann Act. The Act also applies when a male takes his under-age girlfriend to a neighboring state, or a female transports an underage boy across the state line for sexual purposes.
When a person by persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion transports an individual through a facility in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution or in any sexual activity it will be an offense under the Act. If the individual transported is below 18 years also, it will constitute an offense. The person transported can be of U.S. origin or an alien. Any attempt to do such an offense is also punishable. Using mail or other facility in interstate or foreign commerce to facilitate the prohibited conduct will also come under the offense.
A telephone is categorized as a facility in interstate commerce. Therefore, even an intrastate telephonic conversation with an intention to commit the crime of immoral traffic will constitute an offense.
...
The Federal Act imposes a punishment of imprisonment for not more than five years in a federal prison, or fine, or both for a person found guilty under the provisions of the Act.
The constitutionality of the Mann Act has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1913). The right to travel of an individual is not curtailed by the Mann Act. The Mann Act is used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to curtail commercialized immoral sexual activity.
Either a man or woman can be prosecuted under the Mann Act. The intention or consent of the person transported is immaterial for constituting an offense. The intention of the offender is taken as an essential element. The Mann Act is violated when a defendant crosses the state line with the requisite intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. For conviction under the Mann Act, it is not necessary that the person transported is a minor. However, illicit sexual activity should be the essential motive to constitute the offense. The Act can also been applied where the intent was to engage in a bigamous or polygamous marriage.
The transaction need not be a continuous process to constitute an offense under the Mann Act. Even a single interstate transportation knowingly to commit immoral sexual activity will amount to a violation of the Mann Act.
A person violating the Mann Act can be prosecuted under various grounds. A person can be prosecuted for the offense of causing transportation of a person in interstate commerce for certain proscribed purposes, and the offense of inducing a person to go in interstate commerce for like purposes. Both the acts are separate offenses and a person can be guilty of both offenses. This can happen even if the same parties are involved in the transaction, and the cause of action occurred on the same day, the same place, and the same transportation.
If Obama's Justice Department is not completely corrupt or incompetent, then Herman is toast.
How could he have violated the law when there is evidence to suggest that the affair didn't even take place to begin with.
Someone undergoing chemo like that isn't likely to be able to have an affair, much less if they've had surgery on top of the chemo.
Dude, do you know anybody who has had cancer?
The chemo increases the probability that they would have an affair. The emotional and psychological pressure is tremendous. People eject spouses from their lives over it.
How could he have violated the law when there is evidence to suggest that the affair didn't even take place to begin with.
Someone undergoing chemo like that isn't likely to be able to have an affair, much less if they've had surgery on top of the chemo.
Dude, do you know anybody who has had cancer?
The chemo increases the probability that they would have an affair. The emotional and psychological pressure is tremendous. People eject spouses from their lives over it.
And, they apparently become brazen sex offenders to boot.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
I don't know if he should be prosecuted or not, but it won't happen because that would create a really bad precedent for all the other prosecutors and lawyers that have ever done the exact same thing.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud