Should Herman Cain be prosecuted under the Mann Act?

Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Should Herman Cain be prosecuted for violating the Mann Act?
Yes 36%  36%  [ 4 ]
No 55%  55%  [ 6 ]
Just show the results 9%  9%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 11

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 12:17 pm

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:

Quote:
Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913). The Court held that Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or “immoral purposes.”

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
Quote:
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES CHAPTER 117. TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY ANDRELATED CRIMES @ 2421.Transportation generally Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title orimprisoned not more than five years, or both.


We have the following statements on record from Ginger White

Quote:
When she met Cain at an event in Louisville, where she lived at the time, "he was as bold as he was seductive," she said.

“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/

Quote:
2010 Georgia Code
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?



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

05 Dec 2011, 1:26 pm

Adultery should be a private matter rather than a crime. The federal government does not have the authority to regulate consensual, non-commercial sex acts that occur in private. Moreover, I disagree that prostitution should be a crime anyway.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

05 Dec 2011, 2:08 pm

I'm guessing Herman Cain is actually going to be sueing some people in coming days for defamation of character.

I find the idea that he was somehow having an affair while undergoing chemo, surgeries, etc. for stage IV cancer, to be rather laughable.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 2:58 pm

Still, the Law is the Law, and no-one can deny that Mr. Cain violated the Law.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

05 Dec 2011, 3:00 pm

pandabear wrote:
Still, the Law is the Law, and no-one can deny that Mr. Cain violated the Law.


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.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Dec 2011, 3:02 pm

pandabear wrote:
Still, the Law is the Law, and no-one can deny that Mr. Cain violated the Law.


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
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

05 Dec 2011, 3:11 pm

The right to cheat on your significant other is a basic human right in my opinion



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 3:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Still, the Law is the Law, and no-one can deny that Mr. Cain violated the Law.


What competent legal authority has made that assertion.

Moi.

ruveyn wrote:
Has Cain been indicted? Is he likely to be indicted?

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 wrote:
If no charges are brought there is no violation, from a legal point of view.
ruveyn


No charges does not mean no violation. No charges just means no charges.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 3:19 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The right to cheat on your significant other is a basic human right in my opinion


It is still a violation of Georgia Law. And, bringing the wench on trips for out-of-state coitus violates Federal law.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

05 Dec 2011, 3:23 pm

I don't think anyone should be tried for an extra-marital affair. Plus, if he goes to jail, how will he be on Dancing with the Stars next season?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 3:34 pm

The trial would keep him in the spotlight.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 6:03 pm

http://prostitution.uslegal.com/federal-mann-act/

Quote:
The Mann Act is a federal statute that prohibits interstate or foreign transportation of an individual with the intention of engaging such individual in sexual activity or prostitution. The Mann Act is also known as the White Slave Traffic Act. The Act made it a felony to transport knowingly any person in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for prostitution, or any other immoral purpose. It also made it a felony to coerce an individual into such immoral acts.

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.



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

05 Dec 2011, 6:29 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The right to cheat on your significant other is a basic human right in my opinion

Wow, and I thought I was a heartless bastard... :D



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

05 Dec 2011, 7:23 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Still, the Law is the Law, and no-one can deny that Mr. Cain violated the Law.


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.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Dec 2011, 7:52 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Still, the Law is the Law, and no-one can deny that Mr. Cain violated the Law.


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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

06 Dec 2011, 12:02 am

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