Should Herman Cain be prosecuted under the Mann Act?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.