Originally Posted by scottwww
Thanks for the links. Maybe I will get a chance to read them tonight. Why do you suppose the Mann Act has not been utilized in prostitution cases much in the last few decades?
Well, mianly because there are better laws on the books for it locally. Federally prostitution cases are very rare now a days, and usually deal more with the organization of a large ring than with individual customers.
Usually, it's local authorities that would charge Johns. Even at the local level, it's usually more the pimps that have the book thrown at them than the johns.
I think the intent with Spitzer here it to make an example out of him, as much as anything else. "If you screw with us, expect to pay!" Ironically the fines for violating the Mann Act are tiny, 5,000 at most.
It's typically only used in the investigation of people smugglers, because in those cases it provides a good way to "open the door" to more serious investigation, and charges.
I don't expect the Mann Act thing to actually happen in this case. What they're really trying to do is nail him on the use of taxpayer monies for this, which would be a much more serious crime, but given how wealthy he is, it's likely that he paid out of pocket. Though it's come out that he spent over 80,000 on hookers, which is a TON of cash.
We'll have to see. He's about to resign, but I expect this to stay in the public eye. Americans LOVE busting crooked politicians, especially after they elect them in landslide victories.