Dupre as Pandora’s Box: Should anyone profit from crime?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This started out as a poll suggestion from regular IFz contributor, Mike, but we decided the topic got too complicated for a simple poll and really deserved a full discussion thread.
From Mike:
As you know the Elliot Spitzer story is up and running. There is an interesting component that is now being focused on: the prostitute.
Ms. Dupre is apparently going to be “cashing in” due to her illegal conduct. I think an interesting poll question should be: Should the Spitzer prostitute be allowed to profit financially from engaging in illegal activity?
As we know, the Son of Sam killer was prohibited from profiting, by writing a book, about all the killings he did in New York State. I realize prostitution and murder are no where on the same level, but is this really what society should be condoning?
From me:
I’m thinking of things like where the line is, what crimes can someone write about their experience with, and what is prohibited? A murderer is prohibited from profiting from a book about his/her murder(s), but can a prostitute be prohibited from writing about his/her prostitution experiences? What about a rapist, or a bank robber, or Bernie Ebbers serving time for bilking how many millions of people? What about Mark Fuhriman being able to write a book?
What are the free speech issues at play in attempting to prohibit books by criminals? I wouldn’t buy a murderer’s book, but why don’t they have the right to free speech? (I grabbed a copy of OJ Simpson’s unpublished book, If I Did It, off the bittorrent network.) Where in their sentencing do they lose their free speech rights?
What about victim restitution? If a judge sentences someone to pay a million bucks in restitution to the victim’s family, it’s unlikely the convict will be able to pay without a book deal, right? So then do we get into a trend of judges imposing huge restitution penalties to encourage criminals to write books, knowing the proceeds will go to the victim families? Who buys these books? Do we buy them because we like to stare at car wrecks, or do we buy them because we know the money goes to the victim?
Another tangent to this is an article I found through Digg yesterday, asking why is pornography legal but prostitution is illegal? Both are paying for sex, right? It’s an interesting read with a fine line between the two activities, and I think someone is going to eventually design a prostitution business model so it resembles a porn production and make themselves legal. Eeek and then what?!
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I do not want to take away free speech rights (writes!) from anyone, regardless of the situation. It would be repugnant for me personally to buy the book and give tacit support to the criminal (even if the money went to the victims), but it shouldn’t be illegal for this to happen.
On the other hand, it seems just like allowing the gossip mags that my teenage stepchildren adore, it just seems really cheap and sleazy and panders to the basest instincts in our society.
It’s a fine line. I am a libertarian, for the most part, and think that prostitution should be legal/regulated. As a victimless crime, who should profit from that kind of book?
I think that having the ‘law & order’ side of the equation able to write books about their perspectives on a case means that the ‘criminal’ side should have the same rights. I also think that the profits from anything to do with a crime against another person/entity should go to the victim of the crime, and if that causes huge restitutions to be imposed, I suppose that’s an unintended side effect.
Does the prospect of your 15 minutes of fame being extended by folks buying your stories afterwards and reading all your psychobabble or drivel become a bit of a reward for your crime, even if you have to be in prison while it happens? Notoriety can be a powerful and desired incentive, sometimes. I wonder if anyone contemplating a crime would consider the afterglow they could get by being a bestselling author as a tickmark in the plus column.
This site has such a wide variety of issues that are very difficult to come down strongly on one side or the other! I am such an opinionated person, normally, but I find that for many of these posts I end up riding that doggone fence.
I give kudos to Mike and Joe for all the very interesting posts.
Vote:
0 0 It occurs to me that if a book was written about a crime or criminal, even by a person on the law and order side of the fence, there should be some type of payment made to the victim(s), if there is a victim of the crime.
Profit is being had by someone using another person’s situation, and I think that a cut of that profit to ease the pain of having this dredged up again seems equitable.
Probably not practical, but it seems reasonable. If I have an inside scoop on your sister’s murder, and can get big bucks for writing about it, shouldn’t it be fair for me to have to divvy up some of those bucks to her family/heirs?
On the other hand, (she sits her broad bottom carefully on the fence again) that could lead to a nation of entitled family members. Some of them are profiting from the notoriety already. And how far down the family tree does the entitlement stretch?
And suppose I’m part of the story, like Mark Fuhriman? Is it really my story, or is it only my part in those murders? What if I write my story and include bits from all the cases I was involved in, do I end up losing a little to each family?
All those slippery slopes to watch out for!
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think we should even try to write a law that prohibits someone like Dupre from profiting. Doing so would be Pandora’s Box as it would be too huge an infringement on peoples rights. And at what point do you stop? Many companies engage in illegal activities all the time which they profit from - labor law violations, sexual harassment, child labor in other countries, environmental regulations, etc, etc. Do we say these companies can no longer earn a profit because they used illegal activities to make it? Do we say this if they are punished for said violations and have moved on and aren’t doing it anymore?
As to prostitution. It should be legalized and regulated as it is in Nevada. Thats not a perfect solution because there is no solution. And when there is no solution its better to manage the problem than make a futile effort to get rid of it.
Which is the same philosophy I view the war on drugs with especially marijuana. It should be legal for people to possess up to say 2 oz of marijuana. It should be legal for people to grow plants in their homes so long as its personal use. And it should be legal to sell marijuana in government controlled stores like liquor stores where its taxed and regulated. BTW, I don’t smoke marijuana and I’ve never even tried it. But it doesn’t mean I can’t see the hypocrisy of our marijuana laws compared to the much more damaging to society drug known as alcohol. I do drink alcohol by the way. Anyway, this thread isn’t about marijuana but it dovetailed too well with my past point to pass up.
Vote:
0 0 Good points, Anonymous #4.
I especially liked “when there is no solution its better to manage the problem than make a futile effort to get rid of it.”
And your statement about many people/entities profiting from illegal things already, is only too true.
As a libertarian, I agree that drugs load up our courts, overload our prisons, and overstress our law enforcement personnel.
And I don’t use, either.
Vote:
0 0 How about when OJ tried to publish his book, “If I did it.” People stood up, in what some say was a futile effort—but it worked. OJ was sent packing and wasn’t able to sell his book. (And no, it wasn’t censorship because the government did not prevent the sale…..it was pressure put on the publisher).
Some may feel that managing a problem is better than trying to get rid of it. However, IMO, this leads to moral relativism….nothing is too bad that we have to really work hard to erradicate it. This makes all things permissable and this is dangerous.
I have a real zinger….how about abortion….we obviously can’t get rid of it….so we should just manage it. Yikes! Some people would have a problem (and do) with that view.
It is distressing seeing this young lady being able to profit from such a scandal. It seems to confirm to many young people….and young girls that you can profit from activities that are demeaning and sleazy. IMO, that is the wrong message to send to our youth and young adults alike.
Vote:
0 0 the new york statute has been rewritten so that a certain dollar amount of financial gain kicks in a modified “Son of Sam” law; moreover, if a criminal does make a profit from selling a story about his or her crime, the statue of limitations on any civil suit (usually, in civil actions, you must sue within two years of the incident for any “personal injury”, like wrongful death) is extended so that the victim or family of the victim can opt to sue him/her civilly, thus benefitting from the funds obtained by the bad guy as a result of his/her book, movie, etc.
I wonder who the “victim” is in the whole Spitzer mess? His wife? Kids???
Vote:
0 0 Mike
Your taking specific instances like OJ and Dupre and saying the law should apply to those. I’m taking the broader view since you have to consider that the law will be used across the board. And where do you stop at that point.
Dupre is also an aspiring musician. Who knows how many more records she might sell because of this but it will be some for sure. I see a law like yours barring her from any employment where it might show she succeeded in from because of her noteriety.
And as I said earlier with specific examples in the 4th post, where do you stop with a law like this? To me a law like this smacks of knee jerk reactionism and thats always a bad thing in the end because the laws passed this way always end up being over broad and restricting things they were never meant too.
Vote:
0 0 Babs,
One news clip I saw said some of the real victims were the Assistant DAs who built their careers while Spitzer was closing down Prostituion.
Ok4Now
Vote:
0 0 I am not proposing a law to limit free speech. No only would such an endeavor be struck down, it would probably only spur on sales of the item. Look at the Too Live Crew Album. This was a rap group in Florida. When authorities banned this group their low level album (which was not selling enough to even cover costs shot up platinum).
What happened in the OJ case with the book was right on target. Social outrage….which we see very little of now days worked well and stopped this project in it’s tracks. Unfortunately, these episodes of moral courage are few and far between. It will be interesting to see how much cash Ms. Dupre pulls in. I suspect like anything else, she will pay a price for selling herself in such a manner. Too bad more kids can’t see the after effects of such destructive behavior. All they see is the glamour and fame.
Vote:
0 0 OK4Now, too funny!! I think the poor women who serviced him were also victims….he’s creepy!!!
Vote:
0 0 Does Idaho have a son of Sam law? It doesn’t seem right to me that a criminal should benefit from his crime. I understand Paul Ezra Rhoades isn’t exactly a literary genius, but what if he had a ghostwriter? Should he be allowed to write a book and profit from the sale?
What about someone who commits fraud to get something they’re not entitled to? How does the “victim” recuperate their losses for a fraud? There’s a ton of examples in that vein like identity theft or taking power of attorney for an elderly person who then loses all his property to the criminal. Does he get his property back? How is he compensated for the time it took to go to court, the cost of attorneys, lost wages, emotional distress, etc? Do we have any legal beagles out there who can respond?
Vote:
0 0 Hi, “another guest,” I will happily be a beagle and offer my humble legal opinion;
Basically, there is a statute in Idaho, as in most states, providing that those who commit crime may not directly profit from it. Here is the statute:
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190530001.K
The statute provides that any such money shall be put into a “victim’s account” with the state treasury; the wrongdoer must actually be convicted of the crime (which raises the whole O.J. specter again, as he was acquitted in criminal court) or found NG by reason of mental disease, etc. (ie, he did it, but is not legally responsible).
Your question about fraud is interesting; yes, there are statutes criminalizing fraud (we most often see consumer protection laws governing the same) and there are also several degrees of “larceny” or theft offenses; taking money from someone by false pretenses or larceny by deception; has many names and is criminalized in the code of each state. (Compare that to, for example, robbery in which the crime is against the person rather than the property).
Finally, in order to truly recoup a monetary loss, instead of relying on “restitution” or money a wrongdoer must pay to a victim via criminal court, the better route is to file a civil action. The burden of proof is less (51% or “more likely than not”, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) and the emphasis is on restoring a plaintiff financially, not punishing the wrongdoer defendant(necessarily). Finally, anyone can file a civil action; criminal actions, with rare exceptions, are filed by the prosecutor (d.a., prosecuting attorney, state’s attorney, different names for the same job) and are done so at his/her discretion. You become merely a witness and not a party to the proceedings.
Depending on what the facts of the case are, you can file the case as a simple breach of contract (”a” promised to pay me x for doing y; I did y and “a” failed to pay me x), or some type of tort (conversion of property, trespass, or a negligence action such as a personal injury or injury to property type of suit). Because the damages in those cases are all dollar amounts, the chances of recouping your true loss are better than recouping the same in a restitution provision of a criminal sentence. Moreover, you mentioned “emotional distress”; those types of losses can be sought as damages in civil actions.
Hope this blathering helped. I have been a lawyer for 16 years and I still find it fascinating.
Vote:
0 0 This has been an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Thanks babs especially for the legal stuff that the rest of us want to know but don’t know how to find.
I think the market should ultimately decide. Let Son of Sam or Ashley Dupre or OJ Simpson sell their books, then let the consumers decide if the product is worth their money. If the offender makes enough money from their crime, then the victims and families should be able to sue for those profits.
Would Spitzer’s wife be able to sue Ashley Dupre for causing alienation of affection? I thought I heard that sometimes a spouse can sue the “other woman/man” for wrecking their marriage.
Vote:
0 0 Oh, I TOTALLY disagree with the concept of alienation of affection. The third member of the triangle is not ‘responsible’.
If a marriage isn’t working, and if one spouse strays, the responsibility rests on THAT person who decided to stray. NOT the ‘other woman’ or the ‘other man’ in the triangle.
I always hated the movies that showed the husband coming home and shooting the other guy. It was so macho, he did it because the property he owned (his wife) was being stolen/taken by the interloper (other guy).
In my opinion, if the movie husband had any reason to be mad, it should have been at his wife, for violating their vows. Not the other guy, who was just gettin’ him some even if it was a poor choice of who was offerin’.
So in this case, Silda should be taking out her anger on her husband. Dupre just did her job, nothing personal.
Vote:
0 0 So what happens when someone steals someone else’s identity and buys a whole bunch of stuff. Do they get to keep it? I know the court would order restitution, but what happens to the tv and car and clothes and jewelry and everything else they bought using someone else’s name? Isn’t that benefitting from a crime if they’re allowed to keep it?
Vote:
0 0 I note that OJ was sued….even successfully….yet has not paid a dime to the Goldman family. So, the argument about civil suits to rectify the situation for the victims family doesn’t do much for me to feel better about letting a cretin profit off a murder.
As for the third triangle not being responsible, I think that in a marriage there is a contract. If one of the parties violate that contract they should be held to answer….i.e., not be entitled to as many assets in the divorce and/or primary custody of the children.
The other participants in the matter should also be held to account if it can be proven they were aware the person was married. Perhaps if society were more clear on the boundaries and sanctity of marriage….and enforced these laws there would be a decrease in the infidelity/cheating and the resulting harm. Any lawyer will tell you that you can sue for damages based on almost anything. If a ‘home wrecker’ comes in and steals your hubby or wife, they should be made to account for assisting in the destruction of the marriage contract (Once again, if proven they knew the other persons married status). For example, if you have a business with a co-owner and someone comes in and convinces the co-owner to dump you or sabotage the business to put them ahead you have a cause of action against your co-owner and the third party.
Now, I know some hate to see marriage boiled down to some type of “contract” but legally, that is exactly what it is….and why it can give rise to civil lawsuits. It should be held in higher regard and jilted spouses should begin using the law to nail those that cheat on them and the family.
Vote:
0 0 I’d be okay with calling it a contract, and therefore having 3rd parties sometimes liable…but only if that contract is extended to all adult members of our society.
Yes, that’s me, going all libertarian again with the idea that the homosexual adults in our society deserve to have the right to enter into one of those same contracts with another consenting adult, no matter the gender.
Then, it seems right to say marriage is a contract, because any adult can enter into a legal contract with another consenting adult.
But to hold the marriage sacred, biblically only available to a man and a woman for purposes of procreating and raising said family, well…the third party in a breakup triangle is not responsible, at least not to anyone but God.
Vote:
0 0 Whoa nelly! How did we get on a homosexual track with this topic? Oh no, please don’t answer that! lol
Vote:
0 0 Mike, just keep in mind, OJ was found “not guilty” so the aforementioned laws don’t apply to him; as for being a cretin who got away with murder, well, you saw what happened to his lucrative book deal, right???
Vote:
0 0 Reference OJ, I was referring to the civil case where he was found to be responsible for the deaths. The criminal verdict had no bearing on the civil suit.
Yes, I am familiar with the book deal…However, the point was it should not even have gotten that far. The only good thing that came out of this was that the publisher had to eat the advance fees given to OJ. Hopefully, more publishers will be more careful about trying to give “cretins” a platform to make cash from crime.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, I am just pointing out that the thread has to do with CONVICTED murderers, and other wrongdoers, profiting off of their crimes and whether the same is legally permissible or not.
Whether or not OJ paid his civil damages as ordered to do by the court in the “wrongful death” case filed by the parties, is moot to the “Son of Sam” cases/statutes.
Vote:
0 0 Fine with that. My point about OJ’s civil suit was in relation to Joe’s point ( comment #14) that victim’s families can just sue. My point was that the “just sue” option was not working for victim’s families.
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis, I agree on the third party issue with you, but definitly not on the homosexual part of your post. It’s probably another thread all together, but you mention biblical aspects of it. And God did not create marriage for same sex. If they want to put another contract together stating who can do and get what, that’s up to them (I’ll stay out of it). But you can’t call it a marriage. We as a society, have strayed far enough from the bible and God already.
On the other note however, the marriage contract/license IS between husband and wife and not the third party. If he/she can’t keep their pants up, then they shouldn’t be married. But I feel just as strongly about that as I would in any long term relationship with or without marriage.
Vote:
0 0 Abby, God is not regulating marriages in our laws, the government is. If churches believe that God is against homosexual rights to marry, then they should not allow the marriage ceremony in their faith. That’s absolutely their right to believe and control, within their faith.
But when the government gets involved, it becomes a civil right for the adults in the country. That civil right is being denied to some adults based upon others’ religious beliefs.
It is your opinion (and it’s a common opinion) that we as a society have strayed far enough. However, many would disagree with you, thinking we haven’t strayed too far. And others would also disagree with you, thinking we haven’t strayed far enough.
But you are correct, we probably need a whole ‘nuther thread for this issue.
Mike’s comment #23 was pretty valid…the ’sue the perp for damages’ option seems to be a bust for most victims’ families. It doesn’t bring justice, it only ties the families into long drawn out suffering trying to extract vengeance, and I can’t believe it really helps them or hurts the perp.
Vote:
0 0 Oh yes, my own mother disagrees with my views on homosexuals marrying. And yes, I know everyone has their own opinion. lol
And yes, good luck proving most lawsuits. Probably because so many people are so sue happy these days. And you’re certainly right, it only helps you hang on to anger/vengence in most situations.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Vote:
I just thought of another tangent. What about the Hurricane Reuben Carter? Didn’t he write a book in prison, telling about his case and protesting his innocence? Wasn’t it that book which a young teenager stole (irony?) and learned to read on which led that teen to help Reuben fight for his innocence and eventually proved Reuben was innocent? What if the Hurricane had been prohibited from selling his book?