The scandal in Kennebunk, Maine, has no doubt attracted national, if not international, attention. You know the one; right?
Alexis Wright, 29, had a thriving Zumba business in her studio there. Then somebody got wind that she had a "little" side business going across the street.
About 100 "johns" are worried about the detailed ledgers that Wright apparently kept and videotapes that probably won't make it to the Family Channel. The cops are getting ready to publish the names of the customers, and so the question is,
"Should the names of the "johns" be published?"
Wright has been charged and arrested, but she hasn't been tried or convicted.
I believe the customers' names should not be released unless or until she has been found guilty. Until then, you don't have a proven crime.
According to an Associated Press article, a National Institute of Justice three-year study found that "about 60 percent of police departments that arrest prostitution clients publicize their identity in some way."
An appeal in Maine's top court is pending. Will it succeed?
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
6 comments:
Her "clients" are also law breakers are they not? We know her name and yet she has not been found guilty. God... the double standards in this country are unreal!
Why do you think that the "johns" should have anonymity?
Because the prostitution charge hasn't been proven.
Agreed, Gus. The lady's crimes are "alleged" at this point, which is reportable by legal standards and public record.
Unless, and until, she is convicted on the counts against her, her "johns" are only alleged to have been guilty to an alleged "crime". Alleged is one thing, but an alleged of an alleged..... is nothing.
Thin ice for a reputable reporter.
If "she" were convicted? Only then is a "crime" established, and only then could the remaining 100 or so "johns" also be legally and safely reported as "alleged and publicly-charged "criminals"".
Debra - I'm with you, really. As a Libertarian. But per the law? It's one thing to accurately and legally report "her" as being formally charged. It's a legal and formal reality.
But until "she" is convicted, only then do you have a prosecutable crime. And only once prosecuted? Only then can you further publish and report the "johns", as accurately alleged and charged subsequently.
The "equalizer", as it were?
In whatever "social sphere"? It never goes anywhere, as "her" little black book usually contains abundant "publicly known" and "influential" clientel sufficient to deep-six the entire chain of "crime".
The same of whose "invailability" at trial guarantees the lack of "her" conviction in the first place.
I guess my point is that "allegedly" her johns and her are in the same boat and should be treated as such. Why is her "allegedly" the only allegations to be seen in front of a judge. As they say... It takes two to tango. If not for the johns there would be no crime in the first place.
Update: The "johns" names have just been released as they should have been.
Now that is how it should have gone down (no pun intended) to begin with.
The issue is that she has been arrested.
The police are threatening to release the names of people who haven't been arrested.
If the police arrest the "johns" and then release their names, that's not a problem for me.
Post a Comment