I think that anyone else in Spitzer’s shoes should suffer no legal consequences or penalties. But…. he sent people to prison for just what he’s accused of doing and he exulted in the act of ruining their lives. So my view is that I want to see him doing time. Ron Paul, maybe because he’s a Christian, seems to take a different view:
“No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society. The possibility of uncovering personal moral wrongdoing is never a justification for the government to spy on our every move and to participate in sting operations.”
Parsing the above, it’s not clear how far apart our views are. But the tone is certainly different. I want Spitzer to suffer because his punishment would be, as Ron admits (or at least, admits may be the case), “morally justified.” I also want other politicians to think about the effects of their support of such terrible laws. It’s time to repeal them. But only after we see Spitzer, who gloried in ruining the lives of others, in handcuffs.
So, just for clarification. It seems that you want Spitzer to get the karma he deserves because he is a hypocrite. You don’t like the law which is based in some morality, but you like the moral end, which is punishing hypocrisy. I think I can agree with the fact that it is ironic that the false morality Spitzer was using to serve his ends actually ends up being the source of his own comeuppance. I am missing something if it is true that spying (at least in a traditional sense) was involved with uncovering Spitzer’s crime.
Clearly Spitzer violated a crime which was on the books when he acted. This is not of issue. But, the justification for the law itself seems to be called into question. I don’t think that Spitzer’s violation of a marriage contract is even being brought up as an issue. I also don’t know if the case for punishing “John(s)” can be made on utilitarian grounds. At the end of the day, I don’t see a clear way to arbitrate between the different moral views reflected in this issue.
Did he resign on ethical grounds? In some such cases, there doesn’t even have to a real crime if the judgement of the official holding a high office is merely called into question.
A quick note in between meetings/interviews. (I was at the Supreme Court today for the arguments. What an experience!)
He evidently violated the Mann act by arranging for a hooker to cross state lines for a prostitution. That and various rules about wiring money, etc., etc. None of that should be illegal. But he has been very happy to use such laws, including laws against prostitution (he boasted of breaking up “Prostitution Rings”), to ruin the lives of other people.
His relationship with his wife, like that with his hooker, is no business of mine. And I don’t favor punishing people for hypocrisy. That is often its own punishment. What I favor punishing him for is harming other people through the laws he championed and applied with relish. And the best punishment is to be punished by those same laws.
I saw the back of some one’s head that looked very much like yours on CNN this morning. I am very anxious to see what happens with your participation in history!
Thanks for the clarification. I think your response confirmed what I see you saying in the post.
Megan McArdle made an interesting suggestion the other day:
“I also think that politicians, when caught in a crime, should automatically get the maximum penalty; if they think the law is such a good idea, they ought to suffer heartily when they disregard it.”
http://tinyurl.com/2vy8x5
I’m not so sure about it. It seems like adding another wrong to the pile. But, these victims are less innocent than most, and it might hasten the and to stupid laws.
It would sit better with me if they were punished for their actual moral crimes. But, that doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon.
I can’t agree. One can question what laws are appropriate, but someone entrusted to enforce the law should not be extra-penalized for imperfection or personal struggle. Naturally, if he were lax about prostitution laws and had been caught, the criticism would have been that he was protecting his colleagues in the industry. Heads he loses, tails he loses.
Spitzer’s betrayal of his wife and family is the true crime and reflects the greatest shortcoming, violating the marriage temple. Even if prostitution were legal, it should be socially punished.
I also have questions about the karmic analysis. Shouldn’t it extend to actions of ‘the peoples government’? What should be the penalty for the United States sale of arms to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and so forth? What should Americans expect for providing Afghan freedom fighters with CIA guerilla training?
Perhaps Rev. Wright and Rev. Hagee and Jerry Falwell were onto something, and America is being punished for whoring in the middle east, promoting conflict for materialistic reasons, and stealing through debt-based fed policy.
Frankly, the chickens ARE coming home to roost. Pundit chatterboxes can express shock and dismay, and keep burying their heads in Iraqi sand if they wish, but the wheel turns none the less.
No one is calling for anyone to be “extra-penalized for imperfection or personal struggle.”
The second part of the analysis suggests collective, rather than individual, guilt. The reverends cited by David (Falwell, Wright, and Hagee) are nuttier than fruitcakes. But I don’t hold them collectively responsible for David’s insanity.
I presume, then, that you do not believe a government or militia has a right to respond to the collective aggression of another country based on your babbling about ‘collective punishment.’ I refuse to acknowledge any right of people to hide behind the ‘collective.’ It’s their government, they can burn in hell for not controlling it.