Showing posts with label Portland trial lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Portland trial lawyers. Show all posts

Monday, February 28, 2011

Pimpin’ Ain’t Easy



The older I get, the more frustrated I become by what I call the American Ideology of extremism. 

You’re either with us or against us. 

If I listened to what my fellow citizens advised, I would be forced to choose between being an anti-car, anti-business, dreadlock-rocking, vegan-loving, breastfeeding-my-child- until-she’s-six, hate-all-Republicans liberal, or a Palin/Beck-supporting, anti-choice, anti-gay-marriage, anti-union, pro-church-and-state conservative.

UGH!

I’m so tired of it. And yes, my frustration has prompted deliberate facebook posts written solely for the purpose of eliciting angry comments. 

Where are the moderates and why are we so scared?

“Edie, what does this rant have to do with the law?” you ask. Excellent question. “I thought you were a criminal attorney blogging about criminal defense law.” I am, and I’m getting to it. 

Here’s the thing: Nothing exemplifies my point more than the criminal justice system, which is all about black and white. For years, violent offenders got off easy, did little time, got out to commit even more heinous crimes, and generally were not held accountable.

And so the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Now, if you “catch a case,” particularly a certain type of case, you’re screwed…for life.

 The best example of this is pimping.


Yes, you heard me: P-I-M-P-I-N-G. Under Oregon law, an individual convicted of promoting or compelling prostitution is required to register as a sex offender. 

The elements of promoting prostitution are as follows:  A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if, with intent to promote prostitution, the person knowingly:
(a) Owns, controls, manages, supervises or otherwise maintains a place of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise; or
(b) Induces or causes a person to engage in prostitution or to remain in a place of prostitution; or
(c) Receives or agrees to receive money or other property, other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services, pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the money or other property is derived from a prostitution activity; or
(d) Engages in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.[1]

The elements of compelling prostitution are as follows:  (1) A person commits the crime of compelling prostitution if the person knowingly:
(a) Uses force or intimidation to compel another to engage in prostitution; or
(b) Induces or causes a person under 18 years of age to engage in prostitution; or
(c) Induces or causes the spouse, child or stepchild of the person to engage in prostitution.[2]

Now, don’t get me wrong. These are serious offenses and often very bad criminal acts; particularly cases involving compelling prostitution. I’m not condoning such behavior. I’m not suggesting that when the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that said individuals committed such crimes, they should not be prosecuted.[3]

However, I don’t understand why someone convicted of one of these offenses should be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his or her life. I just don’t see a causal connection.

Pimps are assholes. Pimps are terrible people. Pimps take advantage of the most vulnerable members of society – often underage girls who are fleeing terrible domestic circumstances.

But are pimps sex offenders? 

And the thing is, if part of our plan is to rehabilitate criminals, good luck when it involves an individual required to register for life as a sex offender. They can almost never secure legitimate employment. They can almost never secure legitimate housing. The registration requirement pretty much puts a stop to any attempt to lead productive, legitimate lives. 

Assume that there is at least one person out there convicted of compelling or promoting prostitution who has made a transformation; who has made amends for their past life; who has changed; and who wants to do the right thing and volunteer, work hard, pay taxes, serve the community, raise a family. It will be next to impossible for said person to do so.

I realize that to most, this isn’t a pressing issue. And I realize it’s not a very popular issue. The “pimping lobby” isn’t going to appear at the legislature anytime soon to advocate for an end to sex offender registration. 

And I get registration laws as applied to predatory sex offenders. But I don’t get it when it comes to pimps.

I just don’t.

Do you?
  


[1] ORS 167.012
[2] ORS 167.017
[3] Assuming, of course, that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by po-po.


Monday, September 27, 2010

How can the district attorney bring MORE charges than what I was arrested for?

One of the most common frustrations we hear from clients facing criminal prosecution goes something like this: “The police only arrested me for one misdemeanor. When I showed up for my arraignment, I learned that the district attorney indicted me on that misdemeanor PLUS three felonies. How can they do that?”




Police officers investigate crimes, and when those police officers believe they have probable cause to do so, they arrest people for those crimes. But make no mistake about it; it is the job of the district attorney or prosecutor in the county where the alleged crime occurred to determine for which crimes, if any, the individual should be prosecuted. Often, a prosecutor will review the police reports and determine that there are additional or more severe charges to be prosecuted. On the other hand, a prosecutor may review a police report and determine that the police officer’s arrest was unwarranted or that if brought before a jury, they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of such charge so they dismiss or “no complaint” the charge(s).

It is important to understand that initially the police officer holds the power: to arrest you; to take you to jail; to initiate the charges; to set the stage for prosecutors and judges to ultimately determine custody release, plea offers, and sentence. 

But you’re not done there. And you shouldn’t be surprised to show up at an initial court appearance and discover that you are facing much more than initially thought.

Sound complicated? It is. That’s why, if facing criminal prosecution, you need an experienced criminal lawyer to help you navigate the system. A seasoned defense lawyer will have a solid understanding of A) who the assigned prosecutor is; B) whether that prosecutor typically overcharges or is a reasonable person to work with in terms of plea negotiations/settlement; C) any unique or novel defenses for those particular charges (e.g., an experienced drug lawyer will be up to speed on any and all drug-offense-related constitutional defenses, and an experienced DUI lawyer will recognize the unique scientific challenges to a DUI arrest).  

Remember, an arrest or indictment does not equal game over. It’s just the beginning.

But the best criminal attorney will always be your secret weapon.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

We've All Thought We've Known a Bride From Hell - Until You Meet this Bride From Hell


According to the sassy crime victim news correspondent diva, otherwise known as Nancy Grace, 23-year-old Jessica Vega pretended to have terminal cancer so she could attract sympathy from friends, relatives and strangers alike who stepped in to give her a dream wedding - FOR FREE! The rings, the wedding dress and the photos all were donated. The catering hall was heavily discounted, and the (awful) bride and her (dumb as a doornail) groom flew off to their honeymoon in Aruba with donated money, using plane tickets bought by well-wishers.

Apparently, the jig was up when Vega's rocket scientist husband, Michael O'Connell, finally realized that his long-time partner (and mother of his child) didn't appear to be ill.

According to various news sources, a criminal investigation is pending.

So our question to all you Matlock wannabes: What could she be charged with and/or convicted of?