There once was a man from New York
Who had quite the fondness for pork
He porked a hooker
Though she’s quite a looker
In prison stripes he’ll look like a dork
The mayors of Detroit & Newark hold mistress’
Two women that have put them in distress
Their sensuous thighs
Won’t cover the lies
Because we all know what the meaning of is is
The following is the full text of Eliot Spitzer’s resignation speech:
In the past few days, I have begun to atone for my private failings with my wife Silda, my children, and my entire family. The remorse I feel will always be with me. Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me.
From those to whom much is given, much is expected. I have been given much — the love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York, and the chance to lead this state. I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me. To every New Yorker — and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for — I sincerely apologize.
I look at my time as governor with a sense of what might have been. But I also know that as a public servant, I and the remarkable people with whom I worked have accomplished a great deal. There is much more to be done, and I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work.
Over the course of my public life, I have insisted — I believe correctly — that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself.
For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor. At Lt. Gov. Paterson’s request, the resignation will be effective Monday, March 17, a date that he believes will permit an orderly transition.
I go forward with the belief, as others have said, that as human beings, our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.
As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family. Then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children.
I hope all New York will join my prayers for my friend David Paterson, as he embarks on his new mission. And I thank the public once again for the privilege of service.
My first reaction: good riddance to bad rubbish.
My second reaction: at least Eliot Spitzer had the decency to resign rather than put the state of New York through an expensive impeachment process.
Related Post: Hypocrisy Has a New Name: Eliot Spitzer
By now, most everyone has read or heard some of the sordid details involving New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his alleged involvement with a prostitution ring called Emperors Club VIP. I think I can safely speak for all of the contributors at The Liberty Papers that we all believe that the actions between consenting adults should not be considered crimes provided that the actions do not violate the life, liberty, or property of another non-consenting party. Prostitution, drug abuse, and gambling are all examples of such activities the government has no business involving itself in.
Having said that, there is also something to be said about Governor Spitzer’s hypocrisy. As Attorney General, Spitzer actively went after individuals accused of the very crimes that he now seems to be involved. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it’s interesting to see how suddenly the “crime” of prostitution becomes just “a private matter.”
Governor Spitzer’s so-called apology is ripe for a thorough fisking.
Good afternoon.
Yeah, well that’s not what she said!*
For the past nine years, eight years as attorney general, and one as governor, I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York and that will continue.
Today I want to briefly address a private matter. I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong. I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.
A private matter governor? How about the 18 individuals you prosecuted in 2004 for being involved in prostitution and related activities. Was this a private matter for them as well or does privacy only apply to “important” individuals such as yourself?
I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good, and doing what is best for the state of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.
This is part of your problem governor; that you believe the “public good” is somehow superior to the rights of the individual, but I digress…
I suppose that the people of New York should not expect you to resign because only your ideas and your policies are “what is best for the state of New York.” Are you really so arrogant to assume that without your superior leadership, New York will fall off the cliff? Trust me governor, if you want to do what is best for New York, you should resign immediately. New York will survive and indeed will be better off without you.
Still, recognizing you have a problem is the first step. I do find it quite amazing that you along with the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevy, Larry Craig, and David Vitter, don’t seem to recognize that you are hurting your family until you have been caught (but somehow it’s the media’s fault for exposing you for your indiscretions).
I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.
Of course you won’t be taking any questions. It’s not like you have to answer to the people of New York or anything! Oh, I forgot; this is a private matter.
Last week’s 5-4 Georgia Supreme Court ruling in the Genarlow Wilson case is not only great news for Genarlow Wilson but also great news for others who have found themselves in a similar situation. With the ruling being as close as it was it’s clear that the court could have easily ruled the other way.
How is it that 4 of the justices arrived at the conclusion that Genarlow Wilson’s punishment was not cruel and unusual punishment? The dissent written by Justice George Carley explains:
[T]oday’s decision is rare because of its unprecedented disregard for the General Assembly’s constitutional authority to make express provision against the giving of any retroactive effect to its legislative lessening of the punishment for criminal offenses. If, notwithstanding a provision such as § 30 (c), the judiciary is permitted to determine that a formerly authorized harsher sentence nevertheless constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, then it necessarily follows that there are no circumstances in which the General Assembly can insulate its subsequent reduction of a criminal sentence from possible retroactive application by courts.
It seems that the main complaint by the court’s minority is that the court usurped the state’s legislative authority; perhaps the minority has a point. Justice Carley cites language from the 2006 bill which plainly states that individuals charged prior to the bill’s effective date of July 1, 2006 would be punished according to the old law (this would include Genarlow Wilson).
Regardless of the legislative intent, this seems unjust. Why should an individual who was charged the day before the law’s effective date be subject to a 10 year sentence while another individual commits the same exact crime one day later be sentenced to perhaps a year? Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by both the Georgia State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. At some point or another, these justices each undertook an oath to defend these constitutions. While the minority can make the case that they upheld their oath by recognizing the separation of powers, the majority could make the argument that they upheld their oaths by their interpretation of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment despite the intentions of the Georgia Assembly.
As a lay person, I cannot say which side is technically correct; one side is likely in error. But in cases where there is a grey area in the law, judges should err on the side of common sense, liberty, and justice. This is the side the court’s majority came down on.
Wilson is certainly not the only defendant convicted of aggravated child molestation who benefits at the expense of today’s judicial reduction of the General Assembly’s power to legislate. At present, any and all defendants who were ever convicted of aggravated child molestation and sentenced for a felony under circumstances similar to Wilson are, as a matter of law, entitled to be completely discharged from lawful custody even though the General Assembly expressly provided that their status as convicted felons would not be affected by the very statute upon which the majority relies to free them. […] Moreover, nothing in today’s decision limits its application to cases involving minors who engage in voluntary sexual acts. Any defendant who was ever convicted in this state for the commission of any crime for which the sentence was subsequently reduced is now entitled to claim that his harsher sentence, though authorized under the statute in effect at the time it was imposed, has since become cruel and unusual and that, as a consequence, he is not only entitled to the benefit of the more lenient sentence, but should be released entirely from incarceration. […]Accordingly, as a result of this “rare case,” the superior courts should be prepared for a flood of habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners who seek to be freed from imprisonment because of a subsequent reduction in the applicable sentences for the crimes for which they were convicted.
Others who have been convicted and punished in circumstances similar to that of Genarlow Wilson will seek to overturn their convictions as well? I should hope so! Maybe the minority should think about the overall intent of both the old and the new laws: to protect children from child molesters. How is imprisoning teenagers who engage in sexual acts with other teenagers protecting children? What would be the benefit of registering Genarlow Wilson as a sex offender? As a parent of three small children, I want only the real predators to be registered. I don’t want to look at a neighborhood sex offender map on the internet and wonder which predators are real and which ones made typical bad choices when they were teenagers.
The effect of registering sex offenders (legitimately or not) has other negative consequences as well. Registered sex offenders have difficulty finding employment, housing, and many other freedoms we take for granted. What happens to an individual who cannot find work or a home? The likelihood is s/he engages in other dangerous criminal activity for sustenance such as burglary, drug trafficking, and/or prostitution (the latter 2 should not be crimes and have similar consequences which lead to real crimes).
This isn’t to say that I want to make life easy for genuine sex offenders – far from it. The answer is not the one-size-fits-all mandatory minimum sentencing laws but to punish offenders of each case based on the facts of each case using common sense. If a judge or jury finds that an individual is one who will likely offend again, then there should be no discussions of registration but incarceration. It should be extremely difficult if not impossible for a child molester to ever re-enter society.
Hopefully, this case surrounding Genarlow Wilson will start a discussion around the country about mandatory minimum sentences and the way we have chosen to deal with sex offenders. Its time to take a step back and examine our emotional response to these issues and search for more reasonable policies.
I’ve said this many times before: economics isn’t the study of money; it’s the study of incentives, choices, and consequences.
In this video from the TED conference, economist Emily Oster performs an economic analysis of the spread of AIDS in Africa and shows once again, it’s about the economics (which means it’s about peoples choices and incentives):
What is abundantly clear here, is that government aid does little or nothing to combat AIDS; but choice, and incentives do a hell of a lot.
This is one of the fundamental principles of libertarianism in action. Rational actors, making rational, self interested choices.
Now, here’s another TED conference video, but this one you may have heard of before; it’s Andrew Mwendas speech about how foreign aid has actually HURT Africa.
Mwendas central point (though the language he uses may be a little to the left of the way I would put it) is that foreign aid has hurt Africa, because it has isolated the people from market driven incentives and consequences; and has in fact created perverse incentives towards greater poverty, and policies which HURT the people and economis of the continent. This is because more poverty means more aid, which means less attempts (and less success) at breaking out of poverty, ad infinitum (the perverse incentive).
Everything is economics, really.
