The art of the police is not to see what it is useless that it should see. – Napoleon Bonaparte
Most of the updates featured on this blog are indirect; in other words, they’re new stories which call to mind some feature of the issue covered in the updated column, but usually aren’t direct sequels. When I reread my column of one year ago today, however, I discovered that not only both of the covered stories, but also the column itself, deserved direct updating. It took a bit of digging to uncover anything about the case of Jimmy Dac Ho, a Florida cop (with a long history of bizarre loose-cannon behavior) who murdered an escort on January 31st of last year, but this October 6th article from the Palm Beach Post seems to be the most recent news:
Prosecutors will not seek the death penalty against a former…police officer accused of fatally shooting a Boynton Beach escort…48-year-old Jimmy Dac Ho…was arrested on murder charges in February after 29-year-old Sheri Carter died of a gunshot wound she received during an encounter with Ho at her apartment. Investigators say Carter was an escort who advertised her services on a website that has factored in numerous prostitution and human trafficking investigations. Ho…made conflicting claims of self-defense and fear of robbery after his arrest [and] was briefly hospitalized when he tried to hang himself inside his jail cell. He is still in jail but did not appear…at a hearing to check on the status of his first-degree murder case. Attorneys…say they could be ready for a trial as soon as January, but defense attorney Elizabeth Ramsey said she still needs to review the large amount of evidence…
I contacted the reporter, Daphne Duret, and she told me the next status check was set for February 29th. Notice the way that the system is working to shield a murdering cop from the full consequences of his actions; prosecutors aren’t seeking the death penalty despite the fact that Ho admitted to murder, and the “investigators” are making absolutely sure that everyone knows his victim was “only” a whore and implying that the website on which she advertised somehow shares the blame. Even the mention of the bête du jour, “human trafficking”, is a clear attempt at misdirecting public attention from the real monster.
Last year’s column also presented the case of Hanna Morris, who was tricked by the Surrey police into revealing information they claimed would be used to prosecute thugs who had robbed and threatened her escorts, but was actually used to prosecute her for brothel-keeping. She filed suit against the police for their crime against her, but that of course failed so she and her partners were forced to plead guilty, as reported in Get Surrey last April 4th:
Three people who ran a number of brothels across Surrey have avoided jail terms. Hanna Morris, 28…was sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended for two years…[and] ordered to carry out 240 hours of unpaid work. Her partner, Michael Jones was also sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work…Valerie Coster…received a 16-week jail term, suspended for 12 months…[and] 120 hours of unpaid service. All three entered guilty pleas after failing in an abuse of power case against Surrey Police…
The police attack on Morris was not motivated by mere sadism but rather by profit; the “Proceeds of Crime” law allows police to rob those they prosecute, so even though her sentence was suspended, Morris’ home and life savings were stolen from her – a fact the mainstream press didn’t bother mentioning. The thugs who threatened Morris and her ladies were dangerous and poor, but Morris was a wealthy sitting duck so the police victimized her instead. As the English Collective of Prostitutes pointed out:
Prosecutions for brothel-keeping and other prostitution charges have risen since the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act [from 3 in 2004, to 11 in 2005, to 39 in 2006, to 41 in 2007]. Under that law, the police keep 50% of assets confiscated during raids and 25% from subsequent prosecutions, with the Crown Prosecution Service keeping another 25%. Concerns have been raised that this desire to profit is fuelling raids and arrests, distorting police priorities and encouraging police corruption.
Unlike similar concerns in the US, however, these appear to be taken seriously by some UK government actors; last Friday I reported that the Association of Chief Police Officers (represented by Simon Byrne, recently appointed assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard) now supports decriminalization, and that several politicians agree. As the above-linked Harlot’s Parlour column explains, another high-profile brothel-keeping case was dropped on January 4th:
Sheila Farmer, a sex worker who worked with other women…for safety had charges of brothel-keeping dismissed today in Croydon Crown Court. She worked with other women since being viciously raped and attacked whilst working alone…she…suffers from severe diabetes and a malignant brain tumour. Her doctor had provided evidence that an onerous and stressful trial would have exacerbated her condition…Farmer [said]: “Whilst I’m relieved not to be facing trial I am angry that I was prosecuted. Will the person who made that decision now be held accountable for the 18 months of distress and upset I have suffered while waiting for this case to come to court? Safety and survival has always been my priority. Like hundreds of other women I was working to support my son and more recently to pay for cancer treatment. I would never have got through this ordeal without the English Collective of Prostitutes…”
Cari Mitchell [of the ECP said]…“Sheila Farmer’s bravery in publicly fighting these charges should be commended. She, like many other sex workers, should never have been forced to choose between safety and legality. Why is it legal to work alone but not with others? The prostitution laws are endangering women and should be abolished…” Ms Farmer’s trial was thrown out because of police and prosecution incompetence – witnesses had not been asked to attend court and a key witness could not be found. Ms Farmer has attended court six times and the case has been listed to start on two previous occasions…
The conviction of two of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers reminds us once again that the priorities of police and prosecution fly in the face of public opinion. Why did it take 18 years to try and convict these dangerous criminals while sex workers who do no harm are quickly arrested and jailed? The ECP has received multiple reports of violent robberies by a gang of five men in East London. The only police action has been to threaten the victims with prosecution. Why are women who report violence arrested while their attackers are not pursued?…
I think my readers know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it’s important that they be asked repeatedly in public until government persecution of prostitutes is stopped completely.
One final note; “To Protect and Serve” was linked and referenced by Dr. Brooke Magnanti (AKA Belle de Jour) in a guest blog on a feminist website last March, leading to a firestorm of controversy and a battle royale between garbage-vomiting neofeminist prohibitionists and sane, reasonable sex worker rights advocates (including Dr. Laura Agustín, regular reader Sina More and myself). I described the incident in “Cognitive Impairment”, and one well-researched post on that thread by a commenter called “Eva” was so informative that I later drew heavily on it for an important column that I still reference quite often. Every column has an effect on those that follow, but it’s rare that an unassuming daily post based on two current events produces ripples that are still spreading a year later.
I thought Britain had outstanding National Healthcare? Why did she have to work for cancer treatment? Rhetorical question – I very well realize WHY she had to work!
I used to tell the Chief Petty Officers that worked for me in the “goat locker” that … “I’ll stand behind any decision you make, even if you’re wrong – we’ll find a way to fix that … but if you compromise your integrity and this uniform – I will crucify you harder than Pontius Pilot crucified Christ – try me!”
I don’t know why the cops don’t get this. It does no good to their long term image and reputation for them to circle the wagons and protect their own after one of “their own” has disgraced himself (and by extension – the whole organization). That is exactly the time when a police organization should PROVE its commitment to justice and demonstrate its integrity. The offending officer(s) needs to be stripped naked before the public and given the HARSHEST penalties possible – much harsher punishment than anything the general public would receive under similar circumstances.
In this society (as in the military) – there are certain positions of power and trust where that individual holds tremendous power over others. When a crime is committed, it’s not just a case of breaking a law – it’s a case of breaking a public trust and breaking the trust of your fellow officers. The ONLY … ONLY way an organization can survive is to react to correct the problem using vindictive measures against the offender – measures that tell the general public … “We will not stand for this shit in our organization!”
Without that kind of punitive reaction – the organization rots from within – while it loses all respect from the outside. This is what is happening to police agencies all across the nation – and I just don’t understand why the good cops wouldn’t want to fix this.
“I just don’t understand why the good cops wouldn’t want to fix this.”
The reason cops (and the “justice” system) protect other cops is that they need to maintain the illusion that cops are somehow different from everyone else. A cop has the “legal right” to initiate force against others which is immoral, people do not. So they are not held to the same moral standard everyone else is, with the “state” and the “social contract” used as an illusion to mask this difference.
In order to prevent people from seeing this they need to maintain, as much as the situation allows, the illusion that cops must be treated differently from you and me. Because if that veil falls, if the public see cops for what they are, mafia henchmen with the “state” being the gang, it will be much much worse for them than merely being seen as corrupt. Ditto for the government.
Yes, this guy is being prosecuted for what he did, but only because someone couldn’t get him out of that rap. But he is getting special treatment, and, as Maggie pointed out, they are playing up as much as possible that he killed a “criminal”. You can bet your bootlaces that if it were possible, the “bad” cops would have faked the self-defence argument. It’s been done before, planting of guns etc. It’s like the Vatican covering for pedophile priests, there is no other explanation than that the mystique of the church is more important than people being raped. In giving him special treatment the mystique of government is more important to them than people being murdered. Same for soldiers, where it is nigh on impossible to get prosecutions, let alone convictions, for murder or rape, and the same trick of dehumanizing victims – “Collateral damage” “fog of war” etc.
You and I would have been given the death penalty for this, no question, and the prosecutor would have laughed at us getting a jail sentence instead.
A “good” cop is only someone who has bought the lie that cops are somehow different from people. It only makes them less immoral than the “bad cop” who recognizes and deliberately abuses the power that they have. But it doesn’t make them good. So yes the “good” cops may condemn this guys murder, but they won’t protest a non-death sentence too strongly.
Now imagine if the roles were reversed. And the women murdered the cop. Now imagine the difference in protest from the “good” cops if (in some fantasy land) the prosecutor did not seek the death penalty for the murder of the cop.
Exactly.
Note: None of what I have written should be mistaken for my support of the death penalty. Or that someone is guilty until proved innocent.
That may be what they THINK – and if so, they’re delusional.
I really wish some cops read this blog – because I’d be interested in their opinions on this.
I DO think that cops serve an important purpose in society. I don’t think busting hookers is important. I don’t think arresting marijuana users is important … but those are things WE make them do (though many seem to take perverse joy in it). I think hunting down murderers is important – and, thieves.
So we have to have cops in some form.
How do you keep them straight though? Well, if every Mayor and Chief of Police sat down and gave young cops the “crucifixion speech” and instilled in them core values such as honor and integrity – I think things would be a lot better. However, if you give the crucifixion speech – you have to be willing to “crucify” when the need arises. I used to give it all the time and I used to emphasize … “I know you don’t believe me … you don’t think I’ll follow through with this – so give me one volunteer – just one guy is all I need to violate my rule because I need that guy to PROVE to the rest of you how serious I am about this.”
I usually got that FIRST “volunteer”. 😀
But I never got another. 😉 The CO would meet out any punishment I requested and I remember him telling me once … “Are you sure you want me to be this HARSH on this individual? Because I don’t think I really need to be.”
I told him – “I’m responsible for instilling and maintaining integrity in your CPO’s – and if you DO NOT meet out this punishment … then you’re undermining my ability to do that – which means, in the end Sir – YOU lose.”
When someone in a position of trust violates that trust – the whole organization is damaged by it – until it’s repaired with the blood of the offender. I’m using “blood” figuratively here – but you should get the point.
I’ve actually even seen people stand up – admit the mistake – take the harshest punishment – and be redeemed by it in the eyes of everyone. Yeah, the guy made a grievous mistake – and he paid a terribly harsh price for it – and took it on his feet. It’s a character builder and you can respect the guy again.
There should be “special considerations” for criminal violation by cops. You rape a woman – it’s twice the time in jail a regular “civilian” gets. You murder someone – it’s automatic death penalty.
People respect that. They can look at that and say – “yeah, that was a bad cop but – he doesn’t reflect on all cops because look at the punishment they doled out to him!”
This all assumes that cops, in the end, want to be respected and want to be honest enforcers of the law – which, I think your argument is … they really don’t. I hope you aren’t right about that but – maybe you are.
I would support harsher penalties for cops who break the law. But unless they start turning each other in, it won’t matter if you have the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk. No penalty is a deterrent if you never have to pay it.
“I thought Britain had outstanding National Healthcare? Why did she have to work for cancer treatment? Rhetorical question – I very well realize WHY she had to work!”
For every negative case you can find in the NHS you can find hundreds in which it has been a positive. I am one of the latter that would not be here today if it was not for the NHS. Any other system and there’s a good chance I would be a millionaire in debt – or dead.
The NHS here in the UK are only permitted to give treatments for specific conditions that have been approved by NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence); essentially they approve treatments on a cost/benefit ratio.
It’s probable that her specific treatment was not NICE approved, and not granted a discretionary exemption, therefore she had to pay privately for it. Which is very often expensive.
😭
Just spent a few minutes skimming the arguments of those supporting the criminalisation of sex work on that guest post by Brooke Magnanti. Fortunately I was sitting down when I read this:
‘As to your “Marxism” thesis, please.’
It’s one thing to advocate Marxism, yet another to not even realize you are advocating Marxism. Comparing trading sex services for compensation to slavery or oppression is straight out of the Marxist play-book, as is saying that a sex worker is selling someone else’s sexuality.
It’s all the same collectivist bullshit.
Is that Nikki Adams next to Shelia? Here she is kicking ass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtaEdI3aiwg
The guest post by Dr. Brooke was, nothing short of amazing, the comments were equally so. I occasionally read that post again and again as the sound bites from the neofems and the responses were educational as well as funny.
Remember girls, just “say no” to selling your sexuality!
Several things- Yes, the UK has the NHS, which, for all it’s failings, is better than the system we have here where only the wealthy get medical care. But there are expenses the NHS doesn’t cover, and she’s probably speaking of those.
Since I’m the only poster here who advocates socialism (although not old-line Marxism) I’ll address this:
“Comparing trading sex services for compensation to slavery or oppression is straight out of the Marxist play-book”
The difference is that one has no choice about slavery, or oppression. One can choose to sell sex. This is something Marx, being a Victorian gentleman, never quite understood. Like the current trafficking scamsters, he saw all prostitution as forced.
I agree with Antonio. But I’ll go a step more. Since cops are the force the state shows to it’s people, they want the cops to appear invulnerable, and randomly fearsome. Down deep, they want the public to think the cops can kill them without consequence. It’s another means of control.
Cops claim to be professional. But true professional are held responsible for their actions.
It’s still crazy for me and my neighbor inbetweeen us and jimmy knowing that we talked and shared with me all the while consciously knew and had weird vibes from jimmy ever since I moved in next to him. I pray for him and his then fiance Margarita and jimmys 2 kids …May Justice be served….I thought i was safe when I contacted him with the attempted breakins I had nextbdoor to him… The detectives told me you never know who you can trust…