Keep shamed Spitzer out of jail

The schadenfreude unleashed in the twenty-four hours following the New York Times' discovery of Eliot Spitzer's salacious escapades was impressive. Spitzer made his name as a brash New York District Attorney who went to great lengths to win cases, especially against executives on Wall Street. Critics, especially conservatives, said he used the media unfairly, sullying opponents' names to coerce them into quicker settlements.

Though I would like to claim that I am either too open-minded (or too indecisive) to have a defined or definable set of political beliefs, I view government through an libertarian lens, often to a fault. I once started a fight with my roommates about 15 minutes into The Untouchables because I started decrying Prohibition, and, by extension, nearly all state intervention. (I make that transition about as quickly as Ray Allen puts up a shot off a pick. Just give me the ball and I'll shoot it.) When I see an article about policing vices, my knee jerks with impressive vigor. The latest quibbling over casinos between Gov. Patrick and House Speaker DiMasi, makes me wonder why no one suggests giving an individual simply the freedom to gamble; when I read about trans-fat bans a part of me - the gelatinous, BK loving part of me - dies.

When I first read about Eliot Spitzer, I immediately expected to say, "oh, well prostitution should be legal, consenting adults," etc. I am perfectly content to say in the newspaper of a Catholic university that the state should not punish something just because the church considers it a sin.

The story, however, struck me as sad. I don't recall feeling this way about any of the other recent politicians - Rep. Larry Craig, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick - who have become involved in various amatory scandals. His wife had to stand by him as he gave his intentionally ambiguous apology, and his three children will face a media onslaught. Maybe that could lead to a spurious consequentialist argument for the legalization of prostitution - if society did not root out its adulterers, many could go on in blissful matrimonial ignorance and perhaps die a little happier, allowing for a greater good for a greater number of people - but that did not assuage any of the feelings I had about the case. Something about calling on prostitutes compounds the sadness in adultery.

While placing prostitution below adultery on a personal hierarchy of wrongs is more emotional than rational, I think most people think that Spitzer, as he himself said, "acted in a way that violates … my, or any, sense of right and wrong." It is a sad thing and one society would not wish to encourage. But society is not the state. Though I hesitate to say I think that prostitution should be allowed, value judgments of individuals should not entail the policies of the state. Prostitution may be a bad thing, but we embark on an endless trail if we wish to legislate morality. Should we punish adultery, tear down burlesque clubs, reinstate prohibition, eradicate cigarettes, ban Maxim? Where a majority's value judgments end, or should end, is entirely unclear. If two consenting adults engage in an act, then we may, and often should, judge and condemn their acts, but that does not translate into making them illegal. Illegality did not stop Spitzer. The government could potentially cut down on the number of abusive pimps and underage individuals involved, and better ensure safety. Just because I think prostitution should be legal does not mean I think it's a good thing, but that does not necessitate banning it. I am not being disingenuous here; I am trying to be logically consistent.

People have mocked Spitzer's comment that this should be a "private matter" in light of his very public prosecution of prostitution rings. Watching his wife stand next to him as he confessed in front of a national audience, I'd tend to agree with the governor.

Neil Johnson is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.