http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/SB00094I.HTM.
19Trees
Originally Posted by 19Trees
Thanks for the link to the Bill text. It is an interesting read for several reason, starting with the surprising fact that this is a proposed addition to the Texas CIVIL Code and not the Criminal Code although it repeatedly references the Criminal Code for definitions, possibly confusing some readers. What this bill does is authorize a person who has been compelled (as defined by the Criminal Code) to commit prostitution (as defined in the Criminal Code) to sue the person or persons who so compelled them in civil court for damages. It is an idea that some people may have a hard time "wrapping their mind around" - it would allow a person who was, for instance, beaten into doing sex work to sue *the pimp who beat him or her. There is no presumption about the gender of the victim/plaintiff.
The standard of proof in Civil cases, you will recall, is a preponderance of the credible evidence rather than the much more difficult (when a rich man is being tried anyway) beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in Criminal cases. So it would be potentially more difficult for a pimp to defend himself against the consequences of his actions in a law suit than a prosecution brought by a prosecutor.
Another interesting set of provisions excludes as a defense from a law suit filed under this new provision of the Civil Code, should it pass, the absence of a conviction or prosecution of the defendant for prostitution related charges under the Criminal Code and whether the defendant:
(B)**is related to the victim by affinity or
* consanguinity, has been in a consensual sexual relationship with
* the victim, or has resided with the victim in a household; or
* *******************(C)**has paid or otherwise compensated the victim
* for prostitution; or
* *************(2)**the victim:
* *******************(A)**volunt arily engaged in prostitution before
* or after the compelled prostitution occurred; or
* *******************(B)**did not attempt to escape, flee, or otherwise
* terminate contact with the defendant at the time the compelled
* prostitution allegedly occurred.
While I am not an attorney or even a non-attorney spokesperson for one I think a pimp sued under the provision of this Act, should it pass and be signed by Governor Rick, would probably be well advised to sell his mink hat and coat and settle out of court,
Now about that provision. Sec. 98A.002 (3) which reads:
LIABILITY. (a) *A defendant is liable to a
* victim of compelled prostitution, as provided by this chapter, for
* damages arising from the compelled prostitution if the defendant:
(3)**publishes an advertisement that the defendant
* knows or reasonably should know constitutes promotion of
* prostitution or aggravated promotion of prostitution, and the
* publication of the advertisement results in compelling
* prostitution with respect to the victim.
All of which means, IMHO, that posting a BP ad is sufficient evidence that the pimp defendant is liable for damages if the jury believes the prostitution that resulted from the publication of the ad was “compelled”. That part appears to be a matter of whose word the jury is willing to take: the victim of the guy in the mink hat or the guy wearing the mink hat himself. Whose credibility would you bet on? I do not see any liability at all for the media entity which “published” the ad. I’m quite sure that the owners of all such media operating in Texas are taking advice of counsel now from guys who do charge by the hour.
Anyway, Senator Van de Putte is a Democrat and this is a State controlled by a Republican Party that opposes anything proposed by any Democrat anywhere regardless of its merits. That is even before referring to its Prime Principal which is “The businessman is always right.” Clearly in a dispute between a pimp and a sex worker the pimp is the businessman and the sex worker is only a worker so whom the Party would favor is not hard to predict.
