• hogunner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No idea if you’re right or not but that’s not what I meant. I meant they don’t have to hunt down the johns, the johns already provided all the possible info the prosecutors would need to find them.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think what the person above was implying is that having your name on that list is not de-facto evidence of participation. I'm sure the DOJ has more than just that one piece of evidence if they've already made arrests, because sex workers in America are nothing if not extremely careful about how they conduct their business to avoid exposing themselves or their clients to law enforcement stings.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How exactly does that help? It's not like they are going to do stake outs on these guys. It's not enough probable cause for any type of warrant or anything.

      It would help support a case if you already had one, but as an entry point it's all but completely useless, if not actually completely useless.

      Which is why they won't release the names, because doing so would open them up to lawsuits. All risk no reward.

    • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are Johns (and sex workers) even worth prosecuting? I think the DOJ is interested in a organized prostitution ring and it’s leaders, involved in conspiracy and money laundering, not a few dudes paying for (adult) sex.

      I don’t think they’ll waste their time.