Why Do We Throw Prostitutes in Prison?

[happyslug]

121. I did simplify the history

While the US Supreme Court and the whole court system went through a review of the Common Law from about 1860 to the 1930s, various justification were used for the change. This include the concept of "Substantial Due Process", this included that the States could NOT interfere with the Rights of its citizens for such restrictions (including Maximum hours one can work, minimum wages and other working conditions) violated the right to Due Process of people.

As a whole, the concept of Substantial Due Process was bad, anti-labor, anti- poor, Anti-Regulation etc but from it the Supreme Court developed our whole concept of that the Bill of Rights apply not only to the Federal Government by to the States. i.e. For a State to interfere with a person's freedom of speech would violate that person's right to due process of the law and thus violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution that forbids the States from denying anyone Due Process. Technically the Due Process clause was to make sure all Americas could NOT be railroaded in a court of law, but the Court expanded it to include situations outside the court room. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly only apply to the States through the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.

While the Federal Courts was expanding Due Process to include business transactions (and some anti-Labor rulings) the State Courts were re-writing the Common Law to be more pro-business and pro-industry. While some of the old Common Law Rules no longer made sense in the late 1800s, the whole changes adopted were often adopted to help business as oppose to regular citizens. In many ways when you read about people complaining today about the "Activist" Court making law, it is often the Court accepting the fact that the Changes made between 1860 and the 1930s were BAD and the pre-1800 Common Law Rule should be reinstated for it is a workable rule.

Please note I used the term 1800, for English Courts started to change the Common Law Rules about 1800, the American courts took a little longer, thus for most America law the change started about 1860. This is all Judge made Law.

At the same time, State Legislatures started to rewrite the laws at the same time. One of the reason for the confusion as to the Common Law was different States adopted changes in the Common Law at different times and to different degrees. The Courts retain a lot of old common law, but then change those laws that the Courts found no longer fitted the situation in the late 1800s. The State Legislature also made changes, often under the same pressure from the business and industry communities.

Thus these three movements, the expansion of Federal Law under the concept of Substantial Due Process, the State Courts adopting rules that were more pro-business and the State Legislature also making changes, sometime to favor business, sometimes to restrict business were all occurring at the same time and interacting with each other.

At the same time (About 1900) the Progressive movement started in America, mostly as a reaction to the above pro-business changes in the law. The progressives wanted to impose restrictions on business, to protect most people actually living in America. Labor unions started, mostly as joint-help associations (i.e. we join together and if one of us dies, the rest take care of the deceased wife and children, these groups later became the nucleus for most unions in the US and why by 1900 Industry was making a overt attack on such groups).

I am just pointing out my comments were a simplification I did for this discussion. The actual changes in the law are more complex then I made it sound in my threads. Just a warning to do your own double checking of what I wrote so if someone brings it up you are NOT caught using what they consider "Wrong" even through all it is is a simplification for purpose of a debate.

Side note: One such self help group that I mentioned above was (and still is) the Hibernians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Order_of_Hibernians

When the Molly McGuires trials started in the 1870s, it was clear the Coal bosses wanted to drive the Hiberians out of the Coal Fields. If you were NOT tied in with the Hibernians and charged, the charges were dismissed, but if you were you were hanged. It is debated to this day if the Molly McGuires actually existed, or was an invention by the coal operators to destroy the Hibernians for out of the Hibernians came all of the efforts to unionize the coal mines. Some people concede that the Molly McGuires did not exist, but the coal bosses believe they did and that was why the trials took place. The Actual murders the accused were charged with happened, but it is unlikely it was anything more then personal fight (and probably with someone else, not charged for the investigators wanted to CHARGE the people they did NOT anyone NOT tied in with the Hibernians).

Side Note: One of the characteristic of many small towns in the US, are civil war cannons located in their town squares. Why are there so such cannons in large cities? Most were removed after Strikers used them during the 1877 General Strike (One was brought to bare on troops in Pittsburgh) and another was used by Strikers in the 1892 Homestead Strike. Due to these actions, the Cannons were removed to Civil War Battlefields (Unlike modern cannons, the old muzzle loading cannons of the Civil War period could be used even today, the chance of them exploding is much higher then in the 1860s, but structurally they are so simple, all you need a black powder to use them even today).

More on the Molly McGuires (I lean to the Molly Maguires never existing in the US except in the mind of the coal mine owners, but others have other opinions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires