Re: I am not sure about the sentence
>He didn't just donate a bunch of money, he actually spent time in the community doing the good work himself.
But was he helping the community or stoking demand for his product? Ok that's a low blow. I'd be curious as to how far this logic extends. If I give to the poor but put a hit out on my wife who is stealing from a charity, do I get a free pass?
I know I'm old fashioned but when you run classes on how to avoid getting AIDS and run a company which promotes and profits from massive amounts of risky sexual activity with multiple partners my hypocrisy alarm goes off. This is Uber-thinking. Don't have a local pimp, have a pimp in The Cloud! It's so different! Your local pimp probably makes very little, we make $10m so we are more successful and must be better! "We pimp you out without baseball bats" is not a mitigation of money laundering crimes.
>His company, Easy Rent Systems, Inc, pled guilty to charges of conspiring to launder money and has given up its assets. Counts of racketeering and money laundering against Hurant were dismissed at prosecutors' request.
Or perhaps the light sentence is for quickly giving up his assets to the government? Is the government using sentencing threats for financial gain? If I commit a crime but do it badly and don't have $10m to give the government, would I get the same treatment?
This smells of an unholy union of plea deals and trendy ideology. Dismissing anti-prostitution measures as "going against consensual trade" is not really following the spirit of the law. If you don't want the measures, get them repealed, then we'll see where that actually leads.