Do transgressions with prostitutes negate the New York Governor and former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's success as a crime fighter?

  • I think the success of these politicians is tarnished by their behavior.

    Any person, no matter how high up the ladder, who has a job related to making and enforcing laws has to be free of committing crimes themselves. In our society, prostitution is considered a crime. If these men who are crime fighters in their professions did the crime, maybe they need to reconsider if it is a crime or not. They cannot be considered law enforcers if they are breaking the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.

    Posted by: RigidJamal55
  • Eliot Spitzer has negated his own success as a crime fighter by his use of prostitutes, because he shows himself not to believe in the law he purports to be upholding.

    Regardless of a politician's own viewpoint on the correctness or morality of a given law, he must follow that law himself, if he expects to be taken seriously by his constituents. Eliot Spitzer has shown by his transgressions that he considers himself to be above the law, and it is impossible to fight crime while committing crime. Moreover, the example he sets for the public is one that seems to promote the committing of crime, if one is able to get away with it.

    Posted by: ClearAron69
  • I think such actions are unbecoming of a governor.

    I think as a politician, you set an example for those you govern, and as such, I concur with the question. The good that he has done does not outweigh the negative, and I believe that he should resign over such a scandal. If I recall correctly, he even tried to pass a bill against prostitution, which makes this crime even more of an insult to the public.

    Posted by: AboriginalKing28
  • Former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is not a crime fighter because he was caught doing the exact types of things he was supposedly fighting.

    There is no way that Eliot Spitzer's transgressions should be viewed as having no effect on his status as a crime fighter. He may have been fighting crime in the public eye, but it is obvious in his private life he was committing the very crimes he was fighting. There is no place for this in leadership in the government.

    Posted by: M0r3Interior
  • Yes, because you can not only fight some crime, while ignoring others.

    It does not matter how big or small a law is, the law is the law, if you are fighting crime. If he wanted to be with some prostitutes, he should have fought to legalize prostitution, or stayed away. If he is willing to work outside of the system to get what he wants in one case, it does raise the question of what was he willing to do outside of the law in other matters.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • Yes, to a certain extent, it makes him look like a hypocrite.

    When people elect an official, they expect that individual to behave according to the laws that govern us all. Cracking down on crime is admirable, but when you're involved with criminal activity yourself, you're being a hypocrite. People feel as if they've been duped, that they have put their faith into someone and that someone made a fool out of them.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • I believe Eliot Spitzer is a hypocrite and lived a double life, one of a crime fighter and the other one of an immoral weak man.

    Eliot Spitzer lost his credibility and his merit for being a successful crime fighter by doing exactly what he chastised others for doing. He engaged in criminal behavior that is sanctioned by the law and despite his previous work he is a criminal and should be seen and treated as one. He is said to have spent somewhere around $80,000 on call girls, and paying for sex is a crime.

    Posted by: ErastM3II0w
  • I feel Eliot Spitzer's successes must be viewed in the context of him believing he's above the law himself.

    It's hard to look at a "crime fighter" with the same respect, given evidence that he himself is also a criminal. It is not the job of the Attorney General to decide which laws should and should not be obeyed, but rather to uphold the laws that are passed elsewhere in the government. Not only is a high ranking elected official not above the law, but they should be held to an even higher standard due to the fact that they were elected to represent the electorate, to be our avatar within the government. It is simply not acceptable to consider yourself above those who hired you, and who you ultimately report to.

    Posted by: R0ddFrog
  • He committed crimes, lied about it, and so cannot be effective in fighting crimes.

    One who has a moral voice with regard to crime must avoid committing crimes himself. Even more important is that he does not appear hypocritical by hiding what he's done or lying about it. The fact that he's done all of this means he's an ineffective crime fighter as no one will take him seriously.

    Posted by: AlondraH
  • Job success trumps personal foibles.

    Spitzer's accomplishments far outweigh any damage done by not following the law. His wife and children are the ones most affected. He did the right thing by resigning. The loss was to New York State and even the country because he kept some federal agencies on their toes. He was an amazing public servant.

  • Transgressions with a prostitute should not be seen as a reason to judge a person's job capability.

    Prostitution is what it is: prostitution. In Las Vegas, it is legal, yet, in the rest of the country, for some reason, it is a crime. This is one of the silliest issues in our country. Men and women, alike, seek the companionship of prostitutes, constantly, but it does not affect who they are and what they do in their life. If Eliot Spitzer had gone to Vegas to visit a brothel, then it would have been fine. But, when it's not in Vegas, he is a bad person? I think not.

    Posted by: ObedientMervin
  • No, I don't believe that Eliot Spitzer's transgressions with prostitutes negate his crime fighting success, because his misdeeds do not change what good he did.

    While Eliot Spitzer's actions involving prostitutes is certainly embarrassing and hypocritical, they still don't negate the real criminal cases that he pursued and prosecuted as New York's Attorney General and Governor. If one is to examine those cases, outside of the person behind the prosecution, then it doesn't matter if that unknown person is involved in illegal or immoral acts of his or her own. Spitzer was successful in these cases, which clearly shows a certain talent and persistence for justice.

    Posted by: LuxuriantKelly
  • No, transgressions with prostitutes do not negate Eliot Spitzer's success as a crime fighter because, no matter his failings, he was still successful in fighting crime.

    Eliot Spitzer's success as a crime fighter has no bearing on the man's personal failings. Liaisons with a prostitute do not negate the tremendous success he had in combating criminal elements in New York. In this case, the bad does not overshadow the good. And, though his name may be tarnished, it still does not hide his successful efforts.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • I disagree, there are worse crimes in New York than prostitution, they should make those a priority.

    There are so many crimes more serious than prostitution and they should work on other crimes that are more of a threat to the general population.

    Posted by: lachienfemme
  • They render him hypocritical, but his achievements as a public official should be judged on their merits.

    Some have made a good case that some of Spitzer's pressuring tactics toward Wall Street figures were unfair. But his scrutiny of an absurdly under-regulated industry was prescient, as the subsequent Great Recession, rooted so largely in the sneaky derivatives of the financial sector, was to demonstrate. Sometimes, especially when confronting powerful interests, it takes a law enforcement approach (when legally warranted) to protect the public interest, and Spitzer's accomplishments in this regard will probably stand the test of time. His prosecution of prostitution outfits, in view of his own behavior, is particularly disgraceful. But people are not always one thing only. They can do good things and bad things, and perhaps learn lessons from their mistakes. In any event, the bad things do not negate the meaning of the good, even though they diminish the person's stature. Spitzer's being driven from office strikes me as disproportionate and unfortunate.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • No, I do not believe so, because the crime was not a violent crime.

    I don't think it does, because it was a mistake that involved a crime that was not violent. I am sure Spitzer is against violent crimes and is against prostitution, but one mistake should not negate a lifetime of work.

    Posted by: eastandnow
  • While I find the governor's actions quite deplorable for a member of public office, they do not somehow magically erase all the good and progress he made against the city's crime.

    I give the following analogy for my opinion: professional basketball player, Lebron James, recently left his hometown team of his entire career for another high profile team in Miami. Though his decision is seen by some as disloyal and to negate all the success he had in Ohio, it does not in any way remove the records from the team or any of the members of the roster or staff. Though it may influence future dealings and team matters, it cannot change the history, only the lens through which it is viewed. The same case for the former New York politician.

    Posted by: 5hc4mGira

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.