* Systemic _knowing_ commercial promotion of prostitution.
* An elaborate internal management process focused on concealing evidence of their knowledge of prostitution, including internal employee training.
* _Knowing_ commercial promotion of child sex trafficking, in ads that included photos, in which their policy was to strip out keywords indicative of child sex trafficking while still running the ads.
* A long series of money laundering schemes to collect money from sex traffickers without routing those transactions through banks and credit card processing services.
* An elaborate series of financial moves designed to conceal their assets from prosecutors.
This isn't Craigslist. They ran the site like a criminal conspiracy, which is what it was.
I imagine they've plead guilty because they would have lost calamitously at trial, and the sentences they'd have received after a jury conviction would have been horrific. I'd imagine that if you were Carl Ferrer, you'd be thinking, "the prosecutors are going to show the jury a bunch of ads depicting children known to have been trafficked, with evidence that we knowingly massaged the ad to ensure it could be published for our profit".
There must have been quite a few people involved in something that complex. I find it mind-boggling that so many people could live with themselves while profiting from, and enabling child sex trafficking. I accept that they clearly could, but assuming it’s not just staffed by sociopaths, it’s hard to imagine how they could. How did they rationalize it? How did they sleep at night?
I try to imagine the answers, but I guess I lack the mental horsepower to pull that off. I keep defaulting to anger or sorrow or confusion, and just hoping that they’re all sick. I don’t really believe that though, so I’m left wondering “how” a lot.
But looking into it, they were stripping out hundreds of words from ads. This was being done to avoid prosecution for allowing prostitution ads on their platform. However, the senate's report and all the media focus on 5 or 6 words that have underage connotations, in an effort to scandalize you.
Read for yourself: https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017.01.10%20...
It sounds like you are morally outraged and quite shocked to imagine that such a thing as prostitution could exist, and that you are clamoring for the government to sweep it under the rug. Banning and hiding prostitution does not make it go away, it just makes it more dangerous for the prostitutes. Your analysis here is based on moral outrage and your credulous reading of a report sensationalized to make some prosecutor's career.
I support legalizing prostitution, but that "only problematic bullet point" (where they knowingly covered up child sex trafficking) is reason enough to take down the site and prosecute the owners. It's ridiculous to say the focus on that is "an effort to scandalize you" — that alone is both legally and morally wrong, regardless of the rest of the charges, and they should be punished for it.
* They had a keyword filter that automatically stripped certain words (like Lolita and teenage) from an ad before it was posed. Usage of these words doesn't necessarily prove that the ad was for child sex trafficking. After all in Hollywood women are teenage heartthrobs into their 30s. I'm not sure the reason why they had this filter, but a poster in a previous thread said it was requested by law enforcement.
* Because they facilitated prostitution their credit card facilities were removed by VISA/Mastercard and so they forced prostitutes to use bitcoin to buy ads. I think this is what the money laundering charge is relating to.
I think that back page made a significant amount of money from prostitution ads. Because that is illegal in most of the US, they went through these elaborate processes (aka criminal conspiracy) to protect themselves from criminal charges. If they were knowingly hiding child sex trafficking they should have the book thrown at them. But at this stage, from what I have seen from what has been alleged there is nothing concrete to support that.
I'm not sure there exists a 'fair' system that can operate without some sort of jury, but as long as there's a human element no trial has a guaranteed outcome.
In addition, you’re oversimplifying why people agree to plea deals. Lawyers are expensive, and a poor person might prefer to just go to jail for a short time rather than spend thousands of dollars for an uncertain outcome. Even if they are confident they would win in a jury trial, that’s still thousands of dollars in fees to their lawyer.
This was literally my point, jury trials are uncertain. Except it applies even in cases where people have millions of dollars to burn. A possible 40 years in prison or 5 years under house arrest?
Though of course, as I was typing I was reminded of the Android case. And countless other cases where a judge was the unknown factor, so really, it doesn't matter how much lawyers cost. Any trial will always be an unknown until someone can code a deterministic judge bot.
I really advise you to read up on some of the literature about plea deals; there are very few people who think that they are something we should have at the scale that we have them, or something that we should have “as long as” we have jury trials. The prevalence of plea deals in the American criminal justice system is primarily due to the fact that there are simply too many crimes for our courts and public defenders to handle promptly (an incentive for prosecutors) and that legal representation is so expensive (an incentive for defendants, and also for shady prosecutors).
Here’s a blog post on the ACLU’s website about it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarceration/its-not-just-pr...