She got a bang out of it.

Ha! Brilliant!

I submit to you that Spitzer was involved with it to the degree he was specifically because it was illegal. He bet his marriage, his power, his reputation, millions upon millions of dollars, and more, all on the illusion that he knew the law and law enforcement and how to use his position, well enough not to get caught. He lost. A spectacularly quick meltdown, to be sure, but one of his own doing.

Similarly, Palfrey was in the game specifically because it was illegal. She got a bang out of it. She couldn't deal with being on the losing end of that risk. This is the fault of the law? I don't think so.

You mean like national publicity and media branding? Yeah, that might be a difference.

I think that's exactly what Dave is saying. Is her death a result of the sentencing or the publicity, or other factors we don't know about? I'm guessing it's the two I mentioned here, but we can't presume to know that.

There are thousands of men and women arrested for prostitution and pandering who don't take their own lives. Clearly, there was something different about Ms. Palfrey.

You mean like national publicity and media branding? Yeah, that might be a difference.

Megan McArdle is “physically sick” that the DC Madam has committed suicide, driven to do so by a state using its resources to hound a woman engaging in consensual commerce rather than tracking down violent criminals. James Poulos wonders why he should care that a lawbreaker has killed herself.

That's interesting. How does Megan know why the woman took her own life? Claiming that it's a reasonable inference is a stretch. There are thousands of men and women arrested for prostitution and pandering who don't take their own lives. Clearly, there was something different about Ms. Palfrey.

I think it's sad when anyone takes their own life. Is it always the system's fault when they do so?

I'd need more information before leaping to that conclusion. An equally valid conclusion could be that she took her own life because she was hounded by reporters. What would be the appropriate remedy in that case?

It comes down to this, as I said then:

I would have to ask, if there is ANY item that our purist “libertarian” friends would consider worthy of banning. .. anything at all… and on what basis they’d ban it. After all, nuclear warheads being smuggled into the country would most certainly find a buyer. Would they have been raising quite the stink they are now? After all Nuclear warheads don’t harm anyone. It’s how they’re used, that creates the situation of harm. Right? If the answer comes back”Yes” you’ve exposed the flaw in the argument; Selective process. If they answer, ‘No, nothing should be banned in a free society’ then you’ve exposed them as bloody fools. There’s no middle ground here.