Should Johns’ Names Be Revealed to the Public?

In a recent CNN story about a Zumba instructor who was allegedly paid to have sex with men in her dance studio, the issue is raised about whether the names of Johns who are accused of soliciting sex from prostitutes should be released.

In any other crime, the identities of adults who are accused are not protected, so why should Johns’ names be? As CNN explains,

“The principle that court proceedings are public is essential to public confidence. If persons charged with crimes could withhold their identities, the public would not be able to monitor proceedings to observe whether justice has been done and to observe whether certain defendants may have received favored treatment,’ Justice Thomas Warren wrote in his decision.

But is this crime different because of the potential for the lives of the alleged perpetrators to be ruined?

What do you think? Should the names of alleged Johns be released to the public?



AP Photo/Joel Page


About The Good Feed Blog Editors


  1. John Anderson says:

    The identities of the alleged perpetrators and the accusers should always be released once someone is charged with a crime. Otherwise, additional victims would not be able to come forward nor could individuals possessing exculpatory evidence. I think it’s all a public record anyway when someone is charged so we’re really only asking should the names be made readily available to the public?

  2. All those people who say no to naming them. It’s totally ok to name the woman right? And show her photo? And say where she worked? Of course shame her, but not them. The question is not whether prostitution should be legal (it should), but since it’s not in this case, then they should be named. Just like every other offender is named. For those who are worried about ruining their reputations…what about hers?! Hypocrites.

    • If you’ll read the comments more closely, you’ll see that most of us are OK with the defendant in a criminal prosecution being named… the point is that the johns were apparently NOT charged with anything.

      That’s not hypocrisy; it’s just a standard you don’t like.

    • I don’t think she should have been named either, what is the point? Public witchhunt?

      “For those who are worried about ruining their reputations…what about hers?! Hypocrites.”
      I worry about both, but the question was should the Johns be named. But thanks for calling me a hypocrite without knowing my position.

    • Ollie:
      “All those people who say no to naming them. It’s totally ok to name the woman right?”
      Of course not. Why should it be OK to shame anybody publicly for consensual sex? I am against laws banning prostitution, and if those laws exist I am for not enforcing them.

  3. Fuck no. Why should they release the names? Destroy some reputations because they went to a prostitute? If the prostitute was forced into it, charge the damn pimp. If the client knew they were forced, charge them, if not then I don’t think it’s worth charging them. The fact that prostitution is illegal is pitiful, if people are willing to do that work and are not forced then they should be able to. Bring in unions n full safety for them. Simply paying for sex should never be a crime.

  4. Yeah, if it’s illegal and your being accused of a crime. It’s ironic that if they had lavished her with gifts equal in value to the cash they paid her instead, then it wouldn’t be prostitution would it?

    • Just read something about this. It seems that they were allowed to realease the names of the johns only, no other info, like age or address isn’t working out for men who aren’t involved but have similar names. One retired Sherriff had to disconnect his phone he was so bombarded with phone calls!

  5. wellokaythen says:

    In this case, the list of names was so long that it might not make much difference. If every man in town is on the list, then maybe it’s not as embarrassing.

  6. wellokaythen says:

    I think prostitution should be legalized, but if it is a crime, it is a crime involving more than one person. If someone pays for sex and that is an illegal act, then two people are involved in the crime, so they are both accused of a crime. It’s the whole exchange that’s illegal, not just the sex worker side breaking the law. If you are accused of receiving stolen goods, then the name of the person accused of giving you the stolen goods should be also be public.

    If it’s illegal and those men knowingly did something illegal, then THEY are the ones who are jeopardizing their future, not the court system. There is no protection of confidentiality for doing something illegal. Hookers don’t count as medical professionals…..

    Now, if the men involved were cooperating with the police and make a deal with prosecutors, I can see anonymity being an acceptable part of a plea deal. Perhaps there are quid pro quo reasons why their names would be withheld.

    I always wondered what went on in Zumba classes. It sounds much more interesting now….

  7. Joey Joe Joe says:

    Speaking of hypocrisy…

    “A grand jury indicted Wright on 106 counts related to the alleged prostitution business, including invasion of privacy charges for allegedly filming some of her sessions”

    She was charged with invasion of privacy for filming such acts, but its not private to reveal the names of those “Accused”. Sounds like she was trying to set up some of the wealthier clients for blackmail.

  8. That this is even a crime in America is beyond belief. The fact the article uses terms like johns, stigmatizing people shows how far it has to go in looking at sex workers and their clients with any kind of sense.

  9. Joey Joe Joe says:

    If they’re being charged, and it’s being reported, then sure. However, it’s akin to saying if you charge a drug dealer, you should release the names of everyone who bought drugs from them.

  10. Oh course the names should be released!

    Public trials are a part of the foundation of a free society. There is no reason to keep the names of the accused a secret: if the trial is truly public then the accused will be just as publicly vindicated as they were stained in the first place.

    Of course, this also needs to apply to the accusers as well, something that our media has been terrible at acknowledging. It’s only fair for the accuser to be scorned openly when the inevitable “not guilty” verdict is returned. This is just as true in sex crimes as it is in any other category of crime.

    The solution is MORE publicity, not less.

  11. Yes, publish the names! Let’s find out which judges, lawyers, cops, soccer dads, and upstanding members of the community use prostitutes….

    Such hypocrisy!

    • How so? It’s only hypocrisy if there’s something morally wrong with renting prostitutes.

      And of course, there isn’t.

  12. Alternate says:

    Yes. The name should be given to the public.

    Actually, I always want the names of accused be revealed. The name is important for understanding a lot of matters in this cases. You could look them up and follow the proceedings.

    As for the lives of the alleged perpetrators, it would be hard for them but not exactly ruined. It is also their fault that they put their reputation in jeopardy.

  13. Just saying says:

    the lives of the alleged perpetrators were ruined when they chose to do something illegal.

    If they don’t want their name smeared or their lifestyles destroyed then they shouldn’t be breaking the law.

    They should own up to what they did and face the consequenses of their actions like GROWN A** HUMAN BEINGS.

    • “the lives of the alleged perpetrators were ruined when they chose to do something illegal.”

      You typed a word in that sentence that you seem to be ignoring.

      (Hint: it starts with an A)

  14. but publishing the name/photo/workplace of this woman is totes ok rite?

  15. Banning prostitution is illogical and hypocritical, people can give people money and people can have consensual sex. Many intimate relationships involve some dealls of the form: if you do this for me, I will have this kind of sex with you (not that I find those transactions particularly healthy, but who am I to judge).
    Hence: No.

  16. If they’re being charged with a crime, sure. As part of the proceedings of some other case, I don’t see the point. It would be like demanding the client list of a bakery that was selling crack on the side.

Speak Your Mind