WASHINGTON — Is this trip necessary?

By that I mean the sad, sordid procession of former call girls and humiliated “Johns” that constitute the ongoing prostitution trial in the District of Columbia known as the “D.C. Madam” case.

In this first week of the prosecution’s case against Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the dominant question is not whether prosecutors are proving that Palfrey operated an escort service that was a front for prostitution, but why they have pursued this expensive case against her when scores of “full service” escort services continue to operate full blast in the nation’s capital.

So far, the testimony has been titillating and embarrassing, but has not produced the political big names that some had hoped. Former “escorts” (who had been granted immunity and forced to testify) gave sheepish accounts of performing various sex acts for pay. Two local attorneys told of paying Palfrey’s employees for sex (one lawyer was a repeat customer when he was a student at Yale law school), then the two men pulled their coats over their heads to disguise their humiliation as they departed the court house.

The prosecutors have produced considerable evidence that some of Palfrey’s escorts engaged in sex for money, despite a clause in their contracts with her that said if they committed any illegal acts, they would be fired. The key issue will be whether prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Palfrey knew some of her girls were selling sex.

But the most perplexing question is why the prosecutors are pursuing this case. They have given no indication that the “DC Madam” case is part of a broader campaign against prostitution by the thriving escort business. No similar cases have been brought. Palfrey’s attorneys claim they are punishing her for giving them a hard time in an unrelated case. The government should not prosecute a citizen for such a reason, and if the prosecutors have a proper reason, they should declare what it is.

– Fred Graham, In Session senior editor