Does the punishment of victimless crimes violate the inherent freedom of individuals?

[shockboom]

We live in a country that prides itself on providing freedom and equality for all, yet in most states, victimless crimes (drug use, prostitution, etc) are still being prosecuted. Clearly some states have made strides on decriminalizing low level drugs, but this is the edge case. For prostitution, outside of Nevada, and some counties that turn a blind eye at strip clubs, prostitution is still a serious crime.

In a capitalistic free market that prides itself on freedom, how can we justify punishment of a victimless crime that serves the willing interests of both parties. These laws are merely rooted in religious or personal ideals.

Beyond prosecuting the dealer/buyer or escort/john, how are the advertising platforms not subject to the same standards? https: //nightshift.co (Not Safe For Work), for example is the search engine for finding escorts, and they operate and plain daylight, without scrutiny.

The laws, and lack of continuity, seem inherently non-American.

[Sage_Rat]

Selling yourself into slavery.

[CarnalK]

Welcome to the Straight Dope. Just FYI, we have a “2 click rule” about NSFW links. You have to make the link unclickable (force a cut’n’paste) or put it in spoiler boxes or something.

Anyways, generally these laws are defended based on the social harm the crimes cause, thus denying that they are victimless. In the case of prostitution specifically, the fact that many prostitutes are coerced into selling themselves is the usual line. Why we don’t just enforce laws about illegal coercion (blackmail, extortion) is generally not brought up for some reason.

[Roderick_Femm]

I don’t think the OP is entirely incorrect in calling prostitution a victimless crime. If there is physical coercion involved, then that is what should be prosecuted. It’s just easier (and more socially satisfying) to outlaw the entire range of activity, because many people find it disgusting to think about. This is similar to the way that sodomy used to be against the law. Why? Because it was icky.

On the other hand (and there really is another hand) there is the economic side of things. Because many groups of people are stuck in poverty based on things like ethnic background* and may find prostitution a relatively easy way to earn money, then it becomes more of a class and even racial issue, where those who have take economic advantage of those who don’t have in order to get sexual favors. In this sense, outlawing prostitution has the effect of limiting this at least to those who are willing to break the law. This is why we find sexual tourism so disturbing, where some relatively rich outsider comes in and buys sex from the local people, then leaves.

In a perfectly ordered society this might not be an issue, but we don’t have that, and we don’t seem to know how to get it. So calling prostitution victimless is not so cut and dried. I should have the right to be a high-priced call girl who can pick and choose my clients; but should I have the same right to stand on a street-corner (where I need protection from a pimp), sell myself to anyone who wants me, and then give a large percentage of my earnings to that pimp?

Drugs are a different kind of issue. If drugs were legal and generally available (if regulated like alcohol), the war on drugs would dry up, prison populations would shrink, we would need less law enforcement, marijuana grow houses would go away, and so on. But there are other social consequences of more people being able to ruin their lives with drugs. I think on the whole that sensible regulation is the way to go, along with making people responsible for their own lives to the extent that they can’t expect to be rescued from physical or financial ruin that they went into with their eyes wide open.

*I think this is an unfortunate reality in our place and time, and I don’t know what to do about it.

[shockboom]

Thanks for the heads up on posting rules. Tried to edit, but it’s apparently past the window. Hopefully the moderator can help.

In terms of coercion, I understand that it happens, but it’s difficult to create rules around an ill-defined edge-case scenario.

I suspect that people in the janitorial arts would prefer not cleaning up after people, and giving out foot massages doesn’t seem overly attractive either, but we all make tradeoffs based on the personal options. The vast majority of the goods we consume are made in overseas factories that likely operate off far more intense coercion. Coercion for one is often survival for another.

For the happy scenario of a high end escort (selecting the self-serving scenario), making $1000/hr could seem like a great tradeoff to many. Should their ability to navigate a free market be taken away by the actions or coercion of others?

Transparency is the best way to shine light in dark alleys.

[CarnalK]

But coercion isn’t really an ill-defined edge case. There is a lot of thinking that the Netherlands legalization of prostitution has been a boon for criminal groups importing pros into the country.

Once, prostitution was confined to a small area near the port. The brothels were usually run by older women who had retired from the trade. But a report prepared for the mayor’s office last year said that in the past 20 years, power had shifted from madams to Dutch and Eastern European pimps.

[Blaster_Master]

To play devil’s advocate, these are not necessarily my views, there are arguments out there that drug use an prostitution are not victimless crimes.

Looking at drugs first, there’s other costs associated with drug use besides some guy just sitting around stoned eating Chees in his apartment. For instance, if someone decides to do hard drugs, several of them have major negative mental and physical side-effects that then a drain on those support systems. For many drug users, it potentially makes them less functional members of society than if they were not drug users. Worse, for thos get addicted to hard and expensive drugs, they may result to theft and violence to maintain their habits. To some extent, the idea that, even if one doesn’t have kids, we all still benefit from public schools, the idea that we all benefit from having heathy, productive, law abiding citizens could be an argument that the victim isn’t a given person or persons, as it might in many other crimes, but it’s society as a whole.

Obviously, there’s counter-arguments to this, such that there’s a big difference between someone smoking pot occassionally, and a hardcore heroin or meth addict, and maybe a better line could be drawn, or maybe we just find ways to minimize the social impact of people who choose to engage in those activities. To some extent, we already do, maybe that’s enough or maybe we could do more.

And as far as prostitution, it’s a bit different. In theory, a woman choosing to sell her body with coercion isn’t being victimized, but in a lot of cases there is coercion. There’s also issues of violence, disease, which obviously don’t do them, their clients, or society as a who any good. And, of course, for women that have fallen into that life for whatever reason will have difficulty getting out because of money, coercion, or drugs.

The arguments for this, of course, could be that if it were legalized, maybe we could have some amount of oversight in place to protect women who may actually choose that life style, keep them from getting coerced, and all of that. Or, at the very least, not force them into the black market.
Personally, I would tend to believe that the laws regarding drug use and prostitution need a lot of work and should be more liberal, but I also feel that it’s a bit misleading to call them victimless crimes, at least as they are now, because I believe that if they were legal, we could probably do more to limit the impact on society of these choices.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Shockboom-

Greetings and welcome to the SDMB. I hope you take the time to participate in many of our discussions and find it both entertaining and enlightening.

I have broken the link you provided in your original post. It is against the rules to make single-click NSFW links. In the future, I’d appreciate you breaking such links. There’s nothing against such links, but many of our participants do so from work and we wish to prevent them getting in trouble there through accidentally clicking on such a link.

Jonathan Chance
Moderator
Great Debates

[doreen]

@Blaster_Master

Obviously, there’s counter-arguments to this, such that there’s a big difference between someone smoking pot occassionally, and a hardcore heroin or meth addict, and maybe a better line could be drawn, or maybe we just find ways to minimize the social impact of people who choose to engage in those activities. To some extent, we already do, maybe that’s enough or maybe we could do more.

 With prostitution, there's really a continuum of behavior. If we consider prostitution to be the exchange of sex for money, that includes all sorts of behavior Some of it is never prosecuted and isn't even called prostitution except perhaps metaphorically ( the people who are usually  called "golddigger" rather than "prostitute") , some of it gets prosecuted occasionally ( the $1000/hr callgirl operations  generally seem to run into trouble when people are out to get their clients) and some of it gets prosecuted pretty often - the behavior that  has an impact on other people (those who offer every car stopped at the light a $5 blowjob). There's also the same sort of continuum with drug sales- there are people who sell drugs in a quiet , unobtrusive manner that doesn't bother anyone else who get prosecuted occasionally while those who conduct business in the park or on the street or who have a line of buyers outside their apartment doors both have a detrimental impact on their neighbors and get prosecuted more frequently. I'm not really sure it's possible to write a law that would only affect the behavior that causes harm to others . I am not at all sure that legalization and regulation would have much of an effect- it would depend on how the regulations affected the price. Cigarettes are legal, but there's a lot of money and also some violence associated with selling untaxed cigarettes.

[shockboom]

@Blaster_Master

Looking at drugs first, there’s other costs associated with drug use besides some guy just sitting around stoned eating Chees in his apartment. For instance, if someone decides to do hard drugs, several of them have major negative mental and physical side-effects that then a drain on those support systems. For many drug users, it potentially makes them less functional members of society than if they were not drug users. Worse, for thos get addicted to hard and expensive drugs, they may result to theft and violence to maintain their habits.

Playing devil’s advocate back at ya

This logic would suggest alcohol prohibition, and likely outlawing McDonalds. With 88K deaths a year coming from alcohol, not to mention reduced productivity, and family-beating, we’re dealing with a more serious criminal than at least MJ and cocaine use. And with 35% of the population that is pre-diabetic, our productivity and health care costs are going through the roof due to willpower issues with our McDonalds-style. But removing that free will seems like a really bad idea, no?

[CarnalK]

You have to accept that there’s social inertia though. We aren’t starting from scratch. So outlawing or heavily regulating the multibillion dollar fast food/alcohol industry is a non-starter. Leaving Pot illegal is easy.

[Trinopus]

@CarnalK

. . . In the case of prostitution specifically, the fact that many prostitutes are coerced into selling themselves is the usual line. . . .

Although this is a very important consideration, I’ve always heard the “usual line” to be that areas where prostitution takes place suffer from other crimes as a consequence. It’s seen by many as opening a neighborhood up to drug use, violence, littering, etc.

(I’ve always admired Playboy magazine for having a kinds of “means test” for their models, to make sure that no one can ever claim, later, that they “had to” pose nude, in order to make enough money to live on.)

As you note, ordinary laws could protect prostitutes against being coerced into that profession, without having to ban the profession per se. The same approach could work to secure it against other attending crimes. A prostitution zone does not have to be a violent crime zone.

But, to the OP, yeah, kinda. But, then, all laws violate the inherent freedom of individuals. Laws against murder prevent people from expressing their anger; laws against vandalism prevent spray-paint artists from creating ornamental murals.

Still, if an action is truly victimless, then, shrug, it should probably be legal.