# legalities of prostitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 27, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817 "2008-10-27T19:02:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kaio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kaio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaio)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/1 "2008-10-27T19:02:46Z")
Inspired by a friendly debate on another board. My Google-fu fails me. Someone has made the claim that (Las Vegas aside) it’s legal for a person to sell her body, it’s only illegal for the john to buy it. I’m a bit dubious of that, since I have a vague recollection of hearing from somewhere that women (the prostitutes) are more likely to get arrested and charged with prostitution than men (the johns). If it were legal for the prostitutes to sell themselves, then there would be nothing to charge them with, no? What’s the real deal on that? Also, a related question: if (illegal) prostitution is the selling of sex for money, how are porn videos legal? Not only do you have people having sex for money, but you have _video documentation_ that they did (along with, presumably, a paper trail like payroll records to prove the “got paid” part). You’d think this would be a slam-dunk to prosecute, yet I’ve never heard of it happening. Disclaimer: I’m not looking for a debate on morality or whether or not something should/shouldn’t be legal. I’m just interested in learning about the way things actually are, currently. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/2 "2008-10-27T19:06:51Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > Also, a related question: if (illegal) prostitution is the selling of sex for money, how are porn videos legal? For some reason, this question comes up a lot. Here’s the most recent thread asking about it (which links to an older thread, which links to more older ones): [Why is porn legal, but prostitution is not?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=486133) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/3 "2008-10-27T20:18:53Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > Inspired by a friendly debate on another board. > > My Google-fu fails me. Someone has made the claim that (Las Vegas aside) it’s legal for a person to sell her body, it’s only illegal for the john to buy it. I’m a bit dubious of that, since I have a vague recollection of hearing from somewhere that women (the prostitutes) are more likely to get arrested and charged with prostitution than men (the johns). If it were legal for the prostitutes to sell themselves, then there would be nothing to charge them with, no? What’s the real deal on that? > > Also, a related question: if (illegal) prostitution is the selling of sex for money, how are porn videos legal? Not only do you have people having sex for money, but you have _video documentation_ that they did (along with, presumably, a paper trail like payroll records to prove the “got paid” part). You’d think this would be a slam-dunk to prosecute, yet I’ve never heard of it happening. > > Disclaimer: I’m not looking for a debate on morality or whether or not something should/shouldn’t be legal. I’m just interested in learning about the way things actually are, currently. It is an urban legend that prostitution is legal in Las Vegas. It certainly isn’t. However, some rural counties in Nevada have legal prostitution, and this is the the only place in the U.S. where it is legal. Prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas and Reno.. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/4 "2008-10-27T20:38:33Z")
The prostitution laws are different in different states. With fifty states to choose from, I would not be at all surprised to find one where prostitution is illegal for the buyer but not the seller, or vice-versa. I couldn’t begin to tell you which state is which, though. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/5 "2008-10-27T20:45:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > and this is the the only place in the U.S. where it is legal. It’s also legal (indoors) in Rhode Island. > **[960 WELI - New Haven's News, Weather & Traffic Station](https://960weli.iheart.com/)** > > 960 WELI is New Haven's News, Weather and Traffic station and features Vinnie Penn in the morning. 960 WELI is an iHeartRadio station in New Haven, Connecticut. [http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7725387&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1](http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7725387&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1) > **[The Providence Journal: Local News, Politics & Sports in Providence, RI](https://www.providencejournal.com/)** > > Get the latest breaking news, sports, entertainment and obituaries in Providence, RI from The Providence Journal. ---
**Author:** ![Bytegeist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/6 "2008-10-27T20:53:18Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > It’s also legal (indoors) in Rhode Island. Isn’t the indoors where it usually happens anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/7 "2008-10-27T20:53:50Z")
The short answer is that the police power is broadly preserved for the several States (subject to the Constitution) and that they are free to adopt a range of methods for attacking perceived criminal behavior from a number of angles. That means if you believe the supply is the problem, criminalize the act of supplying, if you believe demand is the problem, criminalize the act of seeking out or buying, or – to maximize the range of options for the police – criminalize it from both sides. N.B. that this also maximizes the ability to run stings (whether you think stings are ethical is another matter, but most police and prosecutors seem to believe that, esp. as to crimes such as drug use and prostitution, waiting until an actual transaction takes place and is observed by a cop is highly inefficient). So you criminalize offering prostitution so that the undercover cop can bust the streetwalker; and you criminalize solicitation so that the lady cop can put her clear heels on and bust the johns; and criminalize other variants, so as to have the widest range of police and procedural options. To answer the OP more directly: there may or may not be some jurisdiction where solicitation is criminalized but selling sex isn’t. If so, that’s a quirk, not anything inherent in the criminal law or the Constitution. I’d wager that in most jurisdictions, both are illegal, along with a number of concomitant or related acts (living off the wages of a prostitute, lewd acts, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/8 "2008-10-27T20:57:47Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > Isn’t the indoors where it usually happens anyway? The crime usually isn’t the act, it’s the offer of payment and acceptance of a verbal contract. Which usually happens outside, in most cases. ---
**Author:** ![lobotomyboy63](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobotomyboy63/32/2900_2.png) [@lobotomyboy63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lobotomyboy63)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/9 "2008-10-27T21:00:03Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > My Google-fu fails me. Someone has made the claim that (Las Vegas aside) it’s legal for a person to sell her body, it’s only illegal for the john to buy it. I’m a bit dubious of that, since I have a vague recollection of hearing from somewhere that women (the prostitutes) are more likely to get arrested and charged with prostitution than men (the johns). If it were legal for the prostitutes to sell themselves, then there would be nothing to charge them with, no? What’s the real deal on that? On “Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels,” Gene had a plan to research prostitution and write a book about it. The cops caught him with them and threw them all in jail. Shannon had to come bail him out. He was surprised when a couple of the “girls” turned out to be “boys.” :eek: ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/10 "2008-10-27T22:55:02Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > The crime usually isn’t the act, it’s the offer of payment and acceptance of a verbal contract. Which usually happens outside, in most cases. So you can have a strip club and make it a legal brothel, but if it had some sort of interior courtyard, then the negotiation couldn’t take place out there? 🙂 I see the point (outlawing street prostitution) but it seems like it could have some silly consequences.. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/11 "2008-10-27T23:21:26Z")
**jtgain** : Statute says: > [@](#): > > It shall be unlawful for any person to stand or wander in or near any public highway or street, or any public or private place, and attempt to engage passersby in conversation, or stop or attempt to stop motor vehicles, for the purpose of prostitution or other indecent act, or to patronize or induce or otherwise secure a person to commit any such act." R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-34-8 (2008) The R.I. Supreme Court said: > [@](#): > > We conclude that the conduct undertaken by defendant in this case was not the kind of passersby solicitation for prostitution or for other indecent acts that this statute was intended to prohibit. . . . > > The state submits that a technical reading of the language employed in the last portion of § 11-34-8 compels the conclusion that this statute criminalizes any patronage, inducement, or securing of indecent acts regardless of where such conduct occurs. In other words the state argues that the phrase “to patronize or induce or otherwise secure a person to commit any such act” should be construed to stand apart grammatically from the rest of the statutory language proscribing any standing, wandering, or hailing of passersby or motor vehicles for any prostitution or other indecent acts. The state further contends that the portion of that phrase that reads “any such act” refers not to such loitering or stopping of motorists but to the act of prostitution or the commission of any indecent act. Under this construction, the state argues, defendant is guilty of enticing his prospective models to engage in indecent acts notwithstanding the fact that defendant never loitered, [\*\*18] stood, or wandered in any place and never attempted to hail any passersby or motor vehicles for such purposes. > > The breadth of the construction prescribed by the state makes this interpretive pill too large for us to swallow. If we were to hold that § 11-34-8 bars any enticement of indecent acts wherever and whenever conducted, we would have to take the language it relies upon out of context from the rest of the statutory language that precedes it and also ignore the title given to this statute. One of the fundamental canons of statutory construction observed by this Court is that HN8Go to this Headnote in the case.no construction of a statute should be adopted that would demote any significant phrase or clause to mere surplusage. See State v Ricci, 533 A.2d 844, 848 (R.I. 1987); State v. Caprio, 477 A.2d 67, 70 (R.I. 1984). We also take into consideration the rule of lenity applicable to criminal statutes. See State v. Anthony, 422 A.2d 921, 925 (R.I. 1980). We are of the opinion that the opening phrases of this statute should not be rendered nugatory. Rather, we are inclined to apply the statutory-construction principle of noscitur a sociis to the language at issue. So construed, the phrase “to patronize [\*\*19] or induce or otherwise secure a person to commit any such act” draws its scope from its association with the other portions of the statute that immediately precede it and is limited thereby. See, e.g., Allstate Insurance Co. v. Russo, 641 A.2d 1304, 1307 (R.I. 1994). > > We also note that § 11-34-8 is located in the midst of a chapter of the General Laws addressing prostitution. Viewed in this context, we believe that the Legislature enacted § 11-34-8 primarily to bar prostitutes from hawking their wares in public – whether this is done by strutting up and down a public street or by calling out to passersby from the [\*574] shadowed stoop of a privately owned building. The statute also applies with equal force to those johns who seek to solicit passersby or motorists for prostitution or other indecent acts. Indeed, what little legislative history exists suggests that the major revision to this section in 1980 (in which § 11-34-8 was carved out of the former version of § 11-34-5, see P.L. 1980, ch. 370) was inspired by public outcry over a rash of overt streetwalking in the West End of the city of Providence. See COYOTE v. Roberts, 523 F. Supp. 352, 354-55 (D. R.I. 1981). [\*\*20] Section 11-34-8 thus focuses narrowly on certain types of prostitution-related activities that are addressed by chapter 34 of title 11 of the General Laws. See Caprio, 477 A.2d at 70 HN9Go to this Headnote in the case.(“where one provision is part of the overall statutory scheme, the legislative intent must be gathered from the entire statute and not from an isolated provision”). > > Because § 11-34-8 is directed at the public solicitation of prostitution, its reach simply does not extend to the prohibition of obscene telephone calls or to the securing of would-be actors for pornographic movies when such solicitation occurs either over the telephone or within the confines of private residences. If Josh had directed his recruitment efforts at public passersby or motorists, we would have a different case before us. Although other sections of the penal code proscribe defendant’s challenged conduct, § 11-34-8 does not. Accordingly we reverse defendant’s convictions under this statute. As a result we do not reach the other issues he has raised challenging the application of this law to his conduct. State v. DeMagistris, 714 A.2d 567 (R.I. 1998) Notice that this “loophole” is based on the court’s narrow construction of the statute, and doesn’t fit neatly within the statute’s language. The case also has an interesting factual context: > [@](#): > > Between the early summer of 1992 and June of 1993, various and sundry females received telephone calls from an individual, later revealed to be defendant, who identified himself to them as “Josh” (hereafter Josh). During these calls, Josh initiated his sales pitch gingerly, asking first whether the unwitting recipient of his call was interested in earning extra money by doing some “modeling.” If the recipient remained on the line, defendant’s telephone solicitations would turn progressively more salacious. Eventually he would reveal that as part of her modeling assignment, his prospect would be expected to pose nude, to assume erotic positions, and to commit various sexual acts with the inquiring photo/videographer including fellatio and intercourse. In each call defendant attempted to allay any concerns that his prospective “models” might have about being recognized locally by promising that any photographs or films he would take of them would be distributed overseas or outside of New England. > > When not moonlighting as Josh, defendant held down a respectable day job as the director of special education at the Pawtucket School Department. The defendant furthered his lurid escapades by searching confidential school records to locate likely targets for his lubricious telemarketing campaign. He identified families of special education students, concentrating on single mothers or younger female students themselves. He did so thinking they might be potentially receptive candidates for his solicitations because of what he perceived to be their financial straits. Many of the phone numbers he culled from school records were unlisted in public telephone directories. > > With most of his phone-call pitches Josh struck out: the targeted women either hung up, changed their phone numbers, or threatened to notify the authorities. Although one displeased recipient was unable to connect Josh with defendant during the trial of this case, the woman managed to record Josh on tape by feigning a response to another waiting call. One woman he reached, however, agreed to pose nude for Josh’s camera and in fact did so, though she balked at his more prurient offers of employment. But in another call Josh hit pay dirt when he secured a second prospective model to commit an act of fellatio upon him while he filmed the event. As it turned out, this ambitious and willing “actress” was a working prostitute to whom Josh paid $ 40 for each “love” scene. > > Josh’s exploits as a nude photographer manque’ and triple-X thespian eventually came to a sorry end after he dialed the unlisted number of one Susan Gity (Gity), a thirty-two-year-old parent of two boys in the Pawtucket special education program. Adhering to his trusty modus operandi, Josh eased into his spiel by asking Gity if she would be interested in modeling bathing attire or lingerie at $ 250 per photo session. Gity expressed interest and accepted Josh’s invitation to meet with her and another female friend at her house later that afternoon. Josh arrived as scheduled and proceeded to explain that the modeling he sought would require the women to pose nude and to perform various sex acts on film, including masturbation, fellatio, and sexual intercourse. Josh told the women that he could provide marijuana for them to relax if they wanted to “get high,” and he assured them that the films he would make would be distributed abroad. Josh also asked if the women knew any teenage females who would be willing to pose for him. > > After Josh enlightened them about the parameters of this modeling job as he conceived it, both Gity and her friend thought better of getting involved in such activity. But to be relieved of Josh, they feigned continued interest in the project and stated that they wanted to think it over. After defendant departed, Gity telephoned the Pawtucket police. Working together, Gity and the police decided to set up a sting operation. When, as expected, defendant again called Gity the next day to ask if she had mulled over his modeling proposition, Gity asked him to come back to her house. Meanwhile, police officers set up recording devices, secreted themselves in the house, and waited in the wings for defendant to swing into action. When defendant arrived, he and Gity conversed for several minutes. During the course of this taped conversation Gity asked Josh if he had any drugs and Josh replied that he did not. The defendant then asked Gity to disrobe while he prepared his photographic equipment. When he returned from his car carrying his camera bag, the police officers sprung the trap and arrested him. > > On the basis of Gity’s statement and the above-described taped conversation, police then sought a warrant to search defendant’s home, his car, his camera case, and his office at the Pawtucket school system for evidence of his sexual enterprise and any drugs in his possession. With regard to the marijuana charge, the affidavit attached to the warrant application merely described Gity’s recount of Josh’s pitch during which he allegedly “stated that he could supply drugs if [Gity and friend] wanted it to put them at ease and make them more comfortable.” The police officer affiant, however, failed to inform the magistrate about the recording made by police at Gity’s apartment in which Josh sidestepped Gity’s request for drugs, stating, “I don’t have any,” and in response to her further entreaties responded, “I don’t buy the stuff that’s why, so I don’t have it.” As a result of the warrant application and affidavit, police secured a search warrant for each location, authorizing seizure of > > ``` > "[a] certain quantity of Videos or films of an illicit nature, a certain quantity of photography and video equipment as well as any records and or documents concerning illegal, objectionable material used in the making, showing, producing of pornography, pedophilia, beastiality, and any lewd and lascivious acts. A certain quantity of controlled or illegal substances." (Emphasis added.) > > ``` > > Upon searching defendant’s residence, police did locate a small quantity of marijuana in a closed jewelry box. Police also seized scores of video tapes, one of which had captured the incident of fellatio described above, and a variety of documents containing the phone numbers of various women who had received phone calls from Josh. \*Id. \* The Court affirmed his convictions for pot possession and obscene telephone calling. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/12 "2008-10-28T00:13:49Z")
Thanks Gfactor. It looks like the Rhode Island Supreme Court really, really twisted that law to arrive at its result. What about the term “any public or private place”? Why wouldn’t that apply to soliciting behind closed doors? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/13 "2008-10-28T00:21:52Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Thanks Gfactor. It looks like the Rhode Island Supreme Court really, really twisted that law to arrive at its result. What about the term “any public or private place”? Why wouldn’t that apply to soliciting behind closed doors? The easier thing to do in the case before it was to simply find that the defendant (who you’ll recall was calling folks on the phone) did not “\*stand or wander \* . . . and attempt to engage passersby in conversation, or stop or attempt to stop motor vehicles.” I would say that in order to violate this provision, you’d need to have passers-by or motor vehicles within earshot. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legalities-of-prostitution/469817/14 "2008-10-28T01:21:12Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > Inspired by a friendly debate on another board. > > My Google-fu fails me. Someone has made the claim that (Las Vegas aside) it’s legal for a person to sell her body, it’s only illegal for the john to buy it. I’m a bit dubious of that, since I have a vague recollection of hearing from somewhere that women (the prostitutes) are more likely to get arrested and charged with prostitution than men (the johns). If it were legal for the prostitutes to sell themselves, then there would be nothing to charge them with, no? What’s the real deal on that? Here’s a Cecil column directly on point: [In prostitution, who’s committing the crime, the woman or the man? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2774/prostitution)