You are aware that Denmark has not legalized prostitution. Rather it is the blind eye question. (After all even the Dutch have only legalized since 1999)
Your reading of data leaves much to be desired.
And final thought, I believe I already raised the issue of causation. 10 years. That makes 1990ish. Can we say collapse of Soviet Union? Traffick in immigrants across the board is an issue.
you almost, almost, almost made it polite. Denmark, according to this prostitution is legal, tho’ you’re not allowed to make a living off of just that, you must demonstrate an additional income. (that was the ‘world sex guide’
In addition, here’s a news source, argosy net, dated March 5 - 11, that
It doesn’t reference a year, tho’ the other news stories referenced may give you a clue, maybe not (fighting in Algeria, US bombs Iraq, problems in Kosovo)
I’m sorry if I sounded like I was calling you cold hearted. My intent was rather to state that analyzing human behavior outside of human conditions does not work effectively. Those darned humans continue to act in ways that one does not expect nor want.
many of those trafficed women are Oriental (according to the Danish link) or ‘brown’ women. They leave open the possability for those from the former Soviet Union, but since they wouldn’t be able to advertise the ‘different look’, they may be hidden, (so the immigrant population among the prostitutes may be higher than thought), but certainly not directly related to the fall of the USSR.
The links about HIV transmission and legalization are interesting. Like I said, this would be the only justification that I could see so far, but it’s far from compelling. In the areas listed, it may be the cause and effect, tho’ in one of the links, there is this regarding the decrease in HIV
However, I’m willing to look into that further. Problem being, my recollection of the CDC data that suggested that HIV and STD transmissions from prostitution was one of the lower rates, so again, at least for the US, if the issue is to reduce the STDs and HIV, you should channel your energies to more at risk for tranmission groups (which if I recall correctly, and I’m not guarenteeing this, was young adults, college age folk of both sexes).
I’m amazed that you continue stating this. Wring has answered the question–how about rereading here?
Criminalizing prostitution on the basis that prostitution victimizes women makes criminals out of the very people who are supposed to be the “victims” of this crime.
Most existing laws concerning prostitution were formulated on the assumption that prostitution is immoral activity, with women being the most immoral participants. Therefore, laws that ban prostitution usually criminalize the women. By listening to women’s experiences of prostitution and moving beyond moralistic analyses, women’s rights groups have defined prostitution to be sexual exploitation and a form of violence against women. All legal reforms should be based on this understanding. Therefore, states should decriminalize prostitution for women-that is, stop punishing women for being prostituted. Considering the documented harm to women who are trafficked and prostituted, it is only logical that women should not be criminalized for being the victim of those abuses. Decriminalization also means that women will not fear arrest if they seek assistance and may be more likely to testify against pimps and traffickers.
Statistics are not kept on who gets arrested for prostitution, but it does not take a statistical chart to know that prostitutes do time for prostitution, not johns. The social bias against prostitutes can be demonstrated if one would care to analyze the behavior of police in arresting them. Someone did care to do this. http://law-crime.rutgers.edu/sanchez9.html
If anyone would care to demonstrate that these results are atypical I would be interested to see.
To combat trafficking, exploitation and to address equality for women world wide, the UN has drawn up a charter which has been signed by all major countries except the U.S http://www.abanet.org/legadv/cedawmain.html, in part because it calls for the decriminalization of prostitution in order to combat illegal trafficking. BudgeReport.com is for sale | HugeDomains
Cost analysis are hard to come by, but not impossible to get. Here is an in depth one.
http://www.uchastings.edu/hlj/articles/Pearl.pdf which clearly outlines how ineffective our current spending is on combating the very problems criminalization looks to alleviate.
When time and effort are taken to study the actual effects of criminalization instead of kneejerking into the “whoring is bad” position, some actual analysis can be done.
http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/sdavis.html
*The National Association of Women and the Law NAWL has reported that s. 213 victimizes women by increasing the health and safety risks associated with street prostitution because it forces prostitutes to work in dark areas where they are more vulnerable to attack. [19] As well, because of the need to avoid detection street prostitutes have little time to consider their options when dealing with a customer. They must act quickly and often this means accepting a date before they have had time to “feel him out,” again increasing the risk of assault. [20] This also means prostitutes have less control over the date itself, often being put into the position of having sexual interaction without a condom. [21] The prostitute therefore is faced with the potential double whammy of a physical assault and/or a viral one.
By way of proof, Millman noted the effects of regulation in Boston, which quickly transformed an already borderline area into the “Combat Zone”. Millman found that the “anything goes” attitude of the police allowed crime to get out of hand. [44] Another study of the “Combat Zone” compared Boston to Holland where by contrast, when small brothels are integrated into already healthy neighbourhoods, such a decline does not happen.
In Conclusion, it is clear criminalization doesn’t work. It entrenches rather than reduces prostitution, and is detrimental to the control of violence in society in that it takes money and officers away from controlling serious crime and actually encourages the belief that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances. Furthermore rather than controlling prostitution’s whereabouts, criminalization creates a situation where perennial confrontation between the politically influential and prostitutes is inevitable. The resulting calls for tougher laws and stricter enforcement, create a vicious merry-go-round of self-fulfilling inefficiency and harm.*
http://www.bayswan.org/2execsum.html
*The Task Force discovered that the complaints leveled against prostitution really apply only to a fraction of the total industry and that those legitimate concerns are not being met by efficient and effective solutions. Yet not only are current responses ineffective, they are also harmful. They marginalize and victimize prostitutes, making it more difficult for those who want out to get out of the industry and more difficult for those who remain in prostitution to claim their civil and human rights.
The Task Force therefore recommends that the City departments stop enforcing and prosecuting prostitution crimes. It further recommends that the departments instead focus on the quality of life infractions about which neighborhoods complain and redirect funds from prosecution, public defense, court time, legal system overhead and incarceration towards services and alternatives for needy constituencies
The majority of Task Force members came to the conclusion that decriminalization of prostitution was the best way to address the concerns of every constituency. Residents’ valid concerns about quality of life, yet support for decriminalization, was a conflict more apparent than real. The conflict could be resolved by focusing on the complaints: not against prostitution itself, but by the perceived fallout or side effects of street prostitution. The best way to ameliorate poor neighborhood conditions and at the same time save the City money is to focus on the direct causes of the complaints and not on prostitution itself. Likewise, without undercover sting operations there would not be the same opportunity for police abuse and constitutional violations. If prostitutes knew they would not be arrested for reporting crime, they would not fear claiming their civil rights. *
We have only to look at the debacle that was prohibition to see that crimanlizing supposed immoral behavior only drives it underground, where it festers and grows in the darkness.
Biggirl. Yes, criminalization will create a criminal record for those who are victimized. It also, though, provides a structured framework to attempt to address the myriad of issues that probably led them to it in the first place. Is this the only way to provide such a structure? I’d like to believe that it isn’t, but working in the field of human services for over 20 years leads me to believe that it may be.
As an example, look to your community and see what kind of charities prosper. Health related ones, sick kids especially etc. Those agencies that work with substance abusers, the homeless, felons etc, attempting to make a positive difference in their lives struggle for financial support etc. I get a small amount of funding from the County - one of my ‘competitors’ for funding (who gets substantially more), gives legal assistance to seniors (now there’s a strong demographic for funding!) - they hand out slick, multi colored brochures that cost close to a third of my annual budget. Get the picture? Do you really believe that there would be additional resources for helping those victims should the state with it’s vast budget for Corrections be removed?
I understand your point. really.
Your point about prohibition, tho’ underscores, I think, the point I attempted to make above - that to undertake a radical change in a complex society without first analyzing carefully what potential effects (both intended and unintended) it would take, is dangerous. My fear is that by legalization of the industry, we would loose the only tool we currently have to attempt to at least move the activity out of areas where it’s causing problems. in addition, I have seen street walkers struggle with getting out of the life. Generally, when succesful, it’s been done in a post incarcerative time line. This, of course, is not empirical evidence, but it underscores my fears.
I will look through your links, thank you for providing them.
by the way, the international ‘call to end prostitution as a means of ending trafficing’, I believe that the links already shown above demonstrate that trafficing is alive and well in the countries where it’s legalized. Yes, it also goes on here, but we don’t seem to have the overly large percentage of foreigners in the trade that say, Amsterdam does.
I also disagree that since most of those arrested for the act of accepting $ for prostitution are women, that means definitively that it’s a women’s issue and all of the conclusions that derived from that premise. The laws themselves are written (generally) in a gender neutral way, data suggests that the great prepodnerance of those purchasing services are male, and then the demographics for those selling would follow the along the lines of sexual preferences. (so, since most of the customers are male and if you guess 10% of population are gay, then probably roughly 90% of those providing the services would need to be the preferred sex). So, it’s the demographics of the industry.
I don’t agree that to make it legal, that would increase the probability of those being coerced would be able to testify etc. They’re coerced, scared, addicted whatever. Now, if you’re in a terrositic position such as that, are you likely to voluntarily go to the authorities and testify against the person scaring you? If they felt free enough to walk away, how would you consider it to be coercion?
I agree police often are derisive of prostitutes. They often have that attitude towards most of those they consider “perps”. What is your point with that please? We should make it legal because the police are nasty towards those they arrest?
I’ll get back once I’ve looked over your links.
I am not an advocate of prostitution without regulation. It is an industry prone to abuses and, as with any business which has demonstrated risk to society, it should be closely watched and regulated. Here is a model that has been in use
http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/bla/blasite.nsf/pages/bla_prostitution and provides an excellent framework for dealing with abuses and problems.
Quick points:
the aussie model, problems I see include:
“Ensure brothels are not located in residential areas or in areas frequented by children;” Lofty ambition. This is my point about the Nevada situation - they have a desert nearby to plunk all sorts of unsavory stuff into. Large cities would have a difficult time with this, which would lead to, again, clandestine activities. Ditto for the exemption to licensing for 'If only one or two people wish to work as prostitutes in their own escort agency or brothel business and not employ other prostitutes, they do not need to hold a licence" which could mean the two folks living next door to me could opt for this. If it’s unregulated, it’s unregulated.
the task force document seems to be in agreement with my underlying assumption that the issue is not a simplisitic one of “one person paying another for sex”, but rather a complex interdependant situation with a real conflict about what would consitute an uncoerced situation. But they seem to think that by merely not prosecuting the people, they automatically save x$$. I’'m not sure that’s really the case. When folks are defining the ‘costs’ of stuff, they take (for example) x number of officers X pay rate etc. and it doesn’t really work like that. The prosecutors office costs X$, and prosecutes X number of cases, just because you drop the amount of cases doesn’t necessarily mean that you then decrease your costs.
Similarly, the cost of incarceration - judges (at least in my area) are well aware of how many folks are in the jail on a daily basis (they get updates - we’ve had an over crowding problem for a while) so, they take it into consideration - I would suspect that if the bed space for prostitutes were removed, they’d be filled with other stuff quickly, not generating a ‘savings’. (for example, our county decided to only lock up ‘dead beat dads’ rarely after a study showed that a higher than comfortable percentage of jail inmates were there for that. So, they stopped. There was no ‘savings’ realized, since the beds have remained filled, by other folks).
So, the assumption that by not prosecuting/incarcerating the prostitutes will result in a pool of money not spent and there fore free to spend in other services doesn’t wash for me. It may work in other industries, but the cj system seems to operate on the premise of the only good jail bed is a full one.
this link
seems to attempt to make the case that if prostitution is legalized all over the world, then the trafficing in women would cease.
This assumes, of course, that there is a steady supply of women who wish this occupation, on a completely voluntary basis. pretty large assumption IMHO
let me try something else with you. The concept of supply and demand. (admittedly I haven’t thought this one all the way through, so be prepared)
Assume that there are X number of prostituted acts, world wide committed by Y number of sex workers and A number of ‘clients’.
We can assume that the clients are damned near totally voluntary certainly wouldn’t be reduced by legalization, and at least potentially (if not probably) would increase. But we (if I read your arguments correctly), believe that the number of totally nonvictimized sex workers is some number less than Y (let’s call it V). Right?
The issues are that we wish to make the “V” number zero. Now, in order to do that, one of the other factors must change - the number of clients, the number of acts, the number of consenting sex workers, perhaps in the short run, the number of sex acts per sex worker (but, if the “V” numbers are as large as I suspect and experts seem to agree, that might not be a workable situation, especially if the client base increases, as I would suspect).
Now, there may, in fact be, some folks out there who refrain from becoming sex workers solely because the practice is illegal. We certainly don’t have empiricle data. But, in the Netherlands, where the practice is legal, the great majority were not home grown, and were immigrants (I recall it being 75%). It’s not proof, but it certainly suggests that even where it’s legal, it’s not the occupation of choice.
How would legalization change this? Would it reduce the number of prosituted acts (X)? doubtful, and I speculate that it would even increase. and if it did not, then how would we obtain our goal of V=0?
I agree with the link that demonstrated the police focus on the prositute vs. the john. Sweeps done the other way are newsworthy since they’re so relatively rare.
this link again illustrates (to me) one of the problems with believing that legalization would make it easier to prosecute pimps etc. since the sex worker would feel ‘free’ to testify w/o being subject to arrest. They make the point that
IOW, w/o the testimony, the presumption is that it’s voluntary. So, the pimp would know without issue that the only way they can be tagged is if the worker testifies, rather than the status quo where there’s a presumption of illegal activity anyhow, without the testimony that it’s coerced.
the link also highlights the position of the International Women’s Forum that "prostitution should never be given status as “just another job.” “There is probably nothing more degrading than selling your body for money,” , highlighting the reality that women’s advocacy groups have not reached a consensus on the issue.
working my way through your links.
Of course that ignores the beneficial aspects of prohibition. My wife’s grandmother lived through prohibition, and was very interested in politics and society. (In fact, she got a Masters degree in anthropology just a couple of years ago.) She talks about the vicious cycle that families (especially in the working class) were in, when men would get their weekly pay and go spend most of it on gin. It was horrible for the women and children, and it’s not hard to see why there was huge support for going dry nationally. Yes, the bootlegging got out of hand, but the cycle was broken for many families, who went on to improve themselves.