San Francisco looks to decriminalize prostitution
Posted by BrianSAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A measure that aims to keep prostitutes from facing criminal charges has qualified for the November ballot in San Francisco.
The measure, which qualified Friday, would bar authorities from spending money to investigate or prosecute prostitutes for engaging in prostitution.
The prostitution advocacy group pushing this change is called the “Erotic Service Providers Union.” I guess that is about as delicately as you could word it.
Related content:
July 21st, 2008 at 7:53 am
Bravo, I say. The one thing that leftists sometimes get right is individual liberties. I don’t see a legitimate government role in contracts between individuals that produce victimless “crimes.” Our justice system could make far better use of its limited capacity by not having to deal with prostitutes willingly selling their services to willing buyers. Of course, some of the ancillary issues related to prostitution require prosecution, but they should be treated as separate issues and not lumped with the act of prostitution itself.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:31 am
Until the Roy Moore era, the state criminal code did not make the private sale of sexual services between adults a crime. Yet, “ancillary services” e.g. pimping was a crime.
Then there’s progressive Sweden where prostitution is not an offense but hiring a prostitute is.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
If you think prostitution is a victimless crime then you are woefully ignorant my friend.
The average age of a prostitute in America is around 14 years old. Average age.
I firmly believe the government has no proper role getting involved in business transactions between consenting adults, but the fact of the matter is that prostitution doesn’t fit that bill.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Well, let’s think about this…
In this country it is perfectly legal for an adult to purchase and consume an alcoholic beverage. It is illegal for a minor to do either. That kind of blows a hole in the 14 year old prostitute argument because even if prostitution involving consenting adults was decriminalized, prostitution involving minors would still be illegal. The fact that 14 years is the average age while all prostitution is illegal proves that current laws clearly don’t prevent minors from entering the oldest profession.
Looking at it from a supply and demand stand point, if consenting adults were allowed to enter into contracts of the flesh then that would be like a relief valve on the pent up demand for such pleasurable encounters. If a legal adult can get his/her jollies legally from another consenting adult then the vast majority would choose to do so (and I assure you that there would be adequate supply) because most people don’t want to go to jail. I would argue that decriminalizing prostitution among consenting adults would actually increase the age of the average prostitute. Minors would simply find it harder to locate clients willing to take the risk.
I view laws that restrict desires this way. Once alcohol was illegal. Therefore people illegally produced and distributed alcohol to meet demand. Oncemost alcohol was made legal again, did people continue to purchase the hard or exotic stuff from illegal bootleggers in noticeable quantities? No! They would prefer to moderate their demands for whatever is legal and let that placate their desires. It keeps them out of jail. So what has sprung from repealing prohibition is a vast, legal industry committed to indulging society’s lust for alcohol with virtually no production/distribution related crime that you see with prostitution and illegal drugs.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hear, hear Brian! I’ve never been clear on why it’s ok for actors, actresses, athletes, models, to earn a living with their bodies, but not prostitutes. Although I hardly think it’s an attractive career choice, neither is being a short order cook, cashier, or generic corporate mid-level manager. Yet, none of those are illegal.
The “victim” part of prostitution comes mainly from the fact that it is illegal. Therefore, women (and it’s mainly women) are easily victimized by their customers or by their pimps. After all, can they really go to the police and say “I had sex with Joe Blow over there and he refused to pay me”? By making it illegal, we set the women up to be mistreated and victimized.
As long as consenting adults are involved on both sides of the transaction, it’s nobody else’s business. Gee, I have enough problems of my own without worrying about the sex lives of strangers. Unfortunately, I think that makes me a minority in Alabama.
Hey, I’ve read this blog for months, but this is my first post!
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Welcome to the party, Lynne!
July 26th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Brian and Lynne,
Unfortunately, lately I’ve come to learn more about the prostitution and sex slave trade in America. I say unfortunately, because it’s a tragedy that it exists, however the knowledge I’ve gained has provided some interesting insights.
One of my friends began working several years ago with an organization that tries to reach prostitutes and rescue them from abusive pimps or return kidnapped minors to their parents etc. She started out working in Thailand but has recently returned to the US and now works in the sex slave capital of the US: Atlanta (I was shocked when I learned this but it makes sense because Hartsfield provides the supply and Atlanta’s busy convention centers provide the demand).
What I’ve learned from her, and from reading the studies and books she’s suggested on the problem demonstrate conclusively that the age of prostitutes is a response to demand itself, not a shift in demand due to legislation.
This is common sense. If a man has sex with a 24 year old prostitute and gets arrested for the first time, chances are he gets community service or another relatively minor sentence (probation, parole, split sentence etc.). However, if the same man gets caught for the first time having sex with a minor, that man faces significant jail time, registration as a sex offend for the duration of his life, and the risk of being ostracized from society. The difference in risk is known to everyone and as a result constitutes a higher price that the market is willing to pay for the service rendered. I.e., sex with a 14 year old costs more than 24 year old, perhaps not in money but in true economic costs and when costs are higher either demand is higher or supply is lower. Since we know that supply is in fact relatively high (since the average age is in fact 14) we can attribute that increased price to higher demand.
Furthermore, laying aside all economic arguments, research has shown over and over again that the overwhelming majority of johns (men/women who visit a prostitute) are victims of abuse themselves. They go to prostitutes to assuage some of the pain they feel from the abuse in their own past. Because of the causal link to the abuse in their past the demand is for a situation that matches the pain they feel (and since the average of a first time victim is around 8 years old, that demand is for young prostitutes).
To argue that the “vast majority” of prostitution transactions would change to adult-to-adult transactions blithely ignores the economic and psychological realities of the situation.
As a libertarian you and I share the same belief in the free market. Part of that belief is that the market supplies what is demanded. The market is not supplying 24 year olds, because they are not demanded. That demand is not shifted because of an artificial barrier (the government) because that barrier does not make it any harder for an adult to enter the profession. In fact it’s much harder for a child to be “supplied” (that is such a crass way to phrase it but sadly accurate) to the market considering the drastically stiffer penalties and the current enforcement mechanism protecting children (e.g. truancy laws).
Finally, the victimization of women does not occur because of its illegality. If that were true than the john and the prostitute would be on equal footing since both committed the illegal act and the john stands to lose much more (job, reputation, family etc.) than someone whose very profession is illegal. In reality, the victimization occurs because of the very nature of the transaction. It is essentially one person paying someone for a piece of their dignity.
In the end, I think this is not an economic argument, I think it’s a moral calculus. I’m a libertarian at heart. Albeit a considerably weaker one than either you two appear to be. However, I think we all agree that there is a line at which the government must step into our lives. That is because every society in human history has had shared values and government was instituted among us not to grant rights/liberties/values, but to protect them. I believe that one value our society should hold is that prostitution is wrong. It degrades the very fabric of society because it debases human interaction to merely physical aspects. We are so much more than that. We have emotions and thoughts and feelings. Yet when we pay for a sexual encounter we’re in essence saying that all we care about is the physical. That is an affront to who we are as humans, individually and as a society.
A good article to read on the subject:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ive_seen_my_share_of_spitzers/