Brilliant idea! Shame, a quaint, old-fashioned, and politically incorrect concept, can be a very effective deterrent.
‘Johns’ Photos To Appear On Billboards
Previous post: Deep Throat and the Great Stenographers
Next post: If I See One More Koran “Mishandling” Story…
{ 1 trackback }
{ 65 comments }
You mean better than a branded “A”
Considering that prostitution is legal in some areas of the United States and widely considered a victimless crime, why would you endorse public branding for it? And why not the female ’sex workers’ who actually initiate and profit from the exchange?
Some people have too much time on their hands.
Mikem,
Given that it is illegal in most areas of the united states, and the number of underage folks involved and exploited in prostitution, it is hardly a victimless crime. Now tie in the drugs, abuses by johns and pimps, stds and in the case of illegals, virtual salvery, explain how this is a victimless crime?
Why go after the john? Except in Vegas and the handful of places that have legal prostitution, the whores have already hit rock bottom. They have nothing to lose; no money, no property, nothing.
The johns, on the other hand, might have something they want to protect. That gives law enforcement much more leverage for shame/publicity campaigns.
Montie, can I get a witness?
I have (I guess) a libertarian view about prostitution, and frankly don’t think that it ought to be illegal. I think that society reviles it for three reasons:
1. A man ought to be home with his wife;
2. It spreads disease;
3. (most important) It often involves the brutal exploitation of women and girls.
If it were legal and regulated, then two of the three reasons would (presumably) disappear.
I’m not saying that I endorse the idea of women becoming prostitutes or selling their bodies in any way. What I do say is that it seems a little silly to criminalize ‘the world’s oldest profession.’
“The plan has been criticized by some residents and former prostitutes who say publicly shaming the suspects is too punitive.”
There remain some residents of the Bay Area who are capable of feeling shame? Amazing…
At least they’re going after the right party.
well, I think law enforcement should be going after the prostitutes as well. But this tac won’t work on them in an effective manner.
Andy, you beat me to it. I was thinking of this as the Scarlet Letter Redux. I don’t really care about the Johns being on the billboard. “Needs” aside, you have to expect that you may face some type of punishment for committing a crime. I do like the fact that the man pressing this issue seems to be 100% sincere about it. When you consider that his namesake is locked up sans bail for two sex crimes he could be hiding his head in the stand. Instead, he has put principle above any other concerns. I didn’t know that that part of the world was seeing a rise in the number of 11-14 year old girls in the oldest profession in the world. If this can somehow help to put an end to that, great.
SCSI, the posting of prostitutes on a billboard would be almost an advertisement.
It is the libertarian coming out in me, but I think it should be (like marijuana) legalized, taxed and regulated.
SCSI: The exchange between the prostitute and John is victimless. I could top your list of related real crimes with a similar one relating to pornography, especially the ‘underage’ victims. (How about branding just the abusers and child molesters, instead of all johns?) Would you agree to publicly shaming any users of pornography if and where it was illegal, because some pornographers abuse woman and use minors?
Those who approve this tactic seem to agree that the reason for this is to target those most easily embarrassed, hardly an ethical reason to publicly brand someone for an exchange between consenting adults.
I’ll give you credit for agreeing to target prostitutes.
What do you think of publicly branding marijuana or other illegal drug buyers? Think of the minor children used in drug transactions today.
Prostitution and marijuana? Hmm. While there is an argument to be made for medical uses of marijuana, I can’t see it or prostitution being completely decriminalized. I suppose the gov’t could make a lot of $$$ taxing the two things, but it wouldn’t be sound, responsible or moral gov’t in my view.
I don’t think the government should be in the position of legislating ‘morality’ unless the issue at hand is so pervasive and dangerous that it dramatically effects the well being of its citizenry.
Marijuana and Prostitution do neither. In the case of adult prositution, I think it is the womans right to use her body in the way that seems she wants (unlike abortion where the a unborn child is has his or her own individuality). If she chooses to make the exchange of money for sex, although I personally find it immoral and against my Christian beliefs, I find from a governmental perspective it is ok, unless the local community (I am pro-empowerement of localized government) rejects it.
In the case of Marijuana, the effects of marijuana are much less damaging than the effects of alcholol and some have argued even tobacco. The legalization of marijuana does a few things, one it increase the tax income, two it allows government to control the distribution rules for the product, and three it reduces crime and the burden on our highly burdened legal system.
That is my argument and position on both.
I think we have to seperate minors being victimized, and a rational or supposedly responsible adult making a decision.
Dell, government “legislates morality” all the time. Murder is immoral and there are penalties against it. Pedophilia is immoral and there are penalties against it. Laws are based on what is right and wrong. The controversy is and always will be what is considered immoral.
If someone is shooting up heroin in his own house, it’s certainly not my business, but I think it’s immoral to abuse yourself that way. The libertarian claims government should stay out of it. Why? Because they believe the government has no business penalizing individuals who want to shoot up. Why? Because individuals should be as unencumbered by government as much possible. Why? Because the individual has the right to dictate his own life the way he sees fit. Why? Because the individual is autonomous…and so on. The libertarian has his own sense of right and wrong, what is moral and immoral. You can’t get away from it. We elect people in and out of office based on whose moral values match our own.
I’m surprised that you, as a Christian, fail to recognize where the law comes from in the first place!
WHILE THE LIBERTARIANS ARE AT IT, WHY DON’T THEY LEGALIZE TERRORISM AS WELL. THAT WAY THE TERRORISTS WON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BLOWIN UP THEY’RE STUPID EVERYTHING’S RIGHT MENTALITY..
Please, please kill the caps! Your next ALL CAPS comment will be deleted. – Admin
“While the libertarians are at it, why don’t they legalize terrorism as well.”
It’s legal when the government does it.
“Murder is immoral and there are penalties against it. Pedophilia is immoral and there are penalties against it. Laws are based on what is right and wrong.”
I’m afraid this argument is somewhat flawed. In the examples above, someone is always harmed by a choice not made by the one who’s harmed. You can’t make this case with prostitution. You could make the case that prostitution sometimes harms married couples, but it isn’t set in stone. For example, what about ugly, single males who can’t get a date? What about widowed old men who are lonely, and can’t get a date? When people in this situation choose to use a prostitute, they are not harming anyone directly OR indirectly.
I wouldn’t normally take the libertarian side of an argument – drug abuse, in my mind, ALWAYS harms someone – an employer, a family, etc, for example. But in this case, I’m afraid I have to differ.
Current law is based on morality, and I acknowledge where it came from. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Law SHOULD be based on whether the act injures another party not tied to the act directly. Fortunately, most of our laws already follow this logic as well, as God intended.
Prostitution laws are an exception to this rule, and should be repealed accordingly.
JMHO
TV (Harry)
You’ll notice, Harry, that I didn’t argue that right and wrong are based on whether there’s a “victim” or not. But for some reason, you make the assumption. In that regard, your response is “somewhat flawed.” FYI, I don’t think the “wrongness” of an act should be limited to or based on whether there’s a victim or not.
Please don’t misunderstand me, La Shawn. I probably used too many words to say something that should have been more concise:
I believe that laws should be based on whether there’s a victim. As to the right and wrong of an issue – you’ll get no disagreement from me. Of course it’s wrong to cheat on your wife / husband. I just believe that the government shouldn’t be taking sides about it. And by putting names up of convicted johns, they’re taking sides. I personally disagree with this policy.
TV (Harry)
SCSIwuzzy,
You are absolutely right. Most prostitutes we arrest here, are often homeless, drug or alcohol addicted, or have mental or emotional problems so severe that they cannot function in the mainstream of society. Putting their faces on billboards would accomplish little other than to provide them free advertising!
The johns while frequently not much higher on the social scale, occassionally do come from middle or upper class social strata and would be mortified by any publicity accompanying their arrest associated with prostitution.
While many frequently decry enforcement against prostitution as pursuing a “victimless crime”, they have not come face to face with the results of this type of crime on neighborhoods, families, businesses, etc., as the tag-a-long crime which accompanies prostitution is of a much larger scale than most people realize.
Once an area becomes associated with prostitution, it is really hard to eradicate it or even move it from that area, which quickly degenerates into a seedy crime-ridden place that most stay away from, which is why it can be bad on neighborhoods and businesses.
Inspector Callahan,
If you think that prostitution is in fact a “victimless crime’ then unlike your namesake you have not spent any time on the street in a major metropolitan area dealing with it and the associated ills which accompany it.
Montie, you always seem to drop in at just the right moment.
It’s good to have the perspective of someone “in the trenches.” It’s easy for us to trade comments and philosophize all day about how we think things ought to be. But unless you know how things really are, our opinions and theories are sorely lacking in hard data.
“If you think that prostitution is in fact a “victimless crime’ then unlike your namesake you have not spent any time on the street in a major metropolitan area dealing with it”
I guess I shouldn’t comment on the Iraq war either, since I didn’t fight there. But, that aside:
To the contrary, Montie, I have been there. I lived in Detroit until I was 29 years old. The city itself, not the surburbs. My father was a police officer in Detroit for 25 years. I watched these things happen. If those aren’t the “trenches” we’re talking about, I don’t know what is.
It was Democratic policies that ruined this once great town. The same nanny-state type policies that they have in Oakland, California. And I watched it happen. I believe that qualifies me to speak on this subject.
“The associated ills which accompany it.”
Why doesn’t Nevada (as a whole) have these “associated ills” nearly to the extent that other states do? Why are drug problems among prostitutes in Nevada almost non-existent? Could it be that prostitution is legal there? Let’s face it, folks, legalization is the one avenue most states in the country haven’t tried.
Once again, I don’t want to argue the morality of it, but that’s what drives our host’s aversion to the subject of legalized prostitution. She thinks it’s wrong, and I agree. However, the government should not be taking sides. That was my only point.
TV (Harry)
Via prostitution women, little girls, men and boys destroy their bodies by abuse and exposure to Lord only knows what viruses, parasites, chemicals and bacteria.
The chip away at their souls piece by piece, destroying thier sense of self-worth and shattering their dignity, eventually coming to believe that all they are worth is the sum of their body parts.
Legalize THIS?
Thanks La Shawn,
It just gets me going when I see these women (and often men pretending to be women)every day wasting their lives by putting out for a few bucks to pay for their next high, or having their lives taken through violence or overdose, only to to be referred to as participants in a “victimless crime”.
If nothing else, the prostitutes themselves are victims of a sort having resorted to the only thing they have left to feed a drug or alcohol habit. Sure they “choose” to do what they do, but when you look at it, there really is no choice involved.
I have seen movies that portray prostitution as some kind of glamorous high paying lifestyle, and I’m sure that someplace there is such a thing, but the only ones I have ever dealt with were homeless, addicted, and usually infected. Most are just trying to survive another day without being killed by their pimp, a crazy john, or a hotshot resulting from stuff that hadn’t been stepped on (diluted down) as much as the stuff they usually put in their veins.
Where prostitution is a crime, why do we talk about the seller as a victim and the buyer as the criminal? Why not both? Why not pubicly disgrace both?
Here again men are being made to take responsibility for the choices that womem make. You wish to punish the buyer exclusively (as in public branding) and pretend that the seller, who actually profits, is the victim. I guess we need to take a look at our drug laws and start sending the buyers away for twenty years and let the sellers off with a slap.
Inspector Callahan,
The reason I said what I said, is because you are equating the average street prostitute with those girls working in brothels in Nevada. The two are not the same.
Legalizing prostitution has not done away with street prostitutes. I have been to Las Vegas on numerous occassions and rode with their Metro Department, as I was considering moving there to work for them. There were plenty of non-licensed prostitutes plying their wares on the street, and they were often of the same class as I have described. The Metro PD tries very hard to keep them rounded up because they are bad for the city’s glamourous image.
They don’t work as licensed prostitutes because they do not have the looks, have STD’s, or are alcoholics or addicts, and not eligible to work in a government licensed facility.
They exist because not every john wants to drive out into the country to the “Chicken Ranch” and pay big bucks when they can pull into a back alley and only be out $20 or so.
Insp. Callahan – Why doesn’t Nevada (as a whole) have these “associated ills†nearly to the extent that other states do?
Possibly because:
1) the great majority of their customers are from out-of-state.
2) screening methods are less inclusive or less stringent.
3) reporting is incomplete.
Nevada politicians want Nevada to have a positive image, shedding the ‘gangster’ image with which it has been long associated. It should not be surprising that they would wish the numbers to be skewed.
Oh, wait, am I suggesting that politicians would endanger Americans to achieve a selfish purpose? Nah!
the government should not be taking sides
What? That’s what government does! Government always takes sides, it raises taxes, it distributes largess as it wishes, it takes away here and gives there as some bureaucrat sees fit. If government shouldn’t take sides, why have government?
What happens if prostitution is legalized?
1) Women on unemployment may lose benefits if they get a job offer in the sex trade & turn it down. Just as you may be denied unemployment benefits for turning down any other viable job offers.
2) Increasing social services to deal with corresponding rise in STD & mental health issues, not to mention the inevitable intrusion of big brother via OSHA regs. (Currently it’s just a matter of State’s Rights, but if legal on a nationwide basis…)
3) Would Johns also be require possess a license/bill of health to have sex?
The history of legalized prostitution in Europe is replete with virtual slavery. Exotic girls worldwide are promised a modelling career and when they arrive, their passports are taken away and forced into slavery.
They are then told they can buy their way out, but the cards are stacked against them, a la migrant farmhands and corporate towns (mining) where workers have to pay/buy their room & board at a rate that outpaces their ability to save.
When their 90-day visa runs out, they are simply sent to another country. The Merry-go-round doesn’t stop until the machine has extracted its fill and then spits out the discarded remains.
A few weeks ago, ABC (doggoned MSM
)ran a special on Nightline where a reporter went to Romania to buy, yes BUY, a girl (most tend to be orphans with no family ties). Once the transaction was completed, the girl, really a waif, was ready to do whatever her new master wanted. Imagine her surprise and overwhelming gratitude when Massa drove up to Rescue Mission dedicated to sheltering and restoring the stolen self-worth of such girls.
Of course most of you have heard of other countries where families sell their ‘useless’ daughters to sex merchants. Relatively speaking, such girls who are exported to Western countries can count themselves fortunate, compared to those who get exported to Islamic countries.
For those who present themselves for a hooker licence in the West, there is no way on God’s green earth that any bureaucrat can validate whether or not a girl is doing so of her freewill.
Then we have the mental issues which is a whole thesis in of itself. Show me a happy hooker and I’ll show you a commoditized human who just hasn’t hit bottom yet. But when she does, none of the king’s horses and men can put her damaged self-esteem and body back together again, save the King of Kings.
Where are the women rights activists in all this? Strangely quite because to fight this puts them at direct odds with the notion that only a woman can determine what to do with her body with regards to abortion.
Result? Abortion Rights > Sex Victim Rights
Inspector, Detroit’s been trying to do the same. I believe they currently have a Johns’ Hit Parade on their public access channel, but ACLU and others are busy doing whatever they can to prevent the shaming. However, one thing they haven’t been able to do is stop the confistication of the John’s car.
The big problem is that Inner Detroit is sort of a tourist destinatation for thrill-seekers from the outlying communities. Guys head downtown for sex and/or drugs and when caught lose their cars.
There is a similar program that will soon take effect here in St. Paul, MN.
Shame/fear are powerful deterrents.
LaShawn, in a free market system, local decentralized government should be the primary drivers of behavior they feel is in the best or reasonable interest of their community. Any time you consolidate political power, you reduce freedom.
This is the spectrum between socialism and free markets, and most folks fall in between. The socialist says that state is the ultimate individual responsible for what is right and wrong in society. The free society says, the market (with limited governance) determines the direction a society should go.
As your buddy Sowell’s hero Milton Friedman states, the government should only be used (outside of military, policing & other essential services) to ensure that individuals within a free market system are playing by the rules or that events don’t occur that will materially damage the system. In every other instance, individual freedom (that stops at the end of anothers nose) should be the rule of the day.
What this does is protect my rights as a Christian to evangelize, and promote my beliefs, the same as it does the hindu to do the same. And in the free market of religion individuals will either accept or reject what I have to say but those beliefs aren’t imposed.
I find it dangerous (in protection of my Christian beliefs) any time government above the local level seeks to impose unilaterally its definition of morality. Why? Because today it may be conducive to my Christian beliefs, but tommorrow my Christian beliefs may be what is considered immoral and outlawed.
So the litmus test for me on prostitution and marijuana is this. If legalized, would it in a very real and identifiable way damage the American system. I sumbit that it would not. If not, government above the local level should have a part in it. This doesn’t mean I don’t think it is wrong, or would attempt to talk people out of such behaviors, but ultimate my philosophy protects me and my beliefs.
Murder, robbery, and other forms of criminality that directly affect another individual are different than a woman choosing to exchange sex for profit.
PS. Europe’s negative experiences notwithstanding, Holland’s public funds are currently being used to pay for sexual services, stemming from a successful lawsuit back in 93/94.
In it, a parapeligic sued the government that since he is supported by welfare for all his other needs, it therefore stands to reason that the State should also pay for his sexual needs. The courts agreed with his argument and consequently the right to sex was enshrined in public law.
We already know that some of our jurists hold international standards in high regard. It requires no stretch of imagination to say that if prostitution is legalized here, it won’t be long before the taxman asks you for your contribution to help pay for another’s right to sex.
If some Christians still think that the libertarian in them demands decriminalization, what else can I say?
The ongoing glamourization of the oldest profession bears a critical look, with which Dennis Prager has skillfully deconstructed the here (who’s your god?):
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
It also goes without saying that Jesus’ lineage passes thru the love child of Judah & a harlot (Gen 38 ), so that he could tuly bear the sins of the world.
Well, here’s an idea:
Instead of attacking the symptom (prostitution), why not attack the disease (poverty and drug abuse)? Unless we can get poverty and drug abuse in this country under control, no amount of “shaming” will solve anything.
We already know that some of our jurists hold international standards in high regard. It requires no stretch of imagination to say that if prostitution is legalized here, it won’t be long before the taxman asks you for your contribution to help pay for another’s right to sex. – Andy
LOL Andy, this is such a slippery slope. How do you go from legalized prostitution to wholesale socialism and tax payers paying for someone t have sex? Hahaha…
I am glad I have some free time to day because this is a good topic.
Where prostitution is a crime, why do we talk about the seller as a victim and the buyer as the criminal? Why not both? Why not pubicly disgrace both? -Mikem
So you’ve missed the point made by Montie, Andy and me above that you CAN’T SHAME a person who has no sense of self repsect? Or do you just disagree?
Both are criminals. The victimizeation of many prostitutes is a symptom of a larger disease.
However, to wipe out a trade, you need to elminate the supply or the demand. Or both. The fewer johns willing to buy reduces the number of people able to support themselves selling.
The publicizing of the names of johns arrested in sting operations has been tried in numerous jurisdictions and has proven to be very effective. It definitely reduces demand for a while. What usually happens though is that the program curtails the problem to the extent that it is no longer viewed as a problem, so it is eventually dropped. It doesn’t take too long for things to build back up again once that happens.
Publicizing prostitute’s names or faces for the most part is ineffective as SCSIwuzzy has stated. They don’t have family, coworkers, friends, etc. to be embarrassed or shamed by. As I said before, it would amount to little more than free advertising.
Dell, you totally passed over my paragraph in (#34, 2nd Para) laying out the case to support my logic.
Read it again, google it up if you will — don’t know if the “Right to Sex” will show up since it was a court case backe before the age of the web — and see if you’re still laughing.
A few years ago, the notion that the SCOTUS would countenance McCain-Feingold was indeed laughable, but we’re not laughing now, nor is CBC.
Andy, it is a European court case in a socialist country. It is virtually irrelevent to the conversation at hand and here is why.
1. America starts from a different premise on what is a right and what is not. In America there is no ‘right’ to have sex.
2. Arguing from a freemarket position on legalizing prostitution is the polar opposite from legalizing prostitution from a socialistic perspective. The former says let the freemarket reign absent any large social threat that may occur because of it. The latter says let the government reign and prescribe morality from an ivory tower. So although the ultimate effect (legalization of ps) is the same, the rational of both positions is different and therefore comparisons are moot.
Everything you mentioned increases government control, all my arguments are based on reducing government control.
To all Libertarians here:
The role of government is to: a) protect people’s security from foreign invasion; b) ensure people’s rights to live out their lives according to God’s rules; c) protect people, if need be, from other people who break God’s rules. It’s that simple. There is no other role government should play, and the government must not fail on those three points. You are advocating that the government endorse people’s “rights” to break God’s rules. That is completely and utterly immoral. Legalizing prostitution and drugs is like legalizing abortion, murder, theft, you name it. A completely evil and decadent society will be the result. I hope you people never come to power.
Shayne
Shayne, who defines what God’s rules are. For example, if India became democratic with libertarian sentiments do God’s rules consist of what they define them as whatever they may be? And how does this protect the rights of the minority who have a different religious perspective?
This is not a theocracy, nor does Christianity subcribe to a theocratic government.
Well said Andy!
protect people, if need be, from other people who break God’s rules. It’s that simple.
Wow.
I would imagine that there is a very large secular population in this country who may have something to say about this. For example, I just read another site which complained, out loud, that American Family Association’s boycott of Ford Motor Company over Ford’s policy of same-sex benefits, was wrong. I defended AFA’s right to boycott, as it is their right, and it is the American way. And the site in question is supposedly a right-leaning site!
I always back up Christians when they’re getting pilloried by secularists, both left and right. I always argue that Christians do not want to take over the government and institute a theocracy. Statements like Shayne’s gives these same secularists fodder.
Something to keep in mind.
TV (Harry)
Attention Dell Gines:
Pot destroys brain cells. The dangers of recreational drug use/abuse have been well proven. If these drugs are legalized, my insurance premiums will be driven up. The Government becomes more obligated to pay for treatment of addictions from legalized drugs, much more so than the illegal ones.
Look at the big money awards that the Tobacco Industry has to pay out to victims. The taxpayers end up paying for those lawsuits. You wouldn’t have any of those if Tobacco were illegal. Nobody could sue. And insurance premiums would go way down.
I don’t smoke cigarettes, pot, or anything else. So, why should I end up paying the health care, and lawsuit, costs for someone who does?
Same thing with prostitution. Can you imagine the liability and exposure the Government (taxpayers) opens itself up to if prostitution is legalized?
Not to mention the administrative, bureaucratic (read: higher taxes) costs associated with regulating such an industry. The IRS can already collect taxes on prostitution, right now, whether illegal or not.
All legalizing these things does is create more costs and more Government liability.
By the way, Nevada does have big problems. They have a big health care crisis, and a high degree of social ills. The veneer of Las Vegas glamour hides a lot of it. But, it’s there.
Glamchild, let’s indulge your reasoning for a second…
“pot kills brain cells”…
First of all, every athletic sport causes some form of physical damage. Right now, I have a back problem, had a torn achilles, have a left ankle problem, and probably lost about 10 IQ points from boxing and playing college basketball.
Should the government be in the position of banning every American activity that could potentially cause self harm?
Should the government regulate this/these because it causes physical damage?
Secondly, do you advocate the elimination of all alcholic beverages, ultra fatty foods, and other ingested items that lead to poor health? That is your chain of reasoning.
Thirdly, the government is not under ‘obligation’ to pay for any form of therapeutic treatment. I don’t believe that is the role of the government.
——-
Also what on earth are you talking about –
“Look at the big money awards that the Tobacco Industry has to pay out to victims. The taxpayers end up paying for those lawsuits. You wouldn’t have any of those if Tobacco were illegal. Nobody could sue. And insurance premiums would go way down.”
I see two parties, the Tobacco Industry & Victims. (I only call them victims if they can prove they had no knowledge of the harmful effects).
Yes there are secondary effects of increased health insurance cost in group policies based upon the risk a smoker brings into the pool, however, in a free market, it is still YOUR choice on whether to participate in the policy with a higher rate. Insurance is not like a tax, which is mandatory, insurance is voluntary so that argument doesn’t fly. In addition, the wealth accrued in the insurance industry by the increased cost of smokers is redistributed wealth recycled back into the economy, which further weakens your argument. Even medicaid is a form of wealth redistribution, where taxes are recycled back through beauracracies and healthcare providers. And finally, smokers die earlier, so you have more social security
.
It terms of the beaucratic cost of licensing and regulating the prostitution industry, I would suggest doing a cost versus benefits analysis. What are the aggregated taxes received from legal prostitution versus the expenses of regulating it. If it is rolled under other licensing agencies that already exist, I seriously don’t believe that the government would come out a loser on the deal.
So then all you can fall back on are the sociological impacts. And this is why I am in favor of localized government determining the legality of it. Because they are the ones best equipped to gauge the immediate impact on there communities of prostitution.
Dell, I’ve done a cost/benefit analysis.
There’s nothing in it for the Government.
IRS can already collect on both prostitution and pot, right now. Heck, the IRS collected taxes from the Mafia for years.
The only thing the Government (taxpayers) gain is increased liability and exposure. Yes, anyone can sue the Government for anything. All you need is a claim. Dell, have you seen some of the ridiculous claims that are making it through the legal system?
Legalizing this stuff, only gives the “victims” even more legal ground to stand on. More clogged courts, and more legal fees—and we all know who ends up paying those.
Dell, re #33, #41 & #42. I hear what you’re saying, BUT, with regards to prostitution, someone IS being victimized, conventional wisdom to the contrary.
Also there are elements of society standards that supercedes individual rights.
It’s fine and dandy to argue that what one does with their body is onething however, it is another thing when that person does it on ‘my’ street or ‘my’ neighborhood, let alone flaunting it and giving my kids mixed-up ideas (another reason why I HATE this ‘pimp’ this and ‘ho’ that youth culture). When that happens, society has every right to step up and defend their commons.
As Shayne pointed out, even in a Libertarian utopia, the government still has an obligation to defend the weak. In this case, nevermind the PC BS, women ARE vulnerable to the wiles of the sex trade. As I have demonstrated, even in countries where prostitution is legal, women continue to be oppressed. If anything it is worse!
How? If a woman is forced into the sex trade where it is illegal, yet wants out, all she has to do is call for help, ie cops. What confidence does the same woman have in a legal envirnoment, that she would be taken seriously, let alone hope to escape. Afterall, some of her would be rescuers are apt to be her best customers.
For all of your righteous indignation about perceived racism in today’s America, you would condemn the sistah to a loss of self-determination and dignity in order to remain true to the libertarian principle? Something is not computing here or have your values been tainted by hip-hop culture.
Speaking of racism, did you see ABC’s Nightline last night? If not I highly recommend you track it down. It is estimated that there are 27 million slaves today and they are worth less than ever. In Niger, slaves are worth $30 – $50 USD – less than a milk cow. A bad slave is so cheap, it’s more convenient to kill ‘em than to beat them into submission.
In today’s $ value, a slave brought to these shores 200 years ago were worth more by a magnitude of 1,000, but I digress. Slavery has been declared illegal for a couple of years now in Niger, yet there 10s of thousand still in slavery today. Why? Because they don’t even know that it’s illegal.
Likewise, if Tatjana or Femi comes here thinking she’s going to be a model and winds up being a sex slave, how on earth is she even going to think she can escape if prostitution is legal here?
In spite of all your years of working in the hood, I’m afraid you didn’t think this thru to its logical conclusion.
OTOH, I agree with you that drug use needs to be decriminalized for the simple reason that addicts need help, not a stretch in the hoosegow. As for casual users,as long as they keep it at home and maintain a sober public face, I could care less.
Resources for someone who is interested in reading about the impact of prostitution and a woman who crusaded on this subject, try reading “A Singular Iniquity” by Glen Petrie. Another book is “The Five-Pound Virgins.” I forget the author of the last one. The woman in the first book is Josephine Butler nee Grey. She is one of my heroes.
Evon, I haven’t read that book, but came across a topical piece a while back. Excellent point. Here’s a link to excerpts (I see some parallels to the Islamic female-phobia):
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/butler.html
Speaking of Deep Throat, AKA Linda Lovelace, was in some documentary a few years ago, full of regret and if she had to do it again, she would never have done porn.
The show also interviewed a few other porn stars, from newbie to veteran. Once the interviewer peeled away the veneer of happiness, the viewer is compelled to acknowledge that they were all damaged goods. And this is a legal industry.
Dell, re #40: “Andy, it is a European court case in a socialist country. It is virtually irrelevent to the conversation at hand and here is why.
1. America starts from a different premise on what is a right and what is not. In America there is no ‘right’ to have sex.
My response to that is to quote this:
In Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) cited both the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which the United States has ratified) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which it has not) as evidence of an “international understanding of the office of affirmative action.†In Justice Ginsburg’s view, these international conventions provide the grounds for “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality.†(Bold emphasis mine.)
In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy prominently recurred to a friend-of-the-Court brief on foreign law and court decisions filed by Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to a key decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
Hmmm, my previous two comments didn’t take, last try…
DG, re #40, you said: “Andy, it is a European court case in a socialist country. It is virtually irrelevent to the conversation at hand and here is why.
1. America starts from a different premise on what is a right and what is not. In America there is no ‘right’ to have sex.”
In response, I’ll excerpt from Ken Kersch’s article Multilateralism Comes to the Courts in the Winter 2004 Public Interest magazine:
“In Grutter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) cited both the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which the United States has ratified) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which it has not) as evidence of an “international understanding of the office of affirmative action.†In Justice Ginsburg’s view, these international conventions provide the grounds for “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality.†In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy prominently recurred to a friend-of-the-Court brief on foreign law and court decisions filed by Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to a key decision of the European Court of Human Rights.”
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2004winter/article1.html
And you were saying???
There are some great arguments made here against legalized prostitution, especially from Andy, SCSIwuzzy, and Montie.
I think that the central issues with prostitution are disease and the enslavement / degradation of women.
I would argue that if prostitution was legalized and regulated, these problems could be kept more easily under control. If a woman (or man, for that matter) works in a bawdy house that is regularly visited by the local health inspector, then she automatically has a venue to complain if she’s being mistreated. Women working in such places would (presumably) also have protection against homocidal johns and pimps. It should go without saying that the courts should vigorously prosecute anybody who forces a woman into the sex trade.
Greg in # 35 has a good point. As has been pointed out, a lot of women sell their bodies because it’s their only alternative to starving in the gutter. I may be a heartless Republican, but surely we can provide better options than that.
At any rate, I pose the central question:
Is prostitution IN AND OF ITSELF bad? Not ‘wrong’, but ‘bad’?
I argue that it is not. What is ‘bad’ are the accompanying crimes and pathologies such as the use of drugs and violence against women to get / keep them in the racket, disease, etc. It is similar with drug use: there would be far less drug-related crime if users could get their fix at the local CVS.
By analogy, consider our societal attitude toward alcohol. Drinking is perfectly legal above a certain age. We know that some people become addicted to alcohol, and it can ruin their lives. But the only time we get really upset about drinking is when somebody gets hurt because of drunk driving or some drunken brute decides to beat on his wife. Our response is to prosecute the criminal, not ban the vice.
It ought to be the same with prostitution. Mind you, I wouldn’t want any female relative or friend of mine to engage in such activity, but I don’t see the good in locking people up over it.
docjim, rhetorically speaking, Ms Indra of Pepsico was right about Europe pointing the way that getting prostituion out of the underground economy is good.
But before we rush in the direction that they are pointing, it would behoove us to really examine the ups & down well — learn about the hidden costs 2nd hand as opposed to experiencing it 1st hand.
Unvarnished Euro stats are hard to come by (I doubt it even exists in one consolidated form), I can only base my opinion on long-term observation and putting disparate clues together.
However, legalizing it American style means it becomes a government sanctioned endeavor. And you know as well as I do, when that happens, lawyers rush in to stretch the boundries as far as they can and then some.
Criminalization or legalization, which is the greater evil?
In that case, perhaps better for the government to be totally neutral on the subject on the condition that force will not be tolerated with full weight of law.
I posit that of the previously discussed options, legalization is the worst and that societal shame is the best way to make it rare and safe. It would take a serious political discussion to find that ‘happy’ medium.
docjim: With respect, for personal reasons I disagree that prostitution should be legalized, but I wholeheartedly agree that from a societal point of view, it should be. To me, prostitution is the worst degradation that a man or woman can inflict on THEMSELVES. And that is my next point. Your statement that “a lot of women sell their bodies because it’s their only alternative to starving in the gutter” is utterly alien to my own experience in working with drug addicts and the homeless men and women. The non-profit I eventually worked for provided ‘full support’ recovery services for these men and women on the streets, and not once in my entire experience did I came across a prostitute who was in your stated situation. Every prostitute that we treated was prostituting for drug money. Without exception.
Female prostitutes are the most heartbreaking part of anyone’s experience working with drug addicts. Their chances of recovery are slim because their sense of loss of dignity is much more profound than with other homeless drug addicts, male or female. Males generally shoplift or commit other crimes, especially low level drug dealing, to feed their habits and do not as readily feel a loss of dignity from their criminal conduct. Women also steal, but the options of drug dealing, car theft, B&E, robbery etc. seem more extreme to them than selling their bodies. It is just too ‘easily’ accomplished and the market too accessible for them to ignore.
Their situation is utterly lamentable, but it is self inflicted and to paint a prostitute as a victim of an uncaring society, forced to sell her body to provide food or shelter for herself and/or children is to ignore the actual reasons that women and men prostitute. It is about making ‘easy’ money for drugs.
I have no doubt that many decades ago many women engaged in prostitution for the reason you cite, although drugs were a large component of that era too, but it does not apply today.
Well, you guys can argue on and on, but this is the truth: no one who does not have a Biblical Christian viewpoint should have any say in the government, because they are going to push evil laws. Muslims are going to push Sharia law, Atheists are going to push abortion, prostitution, racism, socialism, population control, genocide, and the list goes on. Only Christians are going to protect people’s securities, freedoms, and rights. Those other groups can live here according to their own customs as ordained by the First Amendment, but if they break any laws affecting a Christian, such as murder and theft, they must be punished. If you legalize prostitution, you’re going to have to legalize murder as well, or you’re a complete hypocrite.
By the way, the Founding Fathers were of the opinion that only Christians should be running the government. However, they didn’t write that into the Constitution because it would lead to liberals claiming to be Christians running things unopposed. Instead, We the People can do our best to ensure that true Christians get elected. And that’s all I have to say.
“LOL Andy, this is such a slippery slope. How do you go from legalized prostitution to wholesale socialism and tax payers paying for someone to have sex? Hahaha…”
Dell, I believe we are paying for people to have sex now. Medicaid/Care provides Viagra, which came to my attention when some news broadcast discovered some pedophiles and sex offenders were ‘getting it’, compliments of you and I.
Andy and mikem,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses. I absolutely agree that prostitution is about as low as a person can go, and the image that you paint, mikem, is truly heartbreaking.
However, I think we’re stuck with the fact that prostitution exists and will continue to exist until the end of time, so we’ve got to make the best ‘deal with the devil’ that we can.
Does anyone remember the song “Cosmic Slop”, penned by George Clinton and performed by Funkadelic (circa 1973)? (Y’all are gonna think I am as as old as Redbeard). Anyway, I only mention it because the lyrics were about a mother of five who turned tricks to help feed and clothe her kids. She definitely felt shame about what she had done, about her dance with the devil. I know, it is fiction–it just came to mind.
Excellent discussion here. Thanks, for the morning brain stretch!
“How do you go from legalized prostitution to wholesale socialism and tax payers paying for someone to have sex? Hahaha…”
Well Dell, I believe we are almost paying for people to have sex now. Medicaid/Care provides Viagra, which came to my attention when some news broadcast discovered some pedophiles and sex offenders were getting it for free, compliments of you and I.
Don’t say it couldn’t happen. Who would have ever thought back when abortion was first made legal, that protecting women from dying due to botched backroom abortions would evolve into the right to kill a partially born baby ‘with the Doctors help’.
Slippery slope indeed.
Awesome! Best of luck for the city’s efforts!
Dell Gines: Should the Government regulate Football, Fatty foods, Alcohol ????
They tried to regulate Alcohol (Prohibition), and it didn’t work.
A lot of this is what the Public will tolerate. Nobody likes the food police, and the psychological benefits of team sports, especially for men, far outweigh any drawbacks.
But, I think the public would go for increased smoking laws, as many cities have already banned smoking. The public has spoken on that. Majority rules.
A majority of the public does not want prostitution legalized.
The Government cannot be neutral. Either you are promoting something, or you’re not. Legalizing has the effect of promoting, and encouraging, a social wrong. —-A moral wrong.
I’m glad there are still some moral absolutes in society.
Prostitution degrades women. That’s all I need to know in order to be firmly opposed to its legalization.
GlamChild and Red, You guys have to stop with the common sense stuff. Can’t we just keep it complicated and enjoy the pleasant conversation we’re having here.
Why would our Creator create “shame”. Clearly there is some good purpose. This seems like one of the useful applications of it.
Comments on this entry are closed.