![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Decriminalization vs. Criminalization
May. 13th, 2004 10:41 amProstitution: what to do about it, if anything?
Prostitution is often referred to as a victimless crime, a crime where no one is injured and both parties enter the situation willingly.
There are some interesting arguments for all three options regarding prostitution (legalizing, decriminalizing, or criminalizing). Ignoring for a moment the thought of legalization, here are the main arguments posited:
-If we removed the monetary aspect from prostitution, it would be legal. Assuming that the sex is not being had in public, there is nothing inherently illegal about consenting sex between two adults. (Put aside assumptions of coercion by a pimp or brothel owner; I will address criminal activity in a moment.) In fact, in many places it is not the act of prostitution itself, but the soliciting thereof that is an indictable offense. Why, then, is a transaction between two people for a substance (sex) indictable, when merely giving the substance is not?
-Prostitution increases criminal activity; decriminalizing it will open the door not only to above-ground prostitution, but further underground crime-ring prostitution.
This argument, to me, seems counterintuitive. Take alcohol, for example, a substance that was once legal and then criminalized. That criminalization did not remove the desire or the market for alcohol; it merely drove it underground, providing the mob with a product that many people wanted and were willing to pay to get. If the desire for something is there, there will always be people finding ways to get it; by decriminalizing it, it opens a way for people to get it outside of criminal connections.
-Subset: prostitution increases drug use/helps maintain drug use.
I would have to see specific studies on this, for I can't seem to find any online.
-Prostitution is demoralizing.
Perhaps so, for some, but so is scrubbing toilets for a living, or being screamed at by a manager for not flipping burgers fast enough, or sitting at a desk job for forty years. It is not the government's place to decide what will or will not demoralize people.
-Prostitution objectifies women.
No more than a construction worker is objectified when he does his job. He is using his body to perform a service for a designated amount of time and for a designated amount of money; so is a prostitute.
-Exposing prostitution to children is immoral.
Presumably the prostitutes are not asking children to have sex with them (again, this would fall under an indictable offense, and is not something inherent to prostitution). If we are worried about obscenity, then there is the possibility of forming a red-light district, policed the same as any other area.
-The question of transmission of STDs.
Without having facts and figures in this sector, I cannot say whether or not decriminalization of prostitution will result in an increase or a decrease in transmitted diseases. Still, we do not have a law maintaining that anyone with an STD must use adequate protection; to keep prostitution a crime solely for the reason of keeping down STD transmission is going to be ineffectual at best.
-Prostitution is a social problem; therefore legalizing it is not the correct answer, but rather dealing with the underlying problem.
Wonderful! And while we're dealing with the underlying problem, we can decriminalize prostitution. If the government makes it so that no one has to become a burger-flipper or a toilet-scrubber and people choose not to go into those fields, then that's wonderful. The same strategy can be applied to prostitution.
-As "criminals", prostitutes are considered (and likely believe themselves to be) second-class citizens. Thus, issues like rape, abuse, and assault may go unreported, since the police/legal system won't care about people who 'put themselves in a situation' where those things are likely to happen.
Indeed, there is a reason that questioning a woman's previous sexual activity is not allowed in rape cases. It does not matter where they were or what they were doing at the time; they still have a right to be considered citizens under the law.
---
I'm probably missing a few of the common arguments, but those are the ones that I could think of. Obviously, my stance is weighted towards decriminalization. Anyone have any other arguments (for or against), or facts and figures I could look at?
Prostitution is often referred to as a victimless crime, a crime where no one is injured and both parties enter the situation willingly.
There are some interesting arguments for all three options regarding prostitution (legalizing, decriminalizing, or criminalizing). Ignoring for a moment the thought of legalization, here are the main arguments posited:
-If we removed the monetary aspect from prostitution, it would be legal. Assuming that the sex is not being had in public, there is nothing inherently illegal about consenting sex between two adults. (Put aside assumptions of coercion by a pimp or brothel owner; I will address criminal activity in a moment.) In fact, in many places it is not the act of prostitution itself, but the soliciting thereof that is an indictable offense. Why, then, is a transaction between two people for a substance (sex) indictable, when merely giving the substance is not?
-Prostitution increases criminal activity; decriminalizing it will open the door not only to above-ground prostitution, but further underground crime-ring prostitution.
This argument, to me, seems counterintuitive. Take alcohol, for example, a substance that was once legal and then criminalized. That criminalization did not remove the desire or the market for alcohol; it merely drove it underground, providing the mob with a product that many people wanted and were willing to pay to get. If the desire for something is there, there will always be people finding ways to get it; by decriminalizing it, it opens a way for people to get it outside of criminal connections.
-Subset: prostitution increases drug use/helps maintain drug use.
I would have to see specific studies on this, for I can't seem to find any online.
-Prostitution is demoralizing.
Perhaps so, for some, but so is scrubbing toilets for a living, or being screamed at by a manager for not flipping burgers fast enough, or sitting at a desk job for forty years. It is not the government's place to decide what will or will not demoralize people.
-Prostitution objectifies women.
No more than a construction worker is objectified when he does his job. He is using his body to perform a service for a designated amount of time and for a designated amount of money; so is a prostitute.
-Exposing prostitution to children is immoral.
Presumably the prostitutes are not asking children to have sex with them (again, this would fall under an indictable offense, and is not something inherent to prostitution). If we are worried about obscenity, then there is the possibility of forming a red-light district, policed the same as any other area.
-The question of transmission of STDs.
Without having facts and figures in this sector, I cannot say whether or not decriminalization of prostitution will result in an increase or a decrease in transmitted diseases. Still, we do not have a law maintaining that anyone with an STD must use adequate protection; to keep prostitution a crime solely for the reason of keeping down STD transmission is going to be ineffectual at best.
-Prostitution is a social problem; therefore legalizing it is not the correct answer, but rather dealing with the underlying problem.
Wonderful! And while we're dealing with the underlying problem, we can decriminalize prostitution. If the government makes it so that no one has to become a burger-flipper or a toilet-scrubber and people choose not to go into those fields, then that's wonderful. The same strategy can be applied to prostitution.
-As "criminals", prostitutes are considered (and likely believe themselves to be) second-class citizens. Thus, issues like rape, abuse, and assault may go unreported, since the police/legal system won't care about people who 'put themselves in a situation' where those things are likely to happen.
Indeed, there is a reason that questioning a woman's previous sexual activity is not allowed in rape cases. It does not matter where they were or what they were doing at the time; they still have a right to be considered citizens under the law.
---
I'm probably missing a few of the common arguments, but those are the ones that I could think of. Obviously, my stance is weighted towards decriminalization. Anyone have any other arguments (for or against), or facts and figures I could look at?
