General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Do We Throw Prostitutes in Prison?
http://www.alternet.org/prostitute-imprisoned-sex-workerSex worker activists (who want the sex trade to be treated like any other work) and prostitution abolitionists (who want to see it disappear entirely) dont agree on much, but they do on this: Giving people charged with prostitution a felony also gives them a criminal record that makes other work almost impossible to find, thus trapping them into selling sex in perpetuity.
And now, with eight states handing down felony charges for prostitution where nonviolent, mostly female prostitution offenders are serving in state prison a battle to lessen criminal penalties has been joined by an unlikely ally. Conservative lawmakers, looking at price tags, are also receptive to changing the way we see and treat people working in prostitution.
The latest example of this shift to view people in prostitution as victims rather than criminals is last weeks passage of a bill removing the felony penalty in Illinois which has some of the harshest prostitution laws in the country. The legislation sailed through the Illinois Legislature, after a decade of work by End Demand Illinois, a coalition that wants to see prostitution eliminated. The highest penalty for selling sex in the state will now be a Class A misdemeanor.
There are very, very few crimes, in my view, that exist in the criminal code, that you can truly say in this instance, the perpetrator is likely as much a victim as they are a perpetrator, said Illinois state Sen. Dale Righter, a Republican and former prosecutor, when the bill was being debated. People who would disagree with that would say, theres a notion of personal responsibility here. They decided to do it. And you know, in the strictest of legal terms, theres no doubt that thats true. But the situations that most of these young ladies find themselves in are unlike any situations that I bet any of us have encountered, and I hope none of us ever have to encounter.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Many are walking Petri dishes....
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)At this point in time I don't have a problem with the current laws.
theaocp
(4,237 posts)is laudable. However, it's naive to the hilt. Moralizing folks want to punish prostitutes for their desperate choices. It's uncivilized.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Create a program for repeat offenders.....
theaocp
(4,237 posts)but to think most aren't moralizing busybodies who want to feel superior to those in desperate circumstances is naive. How about regulating the industry instead? Then, you can have your cake and eat it, too.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Is not going to change the high mortality rate of prostitutes.....
TommyCelt
(838 posts)...hasn't done much for it either.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Is not going to make it any safer...from the johns or the pimps who take advantage of them nor is it goi g to reduce the soread of std's.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:25 PM - Edit history (4)
get health care, STD are not spread.
Not a job I would reccomend to anyone, but thats my personal opinion. In life, people have choices, often they don't get a good selection of choices to pick from, or they may not even have the luxury of a choice, due to certain socio-economic factors.
But if you are going to have the industry legal. NV is a model.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,838 posts)Good, well-supported post, by the way.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)something like 90% of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government. It is open desert. People tend to live in the Mountains around Reno or around the Colorado River in places like Las Vegas. In both Reno and Las Vegas prostitution is illegal.
In most of the rest of the State Prostitution is legal (county option) and that is where the "Legal" prostitutes operate. The Legal houses are in isolated areas near major highways. Being isolated they have to advertise and they do, bragging about how safe they are. I have NOT heard of any independent studies showing that to be true, but it is claimed by these houses.
The reason prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas and Reno is the same reason it is illegal in the rest of the Nation. It has been found to be the best way to regulate prostitution. Remember most regulation of prostitution has little to do with preventing VD or drugs, but in making sure the number of people complaining of seeing them in their neighborhoods are kept to a minimum. i.e. making sure they only operate in certain areas and at certain times.
In the rural areas of Nevada, given that the neighbor is almost always a US government bombing or test range, few complaints thus no need to make them illegal. Thus in many ways Nevada shows why Prostitution is illegal in the US, it is more to give the maximum amount of power to their regulatory agency, the local police.
midnight
(26,624 posts)But then that is just my thoughts and would gum up the real works but good...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Under Health and Humane services...
midnight
(26,624 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Irony is so underappreciated.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Ah, another net.puritan, who thinks prison rehabilitates the most vulnerable in society!
marmar
(77,081 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Is being regulated out of existence.... plus the new ones are very clean but horribly unreliable due to the Epa regs.
The mfrs are selling a product that is directly approved by the govt on a case by case basis.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)I work in a major municipality, and nothing is approved or Disapproved on a case by case basis .
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Install ed in new vehicles must meet current epa requirements.....
ret5hd
(20,492 posts)But each engine model is evaluated........and certified
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)You might just be on to something here...
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)To say the least.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If they were licensed, and required checkups, and were provided with employee sponsored health insurance, then they wouldn't be a public health risk....
dotymed
(5,610 posts)It just makes sense. Why in the hell is America considered a 1st world country? Its arsenal?
Rape is lower in 1st world countries with legal, regulated prostitution... It will piss off the for profit prisons but the for profit probation depts.( same company) won't mind if its a misdemeanor....greed.....
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If it were legal, then it would be harder to hide that a woman prostitute is a minor to most people wanting to obey the law, and they could be rescued from child sex trafficking a lot sooner and help them sooner than the way it is now when they are just one cog in a big machine that is kept quiet by all.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The only difference is the meetmarketers try to scam and steal money from the guys they pick up, and the prostitutes state their price up front. You also mention down thread something about "pimps", which there are, but with the internet came many escorts who are independent often single mothers who are careful but need to earn some money..Frankly your "petri dish" comment is disgusting and demeaning, imo..punishing overwhelmingly victimless "crimes" is a problem in this country and does nothing but steal tax dollars and empower those profiting from jailing these people..liberalism, try it sometime, eh?
unblock
(52,243 posts)that sort of thinking leads to laws against all sex outside of marriage.
there are plenty of people who have committed the act of prostitution (perhaps only once before deciding it wasn't for them) yet actually had sex of any sort with very few partners; and there are certainly plenty of non-prostitutes who have had many, many partners.
the public health angle actually rather suggests regulation and routine screenings and treatment rather than criminalization.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Drugs are unhealthy, therefore, let's ban 'em! Of course nobody will defy the ban!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)doesn't have good hygiene then?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"Giving people charged with prostitution a felony also gives them a criminal record that makes other work almost impossible to find, thus trapping them into selling sex in perpetuity."
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Prostitutes rarely have enough money to pay the fine to cover the cost of being arrested, jailed, arraigned, tried and released. When it comes to traffic tickets (or parking tickets) people are given a ticker and told to pay it or go to court. Most people pay, thus the cost of writing traffic or parking tickets are low.
When you get away from traffic or parking tickets, cost escalate, for in those cases you have to make an actual arrest, which requires an arraignment, which leads to a trial. Those take up time and cost money. Most Criminal end up paying a fine over a three to six month period, but that barely covers the cost of the Trial let alone the Police officer who made the arrest.
Outside of the Major Cities (and industrial towns), police forces did NOT exist prior to about 1920. With the increase in the number of automobiles in the 1920s and the ability to give them tickets, more and more communities started to have police forces. These Police forces were to be paid by the tickets they issued. To make the system work more efficiently, driving licences were invented. Driving licenses permitted Police Officers ask for the license, give a ticket based on that license and leave the driver go, freeing up the officer to write a new ticket. Without a license, the officer had to take the driver to a Justice of the Peace, arraign him, have him post a bond etc. That would take 2-4 hours. 2-4 hours that the Officer could be writing more tickets. States justify requiring licenses for various reasons, including testing to make sure driver's new the rules of the road, but the real reason licenses are required is to make it easier for the Police Officers to write a lot of tickets AND not be tied up in court for each one.
Now, some people do challenge these tickets, so the courts make sure all of the tickets written by any one officer are held on the same day. Most people just pay, so no nearing is held, those that demand a hearing get one, one after another in front of the same Justice of the Peace. A very cost efficient system for the Justice system AND the police officer.
One of the problems with bicyclists is they do NOT have to carry a license. Thus if stopped by an officer, the officer either have to leave the cyclist go with a warning or haul him to the Justice of the Peace and go through a proper arrest procedure. Since most traffic violation are NOT jailable, the Justice of the Peace has to leave the cyclist go without a bail. This is the case even if the Cyclist did not give his name. Thus the time to arrest, arraign and try the cyclist is "lost" if the cyclist just leaves without paying a dime (This was a huge problem for police before the invention of the Driver's license).
Just pointing out that arresting prostitutes are NOT that profitable (and probably cost money), unlike traffic tickets or even parking tickets. The chief reason prostitutes are arrested is either they are in the wrong neighborhood or the Police want them off that street at that time period for some other reason (The Mayor may be coming to show off some project, politicians rarely want street walkers around them when the Politician is planning to be on Television).
Thus arresting prostitutes is NOT a revenue enhancement for most police departments. Most arrest are for some other reason, often part of the Police regulation of prostitution (making sure it only occurs in certain areas, where the complaints are few or from people the police don't care about).
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)p.s. it isnt the prostitutes who pay off the cops, it is the pimps and it is part of the racket that keeps the women effectively enslaved to their pimps.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A regulatory agency being "Captured" by the people it is suppose to regulate is not uncommon. That does NOT make the concept of regulation bad, it just means you have to watch for it and correct it when it occurs.
More on Captured Regulatory agencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Do some research. They aren't "captured regulatory agencies" as prostitution is prohibited. It is a classic black market situation, only the commodities are women. You seem to be searching for something to clobber me with. I don't even have a clue what your objection is to anything I've said in this thread, other than apparently it deserves outraged responses.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)First, prostitution was made illegal to better regulate it. The regulatory agency is the local Police and the Courts. No one ever believed that by making prostitution illegal, that would end it, but that to regulate it under the Constitutional norms of the late 1800s and early 1900s was to make it illegal.
Now that whole system changed during the 1930s and the rise of the modern regulatory system. The problem is, by that time local government had become use to regulating prostitution through the police. That is the REALITY of prostitution in the US today. Prostitution is a regulated industry, while technically it is illegal, that is just HOW it is being regulated. In many areas the regulatory agency (the local Police) are a captured regulatory agency (i,e, they take bribes to leave the prostitutes alone). Other regulated business do this all the time, they pay off, generally through campaign contribution the politician that nominate who heads the regulatory agency. In most Police department the same things happens. The Politicians know that the prostitutes are NOT wanted in certain areas and the police are told to keep them out of those areas,. The police keep them out, but demands payment from the prostitutes to leave them operate in the areas the prostitutes are permitted to operate in. Typical regulatory shakedown, but a price the prostitutes have been willing to pay for decades.
If you understood and accept the economics behind any regulated business, you will understood the differences are NOT that great. More industry specific then any real difference,
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You might want to investigate societies than have legal regulated prostitution rather than whatever the fuck you imagine our system to be. Certainly that approach is not problem free, but generally there is less disease, less child prostitution, and less abuse of the sex workers.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Tax money, in the form of law enforcement budgets, pay for those cops, pay for the judges, pay for the jail staff. The more crime an area can demonstrate that it has, the bigger that budget they can request and the more workers on the payroll. It isn't a direct, from-the-violator's-pocket revenue generator the way that traffic tickets are, but it is a revenue generator. So are marijuana busts.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)When politicians run for office, they concentrate on Violent Crime not prostitution. IT what they say they can do in regards to VIOLENT CRIME that gets them elected. Thus going after prostitutes does NOT bring in the vote (Except if a community wants the prostitutes out of neighborhood, then pushing the prostitutes out makes political sense).
Sorry, arresting a prostitutes rarely brings in more money to the Police. If the police leave the prostitutes operate in the wrong neighborhood, then the Police may LOSE money as people from that neighborhood complain. For this reason prostitutes are watched, to make sure they do NOT operate in the wrong area. This is part of the regulation of Prostitution in the US, we use the police to enforce the regulations, unwritten regulations that the vast majority of prostitutes quickly learn.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Look at the witch hunt in these threads. Or:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/feb/22/larry-brown-victor-chaltiel-against-downtown-red-l/#axzz2VNZSvmre
look what happens when you propose making it legal. Goodman caused a firestorm of NO from the good (R) citizens of Las Vegas, and the idea got dropped.
I don't know what TV show you're watching, but it isn't just "watched" by the police and shooed into certain tolerance areas in any city that I know of. They bust everywhere they find it. In Vegas it split along racial lines: most of the street workers who got regularly harassed were the black and Hispanic workers. You only really saw a blonde get busted if they were working the casinos as escorts, and then it made the local news. That race thing? That's an unwritten regulation, too. Aren't unwritten regulations fun?
Need more fun? Here's the Las Vegas sheriff, complaining about the damaging budget cuts to police in August 2012:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/aug/30/sheriff-warns/#axzz2VNZSvmre
and here's the Vegas news reporting an expansion of the vice squad in October 2012, specifically targeting prostitution:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/5101862/prostitution-crackdown-in-las-vegas-is-just-the-beginning
Not important?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And unless someone is doing it in a new place and someone complains, the police have other priorities. This is the old rule, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You go where people have complained OR you know they will complain. if the activity is going on in an area no one will complain about, you go elsewhere where people are complaining about something.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)It's no trouble at all for me to send them an email and ask about their policies regarding that area, or if there have been any arrests there.
In the third article I posted, the area of the bust they described, the "seedy stretch of Fremont"- Lower Fremont Street, between the Strip and Boulder Highway, I know the neighborhood and no I did not work there- is one of those herd zones you describe. It's not tolerated there either. Herding them in just makes for a better arrest count when they do run the busts through. Being in a more upscale neighborhood and getting complaints may get you busted faster, but it's going to happen either way. The main reason I don't have an arrest record is because I'm white. A white woman walking is a white woman walking, but a black or Latina woman walking is a whore. That's the unwritten policy in Las Vegas. Not only is it a budget scam, but it's a racist one.
KG
(28,751 posts)Jennicut
(25,415 posts)What a waste of time.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)"Selling is legal. F**king is legal. Why isn't selling f**king legal?"
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Why is paying for organ donations illegal?
bowens43
(16,064 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)basis to having sex?
Sex doesn't lead to PTSD, substance addiction, depression, etc. prostitution does.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Do tell...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)leads women to seek dissociation. Can't blame them.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The psychological damage goes beyond what you can imagine.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)And I can imagine that many of these women came to the profession either already addicted or psychologically damaged or both. The idea that otherwise well-adjusted women won't turn to drugs until after they've been exposed to prostitution is a little (make that a lot) far-fetched.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)your idle speculation will mean more than the world's smallest granule of feces.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)The rest of us are talking about prostitution. They aren't the same thing. They only equate in the minds of people who have issues with female sexuality, and can't conceive of the idea of female consent.
The women he's talking about didn't come into it voluntarily at all, with or without preexisting issues. It's rape. In order to make a "moral" point about prostitution, it's necessary to equate consensual acts with non-consensual acts, otherwise the entire argument falls apart. This is why you see the attempt to paint all prostitutes as sad, mindless, brain-damaged, childlike, not-quite-human little female animals in need of responsible adult guidance, which is nothing like the reality. It's also why you don't see them talking about male prostitutes at all- ever notice that it's always about women? It's easier to sell the idea that a woman is an animal incapable of consent, because the cultural mindset leans that way anyhow. Since men are by default considered able to consent in our society, their involvement in sex work has to be glossed over and ignored.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)Plenty of perfectly legal activities lead to PTSD, substance addiction, depression, etc...and continual BAD sex certainly can. I plead the 5th on how I know...
Quit degrading all prostitutes as tragedy cases. PTSD, substance addiction, depression, etc., can occur primarily from the false moral stigma and legal status of prostitution in this country.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)indicates that you're not interested in a serious conversation on the subject.
And thppfft to your claim that being concerned about the degrading effects of prositution is itself degrading. You buy the myth of the happy nymphomaniac prostitute at the cost of your own credibility.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)On these boards? In your estimation? I'm not all too worried about that. Most folks can pick out tongue-in-cheek when they read it. Others can't.
Criticism about how seriously I'm discussing something coming from someone doing razzberries in response was this morning's chuckle, though. Thanks a bunch.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)what kind of whack job society thinks this is makes sense.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)The most concise statement yet. I must remember it.
madokie
(51,076 posts)its because of so many believe in 'In God we Trust' and they have a lock on our congress critters.
That would be my guess anyway.
Fill me in to the truth if I'm wrong
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Until the magical thinking of the moral absolutists and their authoritarian sycophants is purged from the minds of the lawmakers, this subject can not be discussed rationally.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and that's too distasteful for a sexist, puritanical culture.
eppur_se_muova
(36,263 posts)Can't have them talking about customers, you know.
Upton
(9,709 posts)They come in all shapes, sizes, and political persuasions..What these prudish types don't seem to understand is you can't legislate everything they don't approve of away. Legalize prostitution and regulate it. It would be best for all concerned.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)When it was tried, it was a complete failure. Now most of these attempts were in the late 1800s early 1900s when the US Supreme Court had ruled that the "Freedom to Contract" could NOT be restricted, i.e. if you agreed to be a prostitute, if you decided to quit your "Employer" had the legal right to FORCE YOU TO CONTINUE TO DO IT. The local Police and Justices of the peace would side with whoever wanted for force the prostitute back to being a prostitute.
Now, around 1900, was the height of property rights and contractual rights. Court would enforce an absolute right to property AND enforce contracts to the letter UNLESS what was being asked was clearly illegal. Most of the court cases involved Justice of the Peace rulings, many were just informal no records. The women often had no real option to appeal to a higher court (They did have the LEGAL right to appeal, but only if they paid a bond or a filing fee, which most of them could not).
Age was NOT a factor, for it was common for 14 year olds to enter the work force. Emancipation could be shown by the simple fact you were on your own. If you were an emancipated minor any contract you signed was valid and enforceable against you, unless the contract would be illegal even if both parties were over 21.
It was these factors that lead to making prostitution a crime. With prostitution a crime, Contractual obligations was no longer a valid defense.
Now, starting only in the 1930s, the Courts started to accept restrictions on the Freedom of Contract AND absolute property rights. Regulations, as we understand them to be, only started in this time period, prior to that period, unless you had overwhelming evidence of the need for regulations, the Courts would strike down any regulation as violating the Freedom to Contract OR interfering with the Property Rights. Thus food regulations were permitted based on reports that clearly shown how bad the meat industry had become (After reading one report President Theodore Roosevelt said he would NEVER eat another Hot Dog).
On the other hand, a law restricting hours, even to working no more then 16 hours a day in a bakery doing heavy work, was ruled to violate the Freedom to Contract and was struck down by the US Supreme Court.
Given the lack of income of most prostitutes, they ability to take a case to the US Supreme Court is quite limited today, let alone in 1900. On the other hand some sort of regulations was called for (mostly from upper middle class people who did not want the prostitutes on their streets). Thus the push to make prostitution illegal. Il-legalization was viewed as the best way to regulate prostitution, it permitted local police to restrict prostitution to certain streets (away from upper middle class neighborhoods) and as a secondary method, check up on the prostitution for VD (which was a huge problem, I am talking about pre-Sulfa drug days).
The changes in the law, and the abandonment of the legal concepts of absolute right to contract and property did permit regulations to finally come into play in much of the US economy, but by then most cities were happy with their own regulations, which was centered around that prostitution was illegal.
Yes, just because something it illegal does NOT mean it is unregulated. Regulations of something may call for the thing being regulated being illegal. At present it is prostitution is legal in Nevada, but each county has the option to make it illegal. Las Vegas and the larger cities of Nevada have found the best way to regulate prostitution is to make it illegal. Otherwise, it is to hard to regulate. Notice Las Vegas and the other Cities of Nevada COULD try some other type of regulation, but the law regulating prostitution as a crime are well known and easy to follow. The reason is simple, with prostitution being illegal, the Police can push it anywhere where it is not wanted AND arrest the prostitute at any time to check on the condition of the sex worker.
On the surface that may sound arbitrary, but most police know where the prostitutes are for they go where they are customers. Thus the number of locations are restricted. If the prostitutes go elsewhere they are told (by being arrested) that the new location is not acceptable to the regulatory agency (the police). Such women should also be tested for VD and drugs, but most are drug addicts (and they become prostitutes to support they habits, not that prostitution leads to drug use).
Thus the present system is a system of regulation, a system that is known to the local police and the courts. It has worked, when other methods have been tried, they tend to fail (Nevada's exception actually proves the point These counties are sparsely populated areas where the nearest neighbor is often a US Air Force bombing range (Including Nuclear test ranges) Thus few complaints between neighbors due to the lack of neighbors. Elsewhere in the country, the complaints to the local government would be overwhelming (Complaints as to why that business is in their neighborhood more then any other complaint, nobody wants that type of business in their neighborhood). Thus the best way to regulate this business in the US given its history as to regulations of prostitution has been to make it illegal and keep it illegal. The only real issue is what "punishment" should the prostitute be charge with, a Felony is to high, I question a Misdemeanor, but even if it is a summary offense jail time should be an option (Jail is often used to separate prostitutes from their pimps, again part of the regulations of prostitution).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As long as you ignore Nevada, and all the European countries that legalized it.
For example, the UK made it de-facto legal. Women's groups and religous groups insisted legal prostitution was causing all sorts of women to be forced into it. Those groups got enough influence to trigger a nationwide investigation, where the authorities interviewd prostitutes, and offered to protect them if they were UK citizens, or give them a free flight home if they were not.
After thousands and thousands and thousands of interviews, they found.....2 women who took the flight home. The rest weren't exactly thrilled with their line of work, but they felt it was better than their other options.
This is wrong.
Nevada's prostitution laws only allow prostitution in counties with a low population. If the population exceeds a threshold, prostitution automatically becomes illegal. So no, Las Vegas did not decide to make prostitution illegal. And the enormous numbers of people handing out ads for "adult room service" should have demonstrated to you that making it illegal has done virtually nothing to stop it.
Oh, bullshit. A phone call can result in a prostitute "servicing" you faster than a pizza can be delivered. In every single city and state in the country. That is the utter antithesis of "worked".
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The US Constitution has a clause that forbids states from interfering with existing contracts. The intention was that States could not abolish private debts (which had support in the 1780s). It was a good provision rarely cited till about 100 years later.
Around 1900 (and actually starting about 1860), the US (following the UK's lead) re-wrote much of the Common Law. Long held law were reversed. For example, Rent due on rental property (unless it was clear, generally in a writing that other terms had been agreed on) went from being due at the end of the year and all leases being one year in length to the present norm of rent being due at the beginning of the month and the lease term being only one month in length (Please note this is a legal assumption that can be varied based on other evidence, i.e. a written one year lease would mean a one year lease not a one month lease).
Another change was from the old rule that people were presumed to be hired for one whole year (and often paid at the end of the year) to the present rule that people are paid monthy and can be fired or quit at any time.
The "Three evil sisters of the Common Law" finally crossed the ocean (the Three sisters, The Fellow Servant rule, Assumption of the risk, and contributory negligence) . These three evil sisters did not exist even in England prior to about 1800, but finally adopted in the US after about 1860.
The US then expanded the Contract clause of the US Constitution to forbid any regulation that restrict people's right to contract. For Example in 1905 the US Supreme Court ruled it was a violation of the Contact clause (and substantial due process) for a state to forbid a baker from working more then 16 hours a day. Lower courts expanded on this to include forcing people to do things they had contracted to do (and this being post Civil War, the courts had to work around the wording of the Post Civil War Amendments in regards to slavery and did so, if a contract was entered into).
After 1900 this movement ran into reality, but then demand that if a State or Federal Government wanted to regulate something, there had to be overwhelming evidence to support the need for such regulation.
That was the situation in 1900, when more people lived in RURAL American then URBAN American. That would reverse by 1920 and with that reversal a desire to regulate what went on where in urban areas. prostitution had always existed both in Urban and Rural America but starting about 1900 the need to regulate it became more and more a demand from the Upper Middle Class who did NOT want it in their neighborhoods (This same desire to protect they neighborhoods would later lead to Zoning Laws, that barely survived a Constitutional attack in the 1920s). Given this opposition to regulation and no one wanting to pay money to defend local regulation of prostitution all the way up to the US Supreme Court, most cities opt for one way the Supreme Court has permitted regulation, making something illegal.
Once the act of prostitution was illegal, any contract involving prostitution was no longer a valid enforceable contract. The Supreme Court had long ruled that a State could regulate contracts to be entered into in the FUTURE just could not regulate existing contracts. Thus the only way to regulate prostitution was to make it illegal. The need to regulate was clear by 1900 so between 1900 and 1920 prostitution was made illegal in most areas of the US.
From that point on the Police and local courts regulated prostitution through they ability to arrest anyone doing it for it was illegal. The primary concern was where prostitution occurred, thus prostitutes were often left alone in certain areas the police knew they operated in, but arrested elsewhere. Some jurisdiction added medical testing, but most did not for the concern was not the prostitutes but upper middle class residents complaining about them operating in their neighborhoods or where they went shopping.
By the 1930s this system or regulation was working and continued to work to this day. Is it perfect? no, but it is a system of regulation the Police and Courts are use to. In fact most proposals to legalize prostitution keep running across the same problems that lead to prostitution being illegal. How to regulate it and keep it out of certain neighborhoods?
To be constitutional Zoning has to Zone for everyone, right now no one needs to zone for prostitutes for prostitution is illegal (and legal sex industry, i.e. "Gentlemen's clubs" have a hard time getting permission to open due to "Zoning concerns" . This is one of the biggest problem when it comes to legal prostitution, where do you want it to occur? LA, which has legal marijuana, has had pressure to close down most if not all of the cannabis stores. Not because people want marijuana (including businessmen in commercial districts) to be illegal, the just do NOT want the store in their neighborhoods. Bars have a similar problem, unless there are pre-existing, hard to get a new one built except if it is a restaurant or "sport's bar" i.e. where food is clearly first and booze second.
Thus WHERE the prostitutes will be permitted to work is the biggest question as to legalization. No one even mentions this, for to mention is to address it and to address it you have to decide where it will be. The problem is NO ONE WANTS IT IS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD and thus its mostly exists in poorer neighborhoods where the police leave it exists for the poor have the worse voting record. The problem is then these poor neighborhoods slowly lose population and the people that can vote with their feet. This just makes the place even worse and sooner or later something has to be done, the neighborhood is destroyed and the prostitutes move to the next section of poor housing.
Even if the prostitutes stay inside, such houses bring with them some bad characters. Now, high end ones do not, but most prostitutes are NOT $1000 a nighters, most $25 to $50 for a quickee. The high end no one really cares about, except the prostitutes only work there in their "prime" and then go to lower rates after get to old, i.e. over 25 (25 is also the general cut off for Strip Clubs, you do have some older, but most are below age 25). Thus the concern is not the high end 21 year old hooker, but the same person five years later. You see a general deterioration of where such prostitute work even in Nevada. The legal places have the young ones, then when they get to old the prostitutes go to lower rates houses. Drug abuse adds the decline in where the prostitutes works.
Now, $1000 a night prostitute can do their business in a high end housing and no one will complain. The problem is at best this is just for a few years AND most prostitutes are NEVER in a position to charge a $1000 for their services (The going rate is much lower often $25 to $50 for a quickee). It is this vast majority that people object to, not the $1000 hookers (Most are amazed that there are men who can pay $1000 for a one night stand, most people, including most men could not even image paying that much for a one night stand).
Thus the thrust of regulations in the US had been aimed at making sure prostitutes operate only in certain areas and during certain times. Even the $1000 a night hookers get busted if the Police finds that what the are doing is outside the area where they are suppose to work. The Police, Courts and local Government understand the present regulatory system (Prostitution is technically illegal, thus the Police can regulate by arresting anyone operating NOT where the police want them to be). It may not be logically or what other countries have done, but this regulatory system has worked in the US since about 1900 and given what has to occur if prostitution was legalized, including actually formally deciding where it shall occur, the present system of regulation is the best we can do in the USA.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's this state called "Nevada". It actually exists. And it's really not hard for them to regulate legal prostitution. Where Nevada has problems is where the state law makes prostitution illegal.
Except LA does not have legal marijuana. Federal law still applies. That's where the pressure comes from.
In virtually any big-name hotel in the country, there are prostitutes working.
As for zoning, it's really not that hard at all. There's plenty of industrial zones in the country which would happily take the business. You don't have to put the brothels in residential areas.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)First, Nevada. In the major cities PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL, it is only in the rural desert communities that it is legal, and most of the time their neighbors is a Air Force Bombing Range or an Atomic Bomb Testing Range.
As to California and Marijuana, the problem does NOT appear to be the Feds:
California Supreme Court permits Riverside to ban marijuana stores through the use of Zoning:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/06/local/la-me-ln-med-pot-bans-20130506
LA will reduce the number of Cannabis stores:
http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-voters-ok-move-curtail-medical-marijuana-105425960.html
The problem with legalization is where will it be legal? In Las Vegas prostitutes are in the hotels, but prostitution is also illegal for the Hotel do NOT want them to be to open about it and thus are the biggest advocates to keep Prostitution ILLEGAL in Las Vegas (This way if a prostitute is to overt, the hotel can have them removed by the Police, part of the Police regulation of Prostitution in Las Vegas).
As to your statement about Industrial areas, the prostitutes do NOT want that area for most workers after work want to go home. It is NOT a place people go to party. Most are isolated away from Commercial areas or residential areas, thus no way to draw in clients. In the older cities of the Mid West and North East, most industrial areas are next to residential areas (in the days before cars you walked to work). In many ways that remain the norm, and no one wants a house of prostitution in their residential neighborhood. I use to live in an "Industrial Slum" and the people who live they do NOT want prostitutes in their community. It may be poor, but they want their community to be a middle class as they can make it.
Sorry, the problem is WHERE these prostitutes will be able to do their business, and right now no one wants them in their community. They are NOT wanted in Residential Communities, Commercial Communities or areas of heavy industry. They would be more tolerated in rural areas, but most "customers" will NOT want to travel that far (Through most of the "Gentlemen's Clubs" I know of are in the rural outskirts of major cities). Sorry, look at where you live, where would one be permitted? The "Gentleman's Clubs" have a hard time getting Zoned or other wise permitted to open, actual house of prostitution? That would be an even harder sell.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)California Supreme Court permits Riverside to ban marijuana stores through the use of Zoning:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/06/local/la-me-ln-med-pot-bans-20130506
LA will reduce the number of Cannabis stores:
http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-voters-ok-move-curtail-medical-marijuana-105425960.html
And the pressure to do those comes from the fact that it's still against federal law.
No, that's not a problem at all. There's a couple models. One has it legal everywhere, or damn near everywhere (such as exclusion areas around schools).
The other model has it legal in officially designated brothels, which again will have some restrictions on placement.
We'll have to alert the strip clubs that they don't exist. Most of them are far from residences in commercial or industrial zones.
If you go with a zoning-based model, brothels will be set up where they are legal. Which means the "Johns" will travel to where the brothel is.
Streetwalkers are unlikely to be legal under any reasonable scenario, and they are not legal in places where prostitution itself is legal.
You don't have to attract customers by them walking by the brothel. Much like strip clubs generally do not attract business by passers by.
Then they're free to lobby for zoning rules that doesn't put a brothel in their neighborhood.
Only because you keep insisting brothels will only be viable in residential neighborhoods. Which is a very odd position to take since brothels in places like Nevada and the Netherlands are quite far from most residences.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I very much appreciate the legal history you provided in your various posts in this thread. I learned a lot this AM.
-Laelth
happyslug
(14,779 posts)While the US Supreme Court and the whole court system went through a review of the Common Law from about 1860 to the 1930s, various justification were used for the change. This include the concept of "Substantial Due Process", this included that the States could NOT interfere with the Rights of its citizens for such restrictions (including Maximum hours one can work, minimum wages and other working conditions) violated the right to Due Process of people.
As a whole, the concept of Substantial Due Process was bad, anti-labor, anti- poor, Anti-Regulation etc but from it the Supreme Court developed our whole concept of that the Bill of Rights apply not only to the Federal Government by to the States. i.e. For a State to interfere with a person's freedom of speech would violate that person's right to due process of the law and thus violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution that forbids the States from denying anyone Due Process. Technically the Due Process clause was to make sure all Americas could NOT be railroaded in a court of law, but the Court expanded it to include situations outside the court room. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly only apply to the States through the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.
While the Federal Courts was expanding Due Process to include business transactions (and some anti-Labor rulings) the State Courts were re-writing the Common Law to be more pro-business and pro-industry. While some of the old Common Law Rules no longer made sense in the late 1800s, the whole changes adopted were often adopted to help business as oppose to regular citizens. In many ways when you read about people complaining today about the "Activist" Court making law, it is often the Court accepting the fact that the Changes made between 1860 and the 1930s were BAD and the pre-1800 Common Law Rule should be reinstated for it is a workable rule.
Please note I used the term 1800, for English Courts started to change the Common Law Rules about 1800, the American courts took a little longer, thus for most America law the change started about 1860. This is all Judge made Law.
At the same time, State Legislatures started to rewrite the laws at the same time. One of the reason for the confusion as to the Common Law was different States adopted changes in the Common Law at different times and to different degrees. The Courts retain a lot of old common law, but then change those laws that the Courts found no longer fitted the situation in the late 1800s. The State Legislature also made changes, often under the same pressure from the business and industry communities.
Thus these three movements, the expansion of Federal Law under the concept of Substantial Due Process, the State Courts adopting rules that were more pro-business and the State Legislature also making changes, sometime to favor business, sometimes to restrict business were all occurring at the same time and interacting with each other.
At the same time (About 1900) the Progressive movement started in America, mostly as a reaction to the above pro-business changes in the law. The progressives wanted to impose restrictions on business, to protect most people actually living in America. Labor unions started, mostly as joint-help associations (i.e. we join together and if one of us dies, the rest take care of the deceased wife and children, these groups later became the nucleus for most unions in the US and why by 1900 Industry was making a overt attack on such groups).
I am just pointing out my comments were a simplification I did for this discussion. The actual changes in the law are more complex then I made it sound in my threads. Just a warning to do your own double checking of what I wrote so if someone brings it up you are NOT caught using what they consider "Wrong" even through all it is is a simplification for purpose of a debate.
Side note: One such self help group that I mentioned above was (and still is) the Hibernians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Order_of_Hibernians
When the Molly McGuires trials started in the 1870s, it was clear the Coal bosses wanted to drive the Hiberians out of the Coal Fields. If you were NOT tied in with the Hibernians and charged, the charges were dismissed, but if you were you were hanged. It is debated to this day if the Molly McGuires actually existed, or was an invention by the coal operators to destroy the Hibernians for out of the Hibernians came all of the efforts to unionize the coal mines. Some people concede that the Molly McGuires did not exist, but the coal bosses believe they did and that was why the trials took place. The Actual murders the accused were charged with happened, but it is unlikely it was anything more then personal fight (and probably with someone else, not charged for the investigators wanted to CHARGE the people they did NOT anyone NOT tied in with the Hibernians).
Side Note: One of the characteristic of many small towns in the US, are civil war cannons located in their town squares. Why are there so such cannons in large cities? Most were removed after Strikers used them during the 1877 General Strike (One was brought to bare on troops in Pittsburgh) and another was used by Strikers in the 1892 Homestead Strike. Due to these actions, the Cannons were removed to Civil War Battlefields (Unlike modern cannons, the old muzzle loading cannons of the Civil War period could be used even today, the chance of them exploding is much higher then in the 1860s, but structurally they are so simple, all you need a black powder to use them even today).
More on the Molly McGuires (I lean to the Molly Maguires never existing in the US except in the mind of the coal mine owners, but others have other opinions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires
Scalded Nun
(1,236 posts)Look who makes the laws. If it was primarily women out looking for sex I guarantee you it would be the Johns (or Joans) getting jailed and the poor, misguided and abused sex marketers (aka:men) walking away.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)If it was women out looking for sex, prostitution would require a masters degree.
tomtharp
(30 posts)to make a porn video that is legal. WTF?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Just film it, and it is legal...
Response to Thor_MN (Reply #44)
Inkfreak This message was self-deleted by its author.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)We should throw Johns in jail.
For what reason? To what end? In anticipation of which resultant benefits?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)To deter men from fueling the sexual exploitation industry.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Even though it hasn't worked where it's been tried and actually made things worse for the prostitutes involved. The answer to the failure was they just needed to double down on what already wasn't working.
http://www.firstadvocates.org/sites/firstadvocates.org/files/Swedish-model-a-failure_0.pdf
sibelian
(7,804 posts)and that women aren't supposed to want it, that men don't really deserve to have it, that people's bodies aren't their own but are really the property of the state and that relations between men and women aren't up to the individual men and women involved but are the public property of anyone wishing to use them as a lightning conductor for their own unprocessed baggage, particularly if such opinionated individuals don't get very much sex themselves.
THAT'S why.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)You saved me from having to write an epistle.
To keep the price down and ensure a steady supply of docile and controllable workers who can't get any other decent job with a felony record.
Otherwise, great post.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Like minor quantities of marijuana, don't make it a serious crime.
IMO it's better to legalize, regulate and tax.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Prostitutes walking the streets are a visible sign to some that "cops aren't doing their jobs." A cop busting a prostitute is a visible sign that "cops are doing their jobs." A prostitute showing up in front of the same judge several times is "flouting the law." So he puts her away for awhile - he's just "doing his job." For every prostitute that goes to prison, a new one takes her place. Life goes on, I suppose.
There ought to be a better way.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)LeftInTX
(25,361 posts)I've never heard of a prostitute going to prison.
Usually it's overnight in jail and back to the streets.
Although they are often implicated in other crimes - check forgery - drugs are the most common.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It seems based on several stacked assumptions that are rather poorly-supported. Asking "why jail prostitutes?" is like debating which of the four Gospels should be given the most focus in high school biology classes.
Go back to the beginning, the first question on the issue; What do we want from prostitution?
Do we want it to be a legal private industry?
Do we want it to be a legal but heavily regulated industry?
Do we want it to be blacklisted as an industry (and are we willing to accept a black market, if so?)
Do we want prostitution abandoned as an industry alrogether?
What are the expectations? because this question needs to be answered before we start wracking our heads about what to do with the prostitutes involved.
The question was never resolved, however; legally, it was simply declared a crime, and society rushed forward to determine a patchwork variety of punishments, rather than actual prevention. And now we're standing on that paradigm and apparently trying to figure out a new patchwork of "fixes."
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)easy marks for our private prisons and various fines, and an nation of fucking busybodies who like to dictate to others how to conduct their private affairs.
sfpcjock
(1,936 posts)Unfair competition with the political professionals, mayhaps?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)As Illinois will soon find out.