Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lawmakers lukewarm, brothel owners seethe over Reid's call to outlaw prostitution

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:27 PM
Original message
Lawmakers lukewarm, brothel owners seethe over Reid's call to outlaw prostitution
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-urges-nevada-to-outlaw-prostitution-116672729.html

Since this is the Review-Journal, and righthaven's p**p, I only pasted the link. This is big news here in Vegas...Reid thoguht he'd get a good reception...he needs to find other ways to occupy his time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AKDavy Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Making it illegal to sell something that can be given away for free
doesn't make sense in any state.

What would the police-prison industry do if suddenly we only prosecuted people for crimes where there were victims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boswell Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. that would be pretty funny since
the vast majority of real crimminals as in "law enforcement"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Funny thing is Reid tried to say that getting rid of prostitution would spur
an economic recovery!

That's pretty loony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sometime it is better to regulate something by making it illegal
Prostitution is one of them. Anyone who has studied the problem of prostitution comes across the problem of contracts, intimidation and debt collection laws when ever it is legal. If you make it illegal, any contracts for services become unenforceable, intimidation remains, but the laws of debt collection also become inapplicable to the transaction i.e. you can NOT kick someone out of her house, if she refuses to perform what her contract requires her to do (i.e. sleep with anyone who demands sex).

In the 1800s, when prostitution was legal and Contract law and Property Rights reach their Zenith, the only way to address the problem of a woman who had signed a contract to be a prostitute was to make it illegal (Otherwise, the whore monger could go to Court and get a Court Order for the Prostitute to perform what she had agreed to do i.e. have sex with his customers). Most such women were of low income families and could NOT afford an attorney in such cases and thus the Order would be entered, or would go back to having sex for money under the threat of legal action.

Today, even the UN accepts the above problem as still existing and while the UN is against making prostitution illegal, the UN is in favor of going after the pimps and procurers that exploit the women who become prostitutes. This is the same concept behind the Mann Act and why the Mann Act was so effective, it did more to kill prostitution (At least the worse parts) then any law banning prostitution itself (The Mann Act, which is still on the books, makes it a Federal Crime to transport women across State lines for immoral purposes, i.e. it is the person who Transport the Prostitute who is committing the crime under the Mann Act NOT the prostitute).

In the US, under our concept of the Common Law, we can NOT go after the Pimps and procurers except as conspiracy or similar crime. The problem with Conspiracy is that the conspirators MUST be agreeing to do something that is illegal i.e. have a woman have sex for pay in a location where that is illegal. If the act of hiring a prostitute is NOT illegal, it is NOT illegal to conspire to get women to do it. When the Mann Act was passed prostitution was NOT yet illegal in every state (Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal, but only in the non-urban areas, the urban Areas having faced the same problem as other states, have made Prostitution illegal even in Nevada Urban Areas, i.e. Reno, Las Vegas etc) but under the pressure of Congress every state made prostitution a crime.

Thus, the problem with Prostitution is NOT the prostitution itself, but the actions of the Pimps and other related people. In the late 1800s and early 1900s it was found the best way to regulate and control such people was to make Prostitution illegal. Notice the ill-legalization was NEVER intended to end prostitution, but to give the Police the full flexibility to control and regulate the activities. Businessmen, Store owners, and other people who do NOT want to see such activities wanted to be able to regulate it so it is restricted to certain locations (Generally outside the main business district).

Now, today we do NOT have the almost absolute view of Property Rights and Contracts that existed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The courts are willing to entertain that even contracts to perform legal acts can be so repulsive that the courts will NOT issue court orders to enforce those contracts. Since the Great Depressions, various protections for consumers have been passed, that technically also apply to prostitution making it almost impossible for someone to get an order to require someone to be a prostitute even if a valid contracts exists (In any place where prostitution is legal).

On the other hand the selling of women by pimps and procurers has increased tremulously since the 1970s (Whatever you may say about J. Edgar Hoover, he disliked prostitution and went after the Pimps and Procurers big time for violations of the Mann Act). Since Hoover's death the Federal Government had reduced money on going after such trash and the selling of women and boys have become more and more of a problem since the 1970s.

One way the pimps and procurers obtain women is through drugs, such pimps and procurers love picking up run a aways so to recruit them into their business, which can include selling and buying such women and boys (Teenagers are preferred, many Johns believe if they have sex with a "Virgin" they can not get AIDs, and the younger the woman or boy, the less chance of getting AIDs). Thus how do you protect such teenagers? If prostitution was legal, how do you cater to the market that demand teenagers?

Sorry, the more I research the subject, the more convinced I become Prostitution should remain illegal, not so much to stop prostitution, but to permit the Police the greatest flexibility to control Prostitution (And the greatest ability to go after the Pimps and Procurers). Even the UN recognize that such pimps and procurers are the real problem with Prostitution and you have to address the problem caused by such pimps and procurers. Right now the best way is to make prostitution illegal, but for the Police to know where it is occurring so to make such the girls and boys are safe. Furthermore to arrest teenagers for the crime so to get those teenagers under some sort of supervision i.e. Children and Youth. I am less concerned with women over age 18 (The big demand for boys is 12-15, I do NOT know why I am NOT a Homosexual, thus I have concerned for such boys) but some sort of protection is needed and if done right the Police can provide that protection if prostitution is illegal. It is much harder to provide such protection if Prostitution is legal.

Thus making prostitution illegal had less to do with ending prostitution then is better controlling it. The law often does this, making something illegal NOT so much to end what is illegal, but to better regulate something else. A good example of this is the advice my Criminal Law Professor told Police when he was advising them in abuse cases. If the police respond to a domestic disturbance and the woman/victim do NOT want to bring charges against the man, the police should arrest the woman for making a false police call. The purpose of the arrest is NOT to punish her but to get her out of the same house as the person who is abusing her, This is NOT unusual, in many such cases the victim has clear signs of abuse, but refuses to bring charges, thus no grounds for the police to arrest the man. On the other hand the woman had made the call, and if she does NOT want to press charges, the police can NOT arrest the man, but can arrest her for making a false report. The purpose of the arrest is NOT to punish her, but to get her out of the reach of the perpetrator.

Notice in the above, the issue was NOT that the Woman committed a Crime, but was there some justification to arrest one of the parties so to prevent further abuse. The police were caught in a hard position, can NOT arrest the perpetrator for the victim does NOT want to bring charges, but the Police needed to do something to end the abuse. The same with prostitution, the purpose of making Prostitution illegal has never been to end prostitution but to give the Police the widest possible flexibility to regulate and prevent harm to such prostitutes. Given the nature of most prostitutes (Drug addicts etc) unless the Police can arrest them for Prostitution the police would be in a position to returning the prostitute to her pimp so he can beat her up some more for unless the Police actually see the abuse OR the prostitute agrees to press charges there is nothing the Police can do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AKDavy Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Making an act illegal as a means of regulating it?
How about regulating it as a means of regulating it?

Criminalizing vice just creates criminal enterprises and opportunities for capricious enforcement and corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sometimes you can NOT regulate it.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s the US disliked ANY regulations (Congress started the modern concept of Regulations with the passage of the bill forming the Interstate Commerce Commission, the ICC in the 1880s but even then the concept of "Self-Regulation" was the rule of the land. Modern Regulations really only started in the 1930s with the passage of the New Deal. Even with the passage of the New Deal Regulations, how do you regulate something like prostitution, when most regulations rely on self reporting? Now, Self Reporting was backed up by audits and the potential of lawsuits, but how do you audit a Brothel? I do NOT mean the books of the Brothel, but if the women are their voluntarily (and in such a situation that the woman feels free to tell the truth). to test to infections even of the woman refuses to be tested. How do you make sure the women only work in certain areas (Which is generally the big issue for the business community, they do NOT want prostitutes on the sidewalks in front of their business, nor want them any where near the business community, let other women take offense at seeing the prostitutes). Remember, most prostitutes operate alone, but a good many operate under the direction of a pimp. How do you make sure the pimp is NOT getting all the money? Even when prostitution was legal, the women turning tricks often did not even have a place to live other then whatever room they were given to perform their tricks.

Now, do NOT confuse high end prostitutes with streetwalkers and other low end prostitutes. No one cares about the High End Prostitutes for most of them get a good share of the money paid to them to have sex (Thus the police do nothing to them for they are "safe" for the women to work in). The fact they can be arrested for what they are doing puts a severe restrictions on what they can do and stay open. The problem is the lower end of the scale. The pimps and procurers at that end provide minimal services (if any) to the prostitutes working for them and get most of the money. This was true even in the days when prostitution was legal. One room, with no heat was common for such low end prostitutes (Even in areas where heating was available). Their pimps wanted them broke so that that the would take in as many customers as possible and then after the pimp would take almost all of the money. Since the activity was legal, the police was limited to what they could do. i.e. the Police could not arrest the prostitute to get her away from her pimp even if it was clear the pimp was going to do her bodily harm.

One of the best example of this is the Story of Solomon and the two prostitutes. If you remember the story, two women of the town each gave birth, one of those children died, the other lived. Both prostitutes claim the child was theirs. How do you decide who is the real mother before the days of blood tests and DNA testing? The wisdom of Solomon was to convert the case from one he could NOT determine to a case he could determine. Thus Solomon asked his soldiers to cut the child in half, given half to each mother. The one mother said that was a good solution, the other mother said, she had lied, is was NOT her child and the other Mother should get the living child. Solomon at that point gave the child to the woman who said she had given up her claim for the child for it was clear the child would be better off with her then with the Mother who was willing to let the Solomon cut the child in half. Thus the wisdom of Solomon, he converted a dispute from one he could NOT decide do to the lack of facts (i.e. who was the real mother), to one he could decide (Who would take better care of the Child).

The courts have followed Solomon's example throughout history, converting cases that could NOT be decided to one that could be decided. Under the Common Law Homosexual conduct was illegal, but so were Police and what we now call District Attorneys. Thus if the only way a Homosexual would be charged, is if the person he or she has sex with would bring the action including hiring an attorney to present that case to the Grand Jury, and then to try the defendant for the crime of being a Homosexual. Furthermore under the Common law it was not only illegal it was NOT permitted for the Defendant to testify at trial. Given that set of facts how could anyone be charged with doing a Homosexual act (Before the adoption of the Modern Police and District Attorney Office in the 1830s)?
The answer is simple, it was just not done except in Military cases (Which tend to be tied in with Military Discipline) or in Political Cases (Someone was charged with being a Homosexual by his political enemies, the truth of the accusation was generally unimportant. the classic case in the Franks Case that Hitler used to remove the head of the German Army in the 1930s so Hitler could appoint his own man to that position).

Thus why was homosexual behavior illegal under the Common Law? To understand that you must also understand that under the Common Law, the age for consent to have sex was 12 (It has been increased in every Common Law Jurisdiction that I know of but only since the 1800s). Thus if an older male raped a 12 year old, the burden of proving the lack of consent was on the 12 year old. On the other hand, if the crime is NOT rape but just having Homosexual sex, then all the 12 year old needs to prove is he and the older man had had sex. Much easier to prove. Now technically both person accused would be sentenced to be hanged but it was common for the King to grant pardons (In fact by the late 1800s so many crimes were death penalty cases, that it became the norm for Juries to convict someone of a crime, the Judge to sentence him or her to death by hanging, and then the King would pardon the Defendants while before he or she was hanged).

Thus the law against Homosexuals was NOT intended to go after adult homosexuals but pedophiles.

Another area of the law was the 1600s and 1700s transportation of Criminals to the English Colonies. Under international law of the time period it was illegal to exile convicted criminal (This ban was ignored by the British after 1780 when it came to Australia) but if a person NOT yet convicted would agree to be shipped to the British Colonies as an indentured servant, such a "voluntary" decision to migrant was perfectly legal. The person who the Defendant did the crime against would agree to accept payment to settle the criminal charges, then the Defendant would be "sold" to a Captain who then shipped him or her to the British Colonies who then resold the Defendant (Generally for such criminals the time period was 14 years, unlike the more common 7 years for people NOT accused of a Crime). Thus the fear of being sentenced to death, permitted people to agree to pay off the fine.

Just pointing out, the law has made things illegal at times, so to better regulate other things.

More on the Spithead Mutiny of 1797:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spithead_and_Nore_mutinies

A more recent example was the Glass–Steagall Act. While technically it was to separate investment banks from you local bank, the main thrust was to separate PEOPLE who did investment banking from people who did local banking. Thus two corporate "Cultures" could developed. A cut throat one in Investment Banks, and "I know I am protected by Federal Law and thus I will invest the bank's money conservatively" for regular banks. It was this difference in investment Cultures that Glass–Steagall Act was intended to developed (and did till it was repealed in 1999).

More on Glass-Steagall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AKDavy Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I believe laws and regulations should be specific
(First, thank you for your detail arguments. I'll be rereading them for awhile. I don't think we disagree on the purpose of laws and regulations, we just differ in our comfort zones with their reach.)

In the Soviet union, and some would argue in the United States today ("Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds target the innocent" by Harvey Silverglate), laws proliferate and are written in vague terms to allow flexibility in enforcement for the authorities. Virtually anyone can be charged because we operate indivually on the basis of malo in se, rather than malo prohibito (i.e. We're guided by our sense of right and wrong, not a detailed knowledge of code). Anyone can be stopped and charged with something (usually a set of somethings to maximize the leverage of the state and obtain a plea bargain) if they don't let an aggressive prosecutor "help them help themselves."

"Law and Order"--Hate the show. It provides a steady stream of easily recognized and easily dislikable villans that make the aggressive and predatory practices used by the state to obtain convictions look justified. It feeds the public's assumption that the authorities are always the good guys and nobody is arrested without good reason. "Law and Order" is responsible for my instructions to family that if police come to the door no questions are answered and they are not invited in, regardless of whether it's -20 outside. I tell my family that we're not hiding guilt, we're protecting our innocence.

Also, the legal code (legal/illegal) is only an abstraction of moral code (right/wrong). It's possible to do something that isn't morally wrong but that is illegal, and it's possible to do something legal that is morally wrong. The history of progress is a history of code being driven by people willing to step outside of code to do the right thing.

And justice?--Merely a process. In the United States, "justice" has been done if a guilty person is set free or if an innocent person is imprisoned, so long as the process was followed.

Moral people have an obligation to judge law against morality, not to define morality as complying with the law. As Chris Hedges puts it so well in "Death of the Liberal Class," this role was traditionally filled by the liberal class, but they've abdicated that responsibility and have fallen into league with the power elite. So, it's now up to individuals to assert moral authority, often at their own peril in a legal system that serves the Few by managing the Many.

In short, they may criminalize prostitution, but the oldest profession is the oldest profession because it's stood the test of time and law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arbusto_baboso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. Never gonna happen. Brings in too much money to the state.
Pure grandstanding by Reid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC