I'm just arguing against your "the consenting adults point is moot because we regulate consenting adults all the time." I don't think that's a good argument considering that besides the laws in question (prostitution) we do NOT regulate and legislate consenting adults all the time when it comes to sex.
No, but we do it in regards to other things. The first thing that comes to mind for me is the minimum wage. What? You mean I can't pay this guy four cents an hour to work in my death trap factory of doom? But he's a consenting adult...
I also said "currently" in reference to the fact that sodomy laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.
Were they unconstitutional on their face? Lawrence v Texas struck down the Texas statute because it was unconstitutional in the way it was enforced, wasn't it? As I said, I haven't read the case since Con Law.
Do you just make something legal and let the industry sort itself out?
I think it is incredibly unwise to take a laissez-faire approach to an industry already beset by abuse, violence, exploitation, drug addiction, mental illness, and outright slavery and expect that the magical hand of Adam Smith will reduce these problems by any significant margin.
Yeah, that is the point I was trying to make. I hadn't read up on the proposed law and initially assumed it had more substance, I think your right Feral. Simply legalizing something is not a good approach, you need to have a support network and regulations.
Do you just make something legal and let the industry sort itself out?
I think it is incredibly unwise to take a laissez-faire approach to an industry already beset by abuse, violence, exploitation, drug addiction, mental illness, and outright slavery and expect that the magical hand of Adam Smith will reduce these problems by any significant margin.
It's beset by some of these things because it's currently illegal. When you have legal contract obligations upheld by the courts then your clients can't decide to beat the crap out of you when they are not completely satisfied nor can your boss do the same when you fail to meet quota.
I'm sympathetic to drug addicts but I don't see how making prostitution legal somehow encourages that. They could just go strip instead. Or just shoot heroin in their basement. Either way.
Why shouldn't we want prostitution in our society? Why is prostitution always to the detriment of both parties?
Why shouldn't we as a society want prostitution? It appeals to our baser instincts. We like to believe that we're better than that, although I understand the appeal. It's not always to the detriment of both parties, but I believe that it would generally be to the detriment of the prostitute.
I have edited your post to clarify the line of logic I am refering to. Those three comments all follow each other logically. However, the middle one is the key, and you need to explicitly state why you think this will occur or what comes after it goes poof. I'm interested in your reasons, you seem to put them out methodologically, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of being able to put forth clear justifications for the bolded assumption.
By decriminalizing an act, you are de facto promoting it. If Prostitute A realizes that she will not get arrested for prostitution, there's no reason to stay on Filmore. She can now go to some high traffic area that isn't Filmore street with no fear of being arrested and peddle her wares there (note: my limited knowledge of San Fran prostitution is from the documentary American Pimp). Now, you have it all over the city.
Secondly, criminalizing behavior deters it. It may not be the most successful deterrent (preemptive strike against LOLZ WE STILL HAVE CRIME), but it is a deterrent. Get rid of that, and more people will participate in the activity. I have no specific cites or studies for this information to present at this time, but I can start digging if you wish. I'm assuming that this is a common sense/acceptable fact thing here.
Now, the italicised assumption is one that is an entirely seperate kettle of fish. Presuming you can justify the bolded one, I'd then like you to justify that one. Separately if you please, for clarity.
I touched on it above, but I do agree that it is a partially a moral argument. I believe that we shouldn't want prostitution in society because it is essentially telling someone that they are good for nothing other than the parts they have. This doesn't necessarily apply to all of the "erotic" jobs that are out there.
Also, I don't think the "we have two consenting adults separate from the moral whims of Raggaholic" argument works here either. We have many regulations (labor and drug come to mind immediately) that impose moral whims of society on consenting adults. We have come to accept that these are necessary to prevent exploitation.
Well you're correct that it won't exactly "regulate" it but I disagree that this won't make it safer for everyone involved. If they can't get arrested they are more likely to be forthcoming to health care professionals. If they can't get arrested then they might not need pimps to protect them and they have a better chance to prevent John's from abusing them.
I don't think it'll make it safer for anyone involved. As ridiculous as it sounds, the police are still obligated to investigate rape/assualt/etc claims of people involved in illegal/illicit trade, and certain immunities are granted by default. I doubt that they can be prosecuted for something they tell a health care professional while seeking care. And pimps don't protect them from being arrested. Hell, a lot of times they don't prevent them from being abused.
I think the pure switch from criminalize/decriminalized won't have an impact on overall honesty about it.
I would like to point out that the same argument of "it is naive to assume that they wil go for help" does apply to the police fairly dealing with current problems as they stand. Police are human too.
The law feral posted includes a foreword that mentions the police system in san fran lacking in doing exactly this. I don't know how decriminilisation formatting works, but it strikes me as significant that part of the law directly states "hey cops, do your job properly".
If it was already self evident, why is that needed?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I'm just arguing against your "the consenting adults point is moot because we regulate consenting adults all the time." I don't think that's a good argument considering that besides the laws in question (prostitution) we do NOT regulate and legislate consenting adults all the time when it comes to sex.
But we do regulate commercial activity between "consenting" adults. There are a number of things that are legal for me to do for free but become illegal if I accept money for them. I can give you medical advice in H/A, but I can't accept money for it as practicing medicine without a license is a criminal act. I can give you a ride to the airport, but I can't start up a taxi service without getting the appropriate license.
The obvious counterargument to this is, well then we should let prostitutes operate with a license. That would be the best situation, but the law being discussed does not establish a licensing scheme, and so now we're back where we started.
Good point. This is why this issue is so difficult - it's a commercial activity but also a very personal physical activity as well, so the private (my body) and public (earning income) get all tangled up.
I'm all for a licensing program and decriminalization in general. I agree with a lot of your points that this legislation isn't quite right. It's also difficult though, in that you have to take the first step sometime and waiting for perfect legislation sometimes gets you nowhere.
I don't agree with Ragg's points that decriminalization is a de facto promotion of the activity, or that decriminalization means prostitutes suddenly becoming more numerous and trotting down every public street. Nor do I agree that prostitution is inherently bad for society, though of course that's an abstract point.
Medopine on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I'm just arguing against your "the consenting adults point is moot because we regulate consenting adults all the time." I don't think that's a good argument considering that besides the laws in question (prostitution) we do NOT regulate and legislate consenting adults all the time when it comes to sex.
But we do regulate commercial activity between "consenting" adults. There are a number of things that are legal for me to do for free but become illegal if I accept money for them. I can give you medical advice in H/A, but I can't accept money for it as practicing medicine without a license is a criminal act. I can give you a ride to the airport, but I can't start up a taxi service without getting the appropriate license.
The obvious counterargument to this is, well then we should let prostitutes operate with a license. That would be the best situation, but the law being discussed does not establish a licensing scheme, and so now we're back where we started.
Good point. This is why this issue is so difficult - it's a commercial activity but also a very personal physical activity as well, so the private (my body) and public (earning income) get all tangled up.
I'm all for a licensing program and decriminalization in general. I agree with a lot of your points that this legislation isn't quite right. It's also difficult though, in that you have to take the first step sometime and waiting for perfect legislation sometimes gets you nowhere.
I don't agree with Ragg's points that decriminalization is a de facto promotion of the activity, or that decriminalization means prostitutes suddenly becoming more numerous and trotting down every public street. Nor do I agree that prostitution is inherently bad for society, though of course that's an abstract point.
I was working out how to say what Med just said so is it ok if I just agree with you and save the longwinded post?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Legalizing prostitution, even without regulation (which should be brought in), does two things.
It allows prostitutes to report abuse without being arrested for hooking.
It prevents tax dollars from being wasted prosecuting them.
Then there's the whole freedom thing. Freedom is typically a good thing.
Feral, I understand that the proposition in question does not do everything you would like it to do, but would you say that it's better than nothing, or would you say that it's harmful in the long term to achieving your ideal situation?
Would you say your ideal situation can even be plausibly reached in America?
I'm just arguing against your "the consenting adults point is moot because we regulate consenting adults all the time." I don't think that's a good argument considering that besides the laws in question (prostitution) we do NOT regulate and legislate consenting adults all the time when it comes to sex.
No, but we do it in regards to other things. The first thing that comes to mind for me is the minimum wage. What? You mean I can't pay this guy four cents an hour to work in my death trap factory of doom? But he's a consenting adult...
I also said "currently" in reference to the fact that sodomy laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.
Were they unconstitutional on their face? Lawrence v Texas struck down the Texas statute because it was unconstitutional in the way it was enforced, wasn't it? As I said, I haven't read the case since Con Law.
Yes I'm aware we do in regards to other things. Do you see the repeated parts of my posts where I'm referring to sex acts between consenting adults? I'm not arguing we don't regulate people I'm saying we don't legislate private sexual acts anywhere in society except prostitution. So if you're going to argue "we regulate consenting adults all the time! what's the problem with prostitution laws doing the same thing!" I think you're missing an important distinction.
It's a small point so we can probably stop talking about it now.
I don't remember about Lawrence either but it's irrelevant since I was simply pointing it out to stop you from saying "oh but we regulate sodomy" cause we don't anymore.
It's also difficult though, in that you have to take the first step sometime and waiting for perfect legislation sometimes gets you nowhere.
I know. Perfection is the enemy of progress.
I really think your suggestion is a backwards step man, which is why I'm so against it. Just wipe it clean first, then hopefully work on the other underlying problems next. One step at a time in a bureaucracy yeah?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Feral, I understand that the proposition in question does not do everything you would like it to do, but would you say that it's better than nothing, or would you say that it's harmful in the long term to achieving your ideal situation?
I would say that it is worse than nothing.
The people who abuse and exploit sex workers are not as visible as the sex workers themselves. It is not the pimps, the abusive johns, or the drug dealers putting up their pictures on Craigslist, or soliciting guys in the back rooms of strip clubs, or walking down Minna. It's the prostitutes.
Ideally we would apprehend the prostitutes first and put pressure on them to give up the names of the men behind them. We do this now, but not nearly consistently enough, and our treatment of prostitutes that we do apprehend once we've learned who they're working for is generally awful.
The expectation that prostitutes will willingly give up their pimps, dealers, or johns if they're being exploited is pretty naive IMO. Somebody who has no sense of self-worth or an overtly self-destructive personality isn't going to give up the person they perceive to be their only source of housing, protection, income, or drugs. Yes, that would make the situation technically consensual - much in the way a beaten wife who defends her abusive husband is technically consensual.
So this law takes away the only real tool that law and medical institutions have to find the abusers and exploiters and replaces it with a whole bunch of hand-waving and platitudes.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What about reducing it to a misdemeanor convinces all of those exploited women to spill everything? Or is this not part of the misdemeanor idea, but part of the larger and more ambitious licensing and regulation idea?
EDIT: Er, in case it's not obvious, I'm ceding your points about this law. :^:
Oboro on
words
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Legalizing prostitution, even without regulation (which should be brought in), does two things.
It allows prostitutes to report abuse without being arrested for hooking.
It prevents tax dollars from being wasted prosecuting them.
Then there's the whole freedom thing. Freedom is typically a good thing.
Seriously.
I mean which is going to bring more crime, legalizing prostitute or keeping it illegal?
I have no illusions of the 'happy hooker' idea, but I do know that making it illegal isn't helping sex workers any at all.
I compare it to what Obama said about abortion, keep it legal but provide better services and help so those who are unwilling have an alternative.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
If it was already self evident, why is that needed?
What makes you think that this decriminalization will help get the word out? If you recognize that cops are human, what about this legislation will stop them from being just that? Secondly, I think that for a good number of prostitutes, they don't go to the police with this as it could lead to many other problems (such as a beating for wasting time with the cops, rather than out there getting that money).
Our posts are rife with miscommunication, or maybe it's just me and my misunderstanding. It seemed to me that you were saying that a) we shouldn't regulate acts between consenting adults or b) there should be no regulation on this because no other laws other than these regulate it. I think both of those can be argued against. I was going to take the commerce tact next, but I see Feral's already talking about that.
And it's a little disingenuous to talk about sodomy laws no longer existing because we don't regulate sexual activity if sodomy laws we struck as unconstitutional due to enforcement and not on their face. That's why I kept bringing up Lawrence, but we can end that too since neither of us remember the case well.
Raggaholic on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
If it was already self evident, why is that needed?
What makes you think that this decriminalization will help get the word out? If you recognize that cops are human, what about this legislation will stop them from being just that? Secondly, I think that for a good number of prostitutes, they don't go to the police with this as it could lead to many other problems (such as a beating for wasting time with the cops, rather than out there getting that money).
I think the part of the legislation that will stop cops from arresting and blacklisting the lives of people "for their own good" in order to catch other people is the part that says they can't do it anymore.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
This sounds kinda like how it is in the UK, where prostitution itself is not illegal, but soliciting, pimping and kerb-crawling are. Doesn't make that great a difference to be honest.
What about reducing it to a misdemeanor convinces all of those exploited women to spill everything?
All of them? No. More than complete legalization? I think that's pretty much self-evident.
It's not self evident to me and I want you to explain it.
Your basic stance is to pressure the arrested prostitutes with legal ramifications (since thats the only type of pressuring you can do with a law, legally) in order to catch the exploiters. Yes?
If, as you say, a misdemeanor wont drastically affect their lives, how are you going to pressure them?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't think it's self-evident that when you have an exploited person in the police station, they will cooperate more if you say, "You are going to be charged with a misdemeanor" as opposed to "You are going to be charged with a felony." Any argument you can make in the affirmative just stands shoulder-to-shoulder with "the threat of it being a felony gives the prosecution more room to 'pressure' [your word] the accused into yielding information."
If you're trying to strike a balance between least-harm and least-harm, I guess I can see how it's "better," but ... I don't think it's this magical panacea that you do, where simply because the threat of effectual prosecution is removed, everyone becomes magically cooperative.
Ideally we would apprehend the prostitutes first and put pressure on them to give up the names of the men behind them.
So basically you want to combat exploitation of women by....exploiting women.
GREAT!
Yeah that makes no sense. Why would we have to have them "give up the names of the men behind them?" Who cares about the men? As long as they are not physically abusing these people I don't see why it really matters. These men are scum because they are dealing in an entirely black market business. If you bring it above ground they tend to get pushed out by the more reasonable employers. The patrons are forced to sign legal documents keeping them in line.
Legalization of this gets the complete scum out of the industry. The guy who runs the bunny ranch is no saint either, but he's still better than the pimp running his operation on the corner. The women in Nevada have it MUCH better than the women on the corner do. Legalization is the reason for this.
If you're trying to strike a balance between least-harm and least-harm, I guess I can see how it's "better," but ... I don't think it's this magical panacea that you do, where simply because the threat of effectual prosecution is removed, everyone becomes magically cooperative.
I don't think it's a magical panacea at all. There are no magical panaceas, there is only, as you say, a good balance; and IMO I'm the last person you should be criticizing for magical thinking.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
The most imporant thing I dislike about your stance Feral, is that the act of pressuring, if they don't give up a name, and you do charge them, as the law stands now, as society in america stands right now (as i gather from my geographically removed standpoint, so correct me if necessary), ruins their chances of getting decent paying work outside of the field of prostitution once they get out of whatever rehab, jail or help being arrest puts them into.
It destroys their life. How does this help them.
I'm sorry, but it has to go.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The most imporant thing I dislike about your stance Feral, is that the act of pressuring, if they don't give up a name, and you do charge them, as the law stands now, as society in america stands right now (as i gather from my geographically removed standpoint, so correct me if necessary), ruins their chances of getting decent paying work outside of the field of prostitution once they get out of whatever rehab, jail or help being arrest puts them into.
That's why I suggest changing it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Felonies appear on pre-employment background checks. Misdemeanors don't.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The most imporant thing I dislike about your stance Feral, is that the act of pressuring, if they don't give up a name, and you do charge them, as the law stands now, as society in america stands right now (as i gather from my geographically removed standpoint, so correct me if necessary), ruins their chances of getting decent paying work outside of the field of prostitution once they get out of whatever rehab, jail or help being arrest puts them into.
That's why I suggest changing it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Felonies appear on pre-employment background checks. Misdemeanors don't.
But you still want to make sure women pay if they don't give up their pimps, probably because a little jail time sounds better than getting beaten up in an alleyway by his buddies.
You want power over these women to tell them what to do (incriminate others). I think that's a shitty way to look at things.
I think the part of the legislation that will stop cops from arresting and blacklisting the lives of people "for their own good" in order to catch other people is the part that says they can't do it anymore.
I'm not talking about the arresting and I'm assuming that you weren't either. The blacklisting, which isn't suppose to happen in the first place, is already unlawful. Putting it in there is nothing more than the old UN Strongly Worded Letter doctrine. In other words, we're not going to do anything that has teeth behind it, but we can make some sort of gesture that makes the people think we're doing something.
If a prostitute goes into a police office TODAY and says, "I was raped," the police are obligated to investigate the claim. The state law already provides for that (I know it does in my jurisdiction and I would be highly surprised if that didn't apply to California of all places). What makes you think this will make things any differently, especially in light of your assumed premise of "cops being human?"
[edit: Upon quick rescanning, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "blacklisting the lives of people 'for their own good.'" Could you explain it for me please?]
Raggaholic on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The most imporant thing I dislike about your stance Feral, is that the act of pressuring, if they don't give up a name, and you do charge them, as the law stands now, as society in america stands right now (as i gather from my geographically removed standpoint, so correct me if necessary), ruins their chances of getting decent paying work outside of the field of prostitution once they get out of whatever rehab, jail or help being arrest puts them into.
That's why I suggest changing it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Felonies appear on pre-employment background checks. Misdemeanors don't.
What pressure can you possibly put on someone in a situation like that, with all of the problems you have described.
Think abotu this.
Beaten, mental illness, abuse, all that shit.
"Give up the name or you get a misdemeanor"
Do you really think holding out for a misdemeanor law is going to help in anyway? I do not see this.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
Maybe if we promise to beat them up worse than their pimp would...then they'd spill the beans. YEAH!
Legalization of this gets the complete scum out of the industry.
How?
Let me re-phrase: Legalization gets the complete scum doing vicious things to the sex workers out of the industry.
Generally people who have to sign contracts or pay taxes, which is where this industry would go if made legal, behave better than street criminals who have nothing to lose.
I think the best parallel is taking a look at the Porn or Stripping industries to determine the impact of legalization. The regulation in these industries mostly minor. I'm not going to state that people in those industries are all well adjusted savory individuals, but at the very least the women are getting abused and aren't spreading STD's.
Regardless we should crawl before walking. Legalization is a good first step, then if needed you regulate.
Be it ordained by the people of the City and County of San Francisco:
Section 1. Findings
The people of the City and County of San Francisco hereby find and declare:
The San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution was created by the Board of Supervisors in 1996.
According to 1996 statistics compiled by the San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution, the city allocated $7.6 million annually to law enforcement officials to prosecute prostitution related cases. In 2007, the Budget Analyst’s Office estimates that amount to be 11.4 million.
The police department has applied and received additional federal monies in the form of federal grants to racially profile prostitutes for investigation and/or arrest under the guise of rescuing trafficked victims.
The police department targets massage parlor workers and management in numerous sting operations, which result in the loss of economic independence for those workers.
The police department utilizes those same targeted businesses as a means of entertainment for its ranks, as demonstrated in the Bayview Station police videos, made public in December, 2005. This demonstrates a lack of respect for their human dignity, freedom of choice, and labor rights.
The San Francisco police department and the San Francisco District Attorneys office has completely ignored dancers in dance clubs who have made written and tape recorded statements on prostitution, sexual assault, rape, and extortion in the form of the ‘pay everyday to work’ program.
The San Francisco District Attorneys Office has demonstrated unequal prosecution of the laws regarding prostitution related activity, in that street-based, home-based, massage parlor and out call escort workers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law leading to either the issuance of citations or arrest, yet dance clubs workers and managers are not prosecuted within the full extent of the law when issued citations or arrested. This policy reflects the long standing “Cronyism” between dance club owner/operators and key decision makers.
Article XI of the California Constitution provides Charter created counties with “home rule” powers, allowing counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent. San Francisco adopted its most recent comprehensive Charter revision in 1996.
Section 2. Requiring the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco County Office of the District Attorney to enforce existing laws regardless of the victim’s sex worker status.
The San Francisco Police Department, the Office of the District Attorney, and associated law enforcement agencies shall be required to practice consistent and rigorous enforcement against coercion, extortion, battery, rape and other violent crimes, regardless of the victim’s status as a sex worker.
The San Francisco Police Department and the Office of the District Attorney shall be required to practice full disclosure in the investigation and prosecution of charges of rape, extortion, sexual assault, and battery against sex workers, exotic dancers or erotic service providers.
Section 3. Requiring the San Francisco Police Department to not use public resources for the purpose of depriving another group of workers their right to negotiate for fair wages and work conditions, regardless of their status as sex workers.
Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.
San Francisco’s law enforcement agencies shall not apply, nor receive federal and state monies that institute racial profiling as a means of targeting alleged trafficked victims under the guise of enforcing the abatement of prostitution laws. Those funds shall instead be reallocated toward the implementation of the recommendations of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ 1996 San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution Report and Human Rights Commission, which address the issue, and recommend policies to reduce, institutional violence and discrimination against prostitutes.
Section 4. Prostitution Shall Be Decriminalized. The San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco County Office of the District Attorney, the SAGE Project, Inc., nor any other agency of the City and County of San Francisco or their designates, shall not subject sex-workers to life long economic discrimination associated with having a criminal record. The City and County of San Francisco shall not support either economically or through legislation the “First Offenders” program or any similar intentioned program that forces sex workers into re-education programs. Furthermore, the City and County of San Francisco, its agencies, departments, representatives and their designates shall not profit from the criminalization of prostitution, or from anti-prostitution programs such as the “First Offender” program where costs are assessed and collected, then split by the participating agencies.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2009
Section 6. Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed severable.
Section 7. Amendment.
By a two-thirds vote and upon making findings, the Board of Supervisors may amend this ordinance in the furtherance of reducing the criminalization and violence against sex-workers.
Ragg baby, if you can read all that bolded text and not drop your argument you are a braver fucking man that I ever gave you credit for.
There is your "assumed police are human."
There is your blacklisting. Im referring to a police record, I wasn't aware it was another official term. Police records aren't illegal Ragg.
There is also a direct benefit stated as a result of this law. (the funds transferred)
Finally at the end, there is an admission that further amendments aimed to help the prostitutes, and nobody else, the prostitutes, is willing to be done.
Why is this law a bad thing.
Explain this to me, in context of this law, not whatever you think the law is for or may cause. Explain it in context of this above.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Legalisation back home specifically bans convicted criminals from running brothels, and just in case you happen to be a reformed criminal you can apply to have a waiver from this provision. The point being to create a system based largely on small owner operator brothels that should be more resistant to criminal pressure - which seems to have sort of worked. For this to work you need to have a reliable enforcement and licensing regime
The most imporant thing I dislike about your stance Feral, is that the act of pressuring, if they don't give up a name, and you do charge them, as the law stands now, as society in america stands right now (as i gather from my geographically removed standpoint, so correct me if necessary), ruins their chances of getting decent paying work outside of the field of prostitution once they get out of whatever rehab, jail or help being arrest puts them into.
That's why I suggest changing it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Felonies appear on pre-employment background checks. Misdemeanors don't.
What pressure can you possibly put on someone in a situation like that, with all of the problems you have described.
Think abotu this.
Beaten, mental illness, abuse, all that shit.
"Give up the name or you get a misdemeanor"
Do you really think holding out for a misdemeanor law is going to help in anyway? I do not see this.
I recognize that it is an extremely difficult situation and for many people there is simply going to be no helping them.
Eliminating one of the few tools we have for helping people (a tool which I do admit is unfortunately frequently used to fuck up people's lives rather than help them) without putting anything in its place is what I oppose.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Generally people who have to sign contracts or pay taxes, which is where this industry would go if made legal
Why would it go there if it were made legal?
Because businesses need to pay taxes? If they don't then the are risking tax evasion charges.
They can still get busted for that under the letter of the law. Currently since prostitution is already illegal they aren't going to bother filing tax returns. Perhaps if it is made legal they will determine it's worth doing so.
Either way they aren't going to pay taxes now and they have a much better incentive if it is legalized.
Ragg baby, if you can read all that bolded text and not drop your argument you are a braver fucking man that I ever gave you credit for.
I am said braver man. I don't drop my argument that prostitution a) is not something that should be promoted by society, b) is harmful to the individuals participating, and c) should be criminalized.
The statute as I read it didn't address any of those things. It addressed the police not targeting strip clubs, the DA prosecuting some harsher than others (street walkers vs. strippers), and creates a law that says police have to enforce a law that already requires police to enforce it via the fact that it is a standing state law.
I know this is a very shortened version, but I'll be able to do a little bit more when I get off of work in a couple of hours. Hell, I'm not even suppose to have net access from this workstation.
Until then... *sigh*... I'll just blanketly agree with whatever Feral says.
*shiver*
Posts
Were they unconstitutional on their face? Lawrence v Texas struck down the Texas statute because it was unconstitutional in the way it was enforced, wasn't it? As I said, I haven't read the case since Con Law.
Yeah, that is the point I was trying to make. I hadn't read up on the proposed law and initially assumed it had more substance, I think your right Feral. Simply legalizing something is not a good approach, you need to have a support network and regulations.
It's beset by some of these things because it's currently illegal. When you have legal contract obligations upheld by the courts then your clients can't decide to beat the crap out of you when they are not completely satisfied nor can your boss do the same when you fail to meet quota.
I'm sympathetic to drug addicts but I don't see how making prostitution legal somehow encourages that. They could just go strip instead. Or just shoot heroin in their basement. Either way.
I would like to point out that the same argument of "it is naive to assume that they wil go for help" does apply to the police fairly dealing with current problems as they stand. Police are human too.
The law feral posted includes a foreword that mentions the police system in san fran lacking in doing exactly this. I don't know how decriminilisation formatting works, but it strikes me as significant that part of the law directly states "hey cops, do your job properly".
If it was already self evident, why is that needed?
Good point. This is why this issue is so difficult - it's a commercial activity but also a very personal physical activity as well, so the private (my body) and public (earning income) get all tangled up.
I'm all for a licensing program and decriminalization in general. I agree with a lot of your points that this legislation isn't quite right. It's also difficult though, in that you have to take the first step sometime and waiting for perfect legislation sometimes gets you nowhere.
I don't agree with Ragg's points that decriminalization is a de facto promotion of the activity, or that decriminalization means prostitutes suddenly becoming more numerous and trotting down every public street. Nor do I agree that prostitution is inherently bad for society, though of course that's an abstract point.
I was working out how to say what Med just said so is it ok if I just agree with you and save the longwinded post?
It allows prostitutes to report abuse without being arrested for hooking.
It prevents tax dollars from being wasted prosecuting them.
Then there's the whole freedom thing. Freedom is typically a good thing.
Would you say your ideal situation can even be plausibly reached in America?
Yes I'm aware we do in regards to other things. Do you see the repeated parts of my posts where I'm referring to sex acts between consenting adults? I'm not arguing we don't regulate people I'm saying we don't legislate private sexual acts anywhere in society except prostitution. So if you're going to argue "we regulate consenting adults all the time! what's the problem with prostitution laws doing the same thing!" I think you're missing an important distinction.
It's a small point so we can probably stop talking about it now.
I don't remember about Lawrence either but it's irrelevant since I was simply pointing it out to stop you from saying "oh but we regulate sodomy" cause we don't anymore.
I know. Perfection is the enemy of progress.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I really think your suggestion is a backwards step man, which is why I'm so against it. Just wipe it clean first, then hopefully work on the other underlying problems next. One step at a time in a bureaucracy yeah?
I would say that it is worse than nothing.
The people who abuse and exploit sex workers are not as visible as the sex workers themselves. It is not the pimps, the abusive johns, or the drug dealers putting up their pictures on Craigslist, or soliciting guys in the back rooms of strip clubs, or walking down Minna. It's the prostitutes.
Ideally we would apprehend the prostitutes first and put pressure on them to give up the names of the men behind them. We do this now, but not nearly consistently enough, and our treatment of prostitutes that we do apprehend once we've learned who they're working for is generally awful.
The expectation that prostitutes will willingly give up their pimps, dealers, or johns if they're being exploited is pretty naive IMO. Somebody who has no sense of self-worth or an overtly self-destructive personality isn't going to give up the person they perceive to be their only source of housing, protection, income, or drugs. Yes, that would make the situation technically consensual - much in the way a beaten wife who defends her abusive husband is technically consensual.
So this law takes away the only real tool that law and medical institutions have to find the abusers and exploiters and replaces it with a whole bunch of hand-waving and platitudes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What about reducing it to a misdemeanor convinces all of those exploited women to spill everything? Or is this not part of the misdemeanor idea, but part of the larger and more ambitious licensing and regulation idea?
EDIT: Er, in case it's not obvious, I'm ceding your points about this law. :^:
Seriously.
I mean which is going to bring more crime, legalizing prostitute or keeping it illegal?
I have no illusions of the 'happy hooker' idea, but I do know that making it illegal isn't helping sex workers any at all.
I compare it to what Obama said about abortion, keep it legal but provide better services and help so those who are unwilling have an alternative.
So basically you want to combat exploitation of women by....exploiting women.
GREAT!
Our posts are rife with miscommunication, or maybe it's just me and my misunderstanding. It seemed to me that you were saying that a) we shouldn't regulate acts between consenting adults or b) there should be no regulation on this because no other laws other than these regulate it. I think both of those can be argued against. I was going to take the commerce tact next, but I see Feral's already talking about that.
And it's a little disingenuous to talk about sodomy laws no longer existing because we don't regulate sexual activity if sodomy laws we struck as unconstitutional due to enforcement and not on their face. That's why I kept bringing up Lawrence, but we can end that too since neither of us remember the case well.
I think the part of the legislation that will stop cops from arresting and blacklisting the lives of people "for their own good" in order to catch other people is the part that says they can't do it anymore.
All of them? No. More than complete legalization? I think that's pretty much self-evident.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's not self evident to me and I want you to explain it.
Your basic stance is to pressure the arrested prostitutes with legal ramifications (since thats the only type of pressuring you can do with a law, legally) in order to catch the exploiters. Yes?
If, as you say, a misdemeanor wont drastically affect their lives, how are you going to pressure them?
If you're trying to strike a balance between least-harm and least-harm, I guess I can see how it's "better," but ... I don't think it's this magical panacea that you do, where simply because the threat of effectual prosecution is removed, everyone becomes magically cooperative.
Yeah that makes no sense. Why would we have to have them "give up the names of the men behind them?" Who cares about the men? As long as they are not physically abusing these people I don't see why it really matters. These men are scum because they are dealing in an entirely black market business. If you bring it above ground they tend to get pushed out by the more reasonable employers. The patrons are forced to sign legal documents keeping them in line.
Legalization of this gets the complete scum out of the industry. The guy who runs the bunny ranch is no saint either, but he's still better than the pimp running his operation on the corner. The women in Nevada have it MUCH better than the women on the corner do. Legalization is the reason for this.
I don't think it's a magical panacea at all. There are no magical panaceas, there is only, as you say, a good balance; and IMO I'm the last person you should be criticizing for magical thinking.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It destroys their life. How does this help them.
I'm sorry, but it has to go.
That's why I suggest changing it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Felonies appear on pre-employment background checks. Misdemeanors don't.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
How?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But you still want to make sure women pay if they don't give up their pimps, probably because a little jail time sounds better than getting beaten up in an alleyway by his buddies.
You want power over these women to tell them what to do (incriminate others). I think that's a shitty way to look at things.
If a prostitute goes into a police office TODAY and says, "I was raped," the police are obligated to investigate the claim. The state law already provides for that (I know it does in my jurisdiction and I would be highly surprised if that didn't apply to California of all places). What makes you think this will make things any differently, especially in light of your assumed premise of "cops being human?"
[edit: Upon quick rescanning, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "blacklisting the lives of people 'for their own good.'" Could you explain it for me please?]
What pressure can you possibly put on someone in a situation like that, with all of the problems you have described.
Think abotu this.
Beaten, mental illness, abuse, all that shit.
"Give up the name or you get a misdemeanor"
Do you really think holding out for a misdemeanor law is going to help in anyway? I do not see this.
Let me re-phrase: Legalization gets the complete scum doing vicious things to the sex workers out of the industry.
Generally people who have to sign contracts or pay taxes, which is where this industry would go if made legal, behave better than street criminals who have nothing to lose.
I think the best parallel is taking a look at the Porn or Stripping industries to determine the impact of legalization. The regulation in these industries mostly minor. I'm not going to state that people in those industries are all well adjusted savory individuals, but at the very least the women are getting abused and aren't spreading STD's.
Regardless we should crawl before walking. Legalization is a good first step, then if needed you regulate.
I'm sorry but I can't believe we are talking about the same law here. It's getting quoted. Some of you don't seem to be reading it.
Let's have a good discussion of this law, alright.
Ragg baby, if you can read all that bolded text and not drop your argument you are a braver fucking man that I ever gave you credit for.
There is your "assumed police are human."
There is your blacklisting. Im referring to a police record, I wasn't aware it was another official term. Police records aren't illegal Ragg.
There is also a direct benefit stated as a result of this law. (the funds transferred)
Finally at the end, there is an admission that further amendments aimed to help the prostitutes, and nobody else, the prostitutes, is willing to be done.
Why is this law a bad thing.
Explain this to me, in context of this law, not whatever you think the law is for or may cause. Explain it in context of this above.
Why would it go there if it were made legal?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I recognize that it is an extremely difficult situation and for many people there is simply going to be no helping them.
Eliminating one of the few tools we have for helping people (a tool which I do admit is unfortunately frequently used to fuck up people's lives rather than help them) without putting anything in its place is what I oppose.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Because businesses need to pay taxes? If they don't then the are risking tax evasion charges.
They can still get busted for that under the letter of the law. Currently since prostitution is already illegal they aren't going to bother filing tax returns. Perhaps if it is made legal they will determine it's worth doing so.
Either way they aren't going to pay taxes now and they have a much better incentive if it is legalized.
The statute as I read it didn't address any of those things. It addressed the police not targeting strip clubs, the DA prosecuting some harsher than others (street walkers vs. strippers), and creates a law that says police have to enforce a law that already requires police to enforce it via the fact that it is a standing state law.
I know this is a very shortened version, but I'll be able to do a little bit more when I get off of work in a couple of hours. Hell, I'm not even suppose to have net access from this workstation.
Until then... *sigh*... I'll just blanketly agree with whatever Feral says.
*shiver*
How do you propose we enforce tax law on an industry already practiced at evading the law?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
By making it legal to practice thereby eliminating the need to evade it except for everyday old embezzlement and tax fraud.
Do I have to point out that decriminalizing it on a local level doesn't make it legal on a state or federal level?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.