San Franciscans will soon vote on whether their city should decriminalize prostitution.
Supporters say that taking prostitution out of the black market will improve the safety and health of sex workers, and shave $11 million per year off the city’s law-enforcement expenses.
Opponents say the measure would encourage human trafficking, raise crime, and generally turn San Francisco into a magnet for pimps, prostitutes, and sex fiends.
The most effective solution might be to split the difference.
In 1999, Sweden legalized the sale of sex, leaving buyers subject to fines and humiliation through public exposure. While the jury is still out on how effective Sweden’s “Sex Purchase Law” has been, the approach has drawn international attention for its novelty.
Julie Bindel and Liz Kelly, at London Metropolitan University, found that the Swedish law decreased street prostitution by two-thirds between 1999 and 2003. But the law’s effect on the sex trade overall is difficult to determine — it may have simply driven sex workers indoors.
We’ve weighed in more than a few times on prostitution.
But what do you think?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The article fails to mention the component of the proposed San Francisco legislation that would ban racial profiling in vice squad investigations. All over SF are massage parlors, run by and servicing the Chinese community, staffed by indentured servants that are smuggled here by organized crime syndicates. Investigation into this overt human trafficking by local law enforcement would be banned by this legislation. De facto slavery is not consent, nor is it victimless.
Legalize, regulate, and tax it.
I realize most governments do it, but I still don’t understand how you can legalize porn and criminalize prostitution. I really don’t see any difference between the two activities: both come down to receiving money in contribution of voluntarily performed sex acts. Most governments’ position is totally hypocrite because adopted in “defense of women’s rights”. That’s pure BS, because criminalizing it doesn’t stop it, it just makes prostitution more secret, more dangerous, and put women at greater risks.
The Swedish position is totally illogical too. Tell me how you can legally sell something to someone who can’t legally buy it! Most European countries have similar legislation with marijuana. It is just plain stupid, and doesn’t do any good: it doesn’t decrease commerce or consumption, doesn’t provide tax opportunities to the country, yet increases enforcement expenses. A lose-lose-lose situation.
Number 4 said “However, to me, the real question revolves around whether or not prostituion is a victimless crime, since there is an argument to be made that behaviors and trasactions which impose a harm or cost to society should be illegal.”
On that basis, shouldn’t we first stop the sale of tobacco and alcohol — oh, we tried that.
Prostitution should not be a crime. However, if there is human trafficing, coercion, violence, etc., then those should be prosecuted under existing laws. Legalizing prostitution would allow more regulation of the industry and would minimize the criminal aspects.
Quote from above: “Why in the world should there be any laws governing any action between consenting adults?”
Because the consequences of that choice do not remain with the two consenting adults.
Might the wife of the “John” feel betrayed in her martial vows? Likely leading to divorce and single parenthood and the resulting financial burden?
What of the “John’s” kids and their emotional well being? Being tossed back and forth between two homes every other week? Worrying more about their physical welfare than learning in school.
What about transmission of STDs to the innocent spouse, and/or future contacts with the prostitute and their spouses?
My assumption from your comment is that you don’t value strong marriages and families as the basic building block and foundation of society. You may not believe that they produce more value to individuals and society than other arrangements. (divorce, single parents, co-habitation, etc…)
I do believe that a strong marriage and family produce the best results for society and prostitution, even between consenting adults, rips the fabric of a strong society.
Pimps can afford to live in San Francisco?!?!
In any case, it seems they aren’t really regulating it – they’re just admitting that the police won’t/can’t do anything about it.
I assume that’s intentional – regulating it and making it seem safer and more official would increase the consumption of prostitution (probably not literally, as in Jeffrey Dahmer’s case), which is likely to be seen as a negative by a majority of society. This approach leads to bolder, more obvious, and more openly negotiated prostitution, but still leaving it seedy and risky unless the market rewards the upscale stuff more. So can they claim it as profession on their taxes, or do they still have to be criminals in other ways?
Wait a minute here… the unique (or almost-unique, I think Norway has the same law) is not that selling sex is legal – as far as I know that’s been legal for ages. Instead, what really sets Sweden apart is that buying sex is illegal. That’s what the real debate is about over here. Everybody agrees that selling sex should remain legal.
Personally, I am completely against the criminalization of either buying or selling sex. You need a good reason to criminalize something, and I don’t see a good reason to criminalize buying sex.