0
masterblaster72

Public and Televised Shaming of People Who Patronize Prostitutes -- Really?

By masterblaster72, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

Andy9o8    0

Andy9o8
Quote

Quote

Quote

What a lot of people don't see are all the other crimes surrounding prostitution. It isn't just about sex. It's about the violence, the drugs, the theft, the persons crimes, property crimes. It is staggering how much crime and violence surrounds the sex trade. You can nip away at the surrounding crimes or go after the center and help deter all the surrounding crimes at once.



Question:
Do you think that the related crime would be less if prostitution were legal?



Research has shown that those crimes actually go up when its legalized.



You just going to leave that sentence hanging there? No citations/links to specific supporting research? And that's only half the job, because you're also going to have to acknowledge, and then rebut, counter-concluding research.

Do the due diligence, then come back and see us.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

turtlespeed    212

turtlespeed
Quote

Quote

There are some exceptions but generally those exceptions are in place to protect the victims, not the persons who commit the crime.



And who would the victims be in this case?


Tsarnaeva, of course.:|
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bertt    0

Bertt
Right. So if we're going to outlaw things associated with crime, we could start with cars. Just about every police department has an auto theft detail and a traffic enforcement detail. The amount of crime associated with car theft is enormous, as is the death and maiming of innocent people by reckless and careless drivers.
(from the Rocky Mountain Insurance Association: Using the FBI's average valuation of $6,152 per stolen vehicle, the 737,142 vehicles stolen during 2010 caused estimated property losses of $4.5 billion.)
(from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System - in 2010 4302 pedestrians killed by being hit by cars).
We could eliminate this carnage and loss by eliminating private ownership of cars. Anybody who's lived in Manhattan knows that you can get around using public transportation. There's no theoretical or constitutional reason such a system couldn't be expanded to cover the nation.
The real difference between buying and selling sex and buying and selling almost any other product or service is that the Bible says sex is bad. Of course, Judges 1:19 also warns us against "iron chariots", but we can ignore that for the moment. It's all a matter of whose morality you want to enforce.
You don't have to outrun the bear.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DanG    1

DanG
Quote

Isn't the Tsarnaeva family the ultimate victim?



Oh, I see. Blatant and stupid thread hijack attempt.

Any adults in the room want to explain which victims we're protecting with anti-prostituition laws?

- Dan G

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

devildog    0

devildog
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What a lot of people don't see are all the other crimes surrounding prostitution. It isn't just about sex. It's about the violence, the drugs, the theft, the persons crimes, property crimes. It is staggering how much crime and violence surrounds the sex trade. You can nip away at the surrounding crimes or go after the center and help deter all the surrounding crimes at once.



Question:
Do you think that the related crime would be less if prostitution were legal?



Research has shown that those crimes actually go up when its legalized.



You just going to leave that sentence hanging there? No citations/links to specific supporting research? And that's only half the job, because you're also going to have to acknowledge, and then rebut, counter-concluding research.

Do the due diligence, then come back and see us.



I'll dig up the links when I get a chance later today. It's not like the SC is a heavily cited, peer-reviewed place :)
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

AggieDave    6

AggieDave
Quote

Right. So if we're going to outlaw things associated with crime, we could start with cars. Just about every police department has an auto theft detail and a traffic enforcement detail. The amount of crime associated with car theft is enormous, as is the death and maiming of innocent people by reckless and careless drivers.
(from the Rocky Mountain Insurance Association: Using the FBI's average valuation of $6,152 per stolen vehicle, the 737,142 vehicles stolen during 2010 caused estimated property losses of $4.5 billion.)
(from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System - in 2010 4302 pedestrians killed by being hit by cars).
We could eliminate this carnage and loss by eliminating private ownership of cars. Anybody who's lived in Manhattan knows that you can get around using public transportation. There's no theoretical or constitutional reason such a system couldn't be expanded to cover the nation.
The real difference between buying and selling sex and buying and selling almost any other product or service is that the Bible says sex is bad. Of course, Judges 1:19 also warns us against "iron chariots", but we can ignore that for the moment. It's all a matter of whose morality you want to enforce.



Hope you warmed up before stretching so hard, you might pull something.

If you want to start up a thread about traffic fatalities, get on it. I'm a certified collision reconstructionist and an expert in the field. I'm also very passionate about traffic safety. However, that's not what we're talking about here.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kelpdiver    2

kelpdiver
Quote


Okay, that's an interesting take on this. But do you think it is necessary to publicly shame the patrons on tv and on the internet? One of these guys works for a well-known company in Philly and apparently has a wife and a kid. His life may well be ruined as a result of his name and picture being published in the local news, as I would not be surprised if he loses his job and his wife divorces him. Is this a fitting punishment in your book -- in addition to the punishment under the legal system as a consequence of breaking the law?



Well, if the wife doesn't know he's been convicted (or merely arrested) for soliciting, there are a lot of problems. And given the potential STDs from unregulated sex trade (the high end hookers aren't the ones getting busted, typically), she has every right to drop his ass.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

masterblaster72    0

masterblaster72
Quote

Quote


Okay, that's an interesting take on this. But do you think it is necessary to publicly shame the patrons on tv and on the internet? One of these guys works for a well-known company in Philly and apparently has a wife and a kid. His life may well be ruined as a result of his name and picture being published in the local news, as I would not be surprised if he loses his job and his wife divorces him. Is this a fitting punishment in your book -- in addition to the punishment under the legal system as a consequence of breaking the law?



Well, if the wife doesn't know he's been convicted (or merely arrested) for soliciting, there are a lot of problems. And given the potential STDs from unregulated sex trade (the high end hookers aren't the ones getting busted, typically), she has every right to drop his ass.



Of course she does -- I agree 100%. However I still don't think the public shaming is justified, and he would have likely paid the marital consequences anyhow without the outing on tv/internet.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kelpdiver    2

kelpdiver
Quote


Of course she does -- I agree 100%. However I still don't think the public shaming is justified, and he would have likely paid the marital consequences anyhow without the outing on tv/internet.



Like the drug trade, it will persist as long as there is demand. It's very difficult to attack the supply side. And as Dave notes, there is a lot of collateral damage around the sex trade. If all workers were consenting sex workers, it would be very different than the reality that actually exists.

The seizure of vehicles is an example of stepping over boundaries. But publicizing convictions (not arrests) - I'm struggling to have a problem with it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

billvon    2,400

billvon
>You can think that, but the association with prostitution has historically and continues
>to be shown to have significant crimes associated with it, not to be limited to human
>trafficking and violence.

Agreed. The one place in the US that this is less true is in Nevada, where prostitution is legal. There is far more prostitution going on there (because it's legal in most places) and there is even crime from human trafficking - but because a prostitute can go to the cops there and have them arrest anyone who tries to pimp her against her will, prostitutes in that state have far more power over criminals than they have anywhere else.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

GeorgiaDon    340

GeorgiaDon
Quote

Well, if the wife doesn't know he's been convicted (or merely arrested) for soliciting, there are a lot of problems. And given the potential STDs from unregulated sex trade (the high end hookers aren't the ones getting busted, typically), she has every right to drop his ass.

Well on those grounds we should publish the names of every guy who goes into a bar, a racetrack, or a casino. After all, alcoholism and gambling addictions also cause havoc in marriages.

The whole point of publishing these names and photos is to discourage "crime" by using the threat of exposing offenders to all the societal consequences (loss of job, marriage, etc) of their misdeeds, before they have had any chance to defend themselves in court. Some or all of those consequences may follow after a conviction, of course. But still, in this case niceties such as the presumption of innocence are disposed of so as to use salacious content to sell newspapers (or to attract viewers), with the wholehearted cooperation and support of so-called "law enforcement".

Also, if the justification is to protect the wife from STDs, why do the police ignore the "high end hookers"? Because "high end hookers" attract "high end Johns", perhaps? And, why are people not prosecuted for adultery, despite that being a crime in 33 states?

My local paper published the names and booking photos of people charged with DUI, but only after they have been convicted. The little blurb below the photo says if it is their first, or second, or whatever conviction, and lists the sentence. If the goal is to deter crime, those people are publicly humiliated but readers/viewers also get to see how costly a DUI conviction is in terms of money and jail or community service time. Plus, no issues of public punishment of legally still innocent people.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

AggieDave    6

AggieDave
Quote

Quote

I'm a certified collision reconstructionist



Did they teach you how to put in earbuds and "channel" the scene as in Boondock Saints?



Yes, except we use iPods now instead of Sony Discmans. Although opera music is still required.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kelpdiver    2

kelpdiver
Quote

Quote

Well, if the wife doesn't know he's been convicted (or merely arrested) for soliciting, there are a lot of problems. And given the potential STDs from unregulated sex trade (the high end hookers aren't the ones getting busted, typically), she has every right to drop his ass.

Well on those grounds we should publish the names of every guy who goes into a bar, a racetrack, or a casino. After all, alcoholism and gambling addictions also cause havoc in marriages.



She can recover from the financial impact of these. She cannot undo contracting HIV, HPV, or HepB/C. Nor can he, but he can get help for a drinking or gambling problem.

Quote


Also, if the justification is to protect the wife from STDs, why do the police ignore the "high end hookers"? Because "high end hookers" attract "high end Johns", perhaps? And, why are people not prosecuted for adultery, despite that being a crime in 33 states?



Same reason that police tend to ignore the high end (suburban) drug world - it's not geographically concentrated, and more importantly, it's not cause same level of crime and blight. The biggest problem the government has with the Craigslist hookers is that they're not getting a cut of the action.

That said, if they come across it, they do in fact prosecute, as noted with Fleiss, with that recent yoga/dance (what was it called) instructor caught in the east?

It's a law that wouldn't likely survive a Constitutional test. But since no one is prosecuted for it, no one has standing to challenge it.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

livendive    8

livendive
Quote


The US would do well to spend less effort trying to control what people do with their reproductive organs, and a bit more effort on controlling violence.



This. Prostitution is an unfortunate profession, and dugs are bad for people, but every drug user and prostitute in jail is occupying space that could be better utilized by violent criminals, or convicted felons later found illegally possessing guns. If we want to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US, we should focus on those most likely to use them to commit violent acts, i.e. people who have both guns and a total disregard for the law.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing