4 ms·

The Cook County (Chicago) Sheriff, Tom Dart, has been leading the charge on this. The Tribune had an article a few days ago about him increasing prostitution bu

by jordanb 16y ago

The Cook County (Chicago) Sheriff, Tom Dart, has been leading the charge on this. The Tribune had an article a few days ago about him increasing prostitution busts, and putting up ads around O'Hare warning johns to stay away. With all this moral outrage coming out of him about prostitution, I'm expecting that he'll soon be arrested in a prostitution bust. Anti-prostitution groups always drag out trafficking as a reason to be against prostitution, and also child prostitution. But being a prostitute or being a john are both misdemeanor offences, whereas trafficking and sexual child abuse are both very serious felony charges. It seems to me that anti-trafficking and child sexual abuse laws are a lot more effective in dealing with those problems than general anti-prostitution laws are. The argument about trafficking really rings hollow. These busts mostly target the prostitutes. If they really wanted to find trafficking victims, they'd get a lot better luck approaching women not in the context of arresting them, and asking them about their situation. Throwing women against the police car and slapping handcuffs on them seems counterproductive if your goal is to limit trafficking. If anything, it reinforces everything the traffickers tell the women about the police, making them less likely to cooperate. If a women is not a victim of sex slavery or underage, it seems absurd that she could be charged with a crime for selling something she can legally give away for free.

derefr 16y ago
From the perspective of the police force, prostitution being illegal is 1% moral uptightness, and 99% pragmatism. Having prostitution be a misdemeanor helps catch people in the act of other, more serious crimes, as the "crime" of prostitution justifies search warrants to otherwise-unassailable places. It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification.
- jsz0 16y ago
  Don't those other serious crimes generally stem from prohibition too? If you're running girls you might as well sell drugs too. Illegal gambling? Now you need guns to protect yourself because you can't call the police and report that your prostitute just stole $20k worth of cocaine from you. It's such a vicious cycle.
  - derefr 16y ago
    From what a policeman friend of mine told me, the busts they spend all their time on have the reverse of that story: a local gang/mob forms, and then, since they're already assaulting and murdering to keep their place in the criminal underbelly of the city, and since they know their shit well enough to be getting away with it, they can run as many side-businesses as they like doing other, lesser illegal deeds, because they've already ensured their protection. This is pride before a fall, because these lesser crimes—especially if they involve non-group others, like prostitutes or drug mules—can be the cracks in the dam that allow the police to nab them.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification. I think you mean no ethical justification that you agree with. For example, take as an axiom "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" and it follows logically from there. This is an ethical justification. You just apparently disagree with the premise. Most theistic ethical systems have something akin to this as a rule (whether derived or axiomatic within the system).
  - derefr 16y ago
    If you're starting with complex axioms like > "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" then what you've got is a moral justification, not an ethical one.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      I've only dabbled in moral philosophy (the study of ethics!) but my understanding is that the more common use amongst professional philosophers is that ethics relates to a system established usually by a particular group, like a legal code or religious doctrine whilst morals concern an individuals actions. Morality then is considered to concern a naturally occurring right whilst ethics concerns a constructed set of rules (often based on or intended to enforce particular morals). The terms in common parlance are used interchangeably and unfortunately even those (possibly novices) working in the art use the terms in a contrary way - http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/ http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-dist... highlights the mess very well. Perhaps you could enlarge on your objection, is it merely semantic or does it have a substantial element too?
mkramlich 16y ago
> If a women is not a victim of sex slavery or underage, it seems absurd that she could be charged with a crime for selling something she can legally give away for free. Agreed. Especially because I think arguably many woman who are not technically prostitutes do give sex in exchange for money, gifts or other material things. There may not be a difference in kind but in degree. (This holds for men too, in other areas, I think.)

by jordanb 16y ago

derefr 16y ago

From the perspective of the police force, prostitution being illegal is 1% moral uptightness, and 99% pragmatism. Having prostitution be a misdemeanor helps catch people in the act of other, more serious crimes, as the "crime" of prostitution justifies search warrants to otherwise-unassailable places. It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification.

jsz0 16y ago
Don't those other serious crimes generally stem from prohibition too? If you're running girls you might as well sell drugs too. Illegal gambling? Now you need guns to protect yourself because you can't call the police and report that your prostitute just stole $20k worth of cocaine from you. It's such a vicious cycle.
- derefr 16y ago
  From what a policeman friend of mine told me, the busts they spend all their time on have the reverse of that story: a local gang/mob forms, and then, since they're already assaulting and murdering to keep their place in the criminal underbelly of the city, and since they know their shit well enough to be getting away with it, they can run as many side-businesses as they like doing other, lesser illegal deeds, because they've already ensured their protection. This is pride before a fall, because these lesser crimes—especially if they involve non-group others, like prostitutes or drug mules—can be the cracks in the dam that allow the police to nab them.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification. I think you mean no ethical justification that you agree with. For example, take as an axiom "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" and it follows logically from there. This is an ethical justification. You just apparently disagree with the premise. Most theistic ethical systems have something akin to this as a rule (whether derived or axiomatic within the system).
- derefr 16y ago
  If you're starting with complex axioms like > "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" then what you've got is a moral justification, not an ethical one.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    I've only dabbled in moral philosophy (the study of ethics!) but my understanding is that the more common use amongst professional philosophers is that ethics relates to a system established usually by a particular group, like a legal code or religious doctrine whilst morals concern an individuals actions. Morality then is considered to concern a naturally occurring right whilst ethics concerns a constructed set of rules (often based on or intended to enforce particular morals). The terms in common parlance are used interchangeably and unfortunately even those (possibly novices) working in the art use the terms in a contrary way - http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction-between-ethics-and-morals/ http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-dist... highlights the mess very well. Perhaps you could enlarge on your objection, is it merely semantic or does it have a substantial element too?

mkramlich 16y ago

> If a women is not a victim of sex slavery or underage, it seems absurd that she could be charged with a crime for selling something she can legally give away for free. Agreed. Especially because I think arguably many woman who are not technically prostitutes do give sex in exchange for money, gifts or other material things. There may not be a difference in kind but in degree. (This holds for men too, in other areas, I think.)