4 ms·

Maybe I'm too cynical but I bet they crunched the numbers and figured out that the prostitutes are generally poor people who can't pay big fines and the courts

Maybe I'm too cynical but I bet they crunched the numbers and figured out that the prostitutes are generally poor people who can't pay big fines and the courts generally go easy on whereas the customers are generally a couple rungs up the ladder and get no slack from the courts because they can pay so they'll just refocus all the resources on prosecuting the customers which is where the money always was anyway.

chillwaves 6y ago
It doesn't make sense to victimize sex workers. It makes even less sense to keep them in the shadows, afraid to work with cops, given they are such a vulnerable population.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
newacct583 6y ago
I don't have data on sex work specifically, but in general criminal fines don't come anywhere near paying for the law enforcement and prosecution apparatus required to get the conviction or plea.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  If that were the case they wouldn't run speed traps. Letting the hookers go about their business and arresting some fraction of their customers but not a large enough fraction to keep the customers from showing up at all (wouldn't want to deplete the metaphorical fishery) sounds an awful lot like a speed trap. I wish I could not be cynical but there's just too much evil in law enforcement and the social services that deal with vices for me not to take this as a face value good thing. I'm sure they're happy to not be arresting hookers who've done nothing wrong. Beat cops don't like arresting people who've done nothing wrong. But I'd be lying if I didn't think there wasn't someone somewhere in the bureaucracy twirling their mustache while congratulating themselves on finding a way to both increase in revenue policing and satisfy the politically involved people who want progressive policy points. Don't get me wrong, not arresting hookers is a good thing. But all my experience with the parts of government that deal with this sort of thing tells me this happened because the stars happened to align, not because someone with decision making power had an epiphany and decided that hookers shouldn't be arrested.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    The speed traps is more a small town thing I think? NYPD is politically powerful in a rich place and just has a massive budget. In this case there is dueling advocacy for the so called "swedish model" and full decrim, and by all accounts the lame duck DA is just trying to look good with the boring middle ground before his terms up.
  - david38 6y ago
    Speeding and parking tickets are the obvious outliers. Most other things, drug investigations, assault, etc are not earners.
    - ruined 6y ago
      drug "investigations" actually, through civil asset forfeiture of "drug dealer" assets, are very lucrative. the police department in my hometown used to brag about how the city did not spend tax money on any of their vehicles, radios, and a bunch of other equipment.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    A misdemeanor ticket can be issued and fully enforced in minutes. The discussion here is about felonies, which require courts, judges, juries, testimony, depositions, and evidence management. That stuff costs a lot of money and employs a bunch of people (some of whom are very well compensated!). The state doesn't make money on criminal law. It just doesn't.
ALittleLight 6y ago
I think it's more likely that punishing women is politically unpopular whereas punishing men is fine or desirable. Especially because women involved in prostitution may be especially vulnerable (poor, immigrant, drug addict, etc).
- krapp 6y ago
  Punishing women, especially women in the sex trades or involved in sexual scandal, has never been unpopular in any society at any time in human history.
  - xenihn 6y ago
    You can say this about literally any group that wasn't classified with elite status, like royalty or clergy. Replace "women" with "men" in your post, and it's still just as true.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >Replace "women" with "men" in your post, and it's still just as true. No, you're either attempting a low-effort troll or you have a profound misunderstanding of history. Men have almost always been classified with elite status compared to women in most societies. The entirety of Western civilization is founded under religions that teach a Male God created Man (male, not collective humanity) in His image and that women were created to serve men and obey them, and that the weakness of women is the source of all of the world's evils, and the cultures and legal systems which emerged have often reflected and enforced that patriarchal bias. For most of history, women were basically the property of their fathers, then traded for dowry to become the property of their husbands. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, they could be stoned to death for disobeying their husbands.
      - xenihn 6y ago
        >For most of history, women were basically the property of their fathers, then traded for dowry to become the property of their husbands. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, they could be stoned to death for disobeying their husbands. For most of history, both men and women in any society couldn't do any of the things you just described. The majority of people in any society, of both genders, have belonged to the lower classes. This is still true today, but you have far more rights as a lower class person today than you would have 200 years ago. You're viewing history solely from the perspective of the upper classes (which includes the middle class).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
setr 6y ago
This was always a crime of the sensibilities — I don’t think number crunching really weighs in. It’s not like financial crime
rtpg 6y ago
I think you really should look at some actual stats if you think that poorer people aren’t extremely over-represented in court systems. There’s a reason that there are huge pushes to end cash bail and the like.

chillwaves 6y ago

It doesn't make sense to victimize sex workers. It makes even less sense to keep them in the shadows, afraid to work with cops, given they are such a vulnerable population.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

newacct583 6y ago

I don't have data on sex work specifically, but in general criminal fines don't come anywhere near paying for the law enforcement and prosecution apparatus required to get the conviction or plea.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
If that were the case they wouldn't run speed traps. Letting the hookers go about their business and arresting some fraction of their customers but not a large enough fraction to keep the customers from showing up at all (wouldn't want to deplete the metaphorical fishery) sounds an awful lot like a speed trap. I wish I could not be cynical but there's just too much evil in law enforcement and the social services that deal with vices for me not to take this as a face value good thing. I'm sure they're happy to not be arresting hookers who've done nothing wrong. Beat cops don't like arresting people who've done nothing wrong. But I'd be lying if I didn't think there wasn't someone somewhere in the bureaucracy twirling their mustache while congratulating themselves on finding a way to both increase in revenue policing and satisfy the politically involved people who want progressive policy points. Don't get me wrong, not arresting hookers is a good thing. But all my experience with the parts of government that deal with this sort of thing tells me this happened because the stars happened to align, not because someone with decision making power had an epiphany and decided that hookers shouldn't be arrested.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  The speed traps is more a small town thing I think? NYPD is politically powerful in a rich place and just has a massive budget. In this case there is dueling advocacy for the so called "swedish model" and full decrim, and by all accounts the lame duck DA is just trying to look good with the boring middle ground before his terms up.
- david38 6y ago
  Speeding and parking tickets are the obvious outliers. Most other things, drug investigations, assault, etc are not earners.
  - ruined 6y ago
    drug "investigations" actually, through civil asset forfeiture of "drug dealer" assets, are very lucrative. the police department in my hometown used to brag about how the city did not spend tax money on any of their vehicles, radios, and a bunch of other equipment.
- newacct583 6y ago
  A misdemeanor ticket can be issued and fully enforced in minutes. The discussion here is about felonies, which require courts, judges, juries, testimony, depositions, and evidence management. That stuff costs a lot of money and employs a bunch of people (some of whom are very well compensated!). The state doesn't make money on criminal law. It just doesn't.

ALittleLight 6y ago

I think it's more likely that punishing women is politically unpopular whereas punishing men is fine or desirable. Especially because women involved in prostitution may be especially vulnerable (poor, immigrant, drug addict, etc).

krapp 6y ago
Punishing women, especially women in the sex trades or involved in sexual scandal, has never been unpopular in any society at any time in human history.
- xenihn 6y ago
  You can say this about literally any group that wasn't classified with elite status, like royalty or clergy. Replace "women" with "men" in your post, and it's still just as true.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Replace "women" with "men" in your post, and it's still just as true. No, you're either attempting a low-effort troll or you have a profound misunderstanding of history. Men have almost always been classified with elite status compared to women in most societies. The entirety of Western civilization is founded under religions that teach a Male God created Man (male, not collective humanity) in His image and that women were created to serve men and obey them, and that the weakness of women is the source of all of the world's evils, and the cultures and legal systems which emerged have often reflected and enforced that patriarchal bias. For most of history, women were basically the property of their fathers, then traded for dowry to become the property of their husbands. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, they could be stoned to death for disobeying their husbands.
    - xenihn 6y ago
      >For most of history, women were basically the property of their fathers, then traded for dowry to become the property of their husbands. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, they could be stoned to death for disobeying their husbands. For most of history, both men and women in any society couldn't do any of the things you just described. The majority of people in any society, of both genders, have belonged to the lower classes. This is still true today, but you have far more rights as a lower class person today than you would have 200 years ago. You're viewing history solely from the perspective of the upper classes (which includes the middle class).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

setr 6y ago

This was always a crime of the sensibilities — I don’t think number crunching really weighs in. It’s not like financial crime

rtpg 6y ago

I think you really should look at some actual stats if you think that poorer people aren’t extremely over-represented in court systems. There’s a reason that there are huge pushes to end cash bail and the like.