3 ms·
I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't improve. The kinds of people involved in violence are overwhelmingly poor, young males. This is not a group that cares
by eloff 5y ago
I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't improve.
The kinds of people involved in violence are overwhelmingly poor, young males. This is not a group that cares about laws or cultural norms. They lack the money to pay for sex workers, they don't have cultural hangups about it. They lack the money, education, and human decency to maintain a girlfriend relationship.
Which is to say they're not bad people because they're sexually frustrated. They're sexually frustrated because they're bad people. Which can be a negative feedback cycle.
- snakeboy 5y agoHow about those at the margin? I'd guess most policy proposals don't seem productive when you condense a population down to a scalar "model" subject and ask if he would change his behavior in light of the new policy. That doesn't mean that population-level effects won't be observed.
- eloff 5y agoI'm going to guess the effect would be marginal :) If you want to address violence it would be better to focus on reducing poverty, on education, and on rehabilitation. A lot of violence is drug related, providing a legal market for buying and selling illegal drugs would kill that element crime. Prohibition of drugs seems to be playing out the same that prohibition of alcohol did. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Normalizing prostitution is not likely to move the needle for the reasons I mentioned.