patrick.net

wtf??

Are you really just going to run with the "Look at what those crazy California Lib'ruls are doing now! They done legalized child prostitution! See? Right here!" analysis without discussion the recent history of human trafficking and the intent of the legislature with this action?

I wonder if they realize that this law would make under 18 the hottest commodity ever for pimps! Girls are going to be getting kidnapped, addicted to drugs, and then serve as whores (legally) in record numbers! They're creating an ENORMOUS demand for underage prostitutes, and the black market will fill that demand one way or another.
Fucking Democrats! They are just SO STUPID!
Their rose colored glasses are blinding them to the horror their policies are inflicting on us all!
Fuck Democrats!

Automan Empire says

Are you really just going to run with the "Look at what those crazy California Lib'ruls are doing now! They done legalized child prostitution! See? Right here!" analysis without discussion the recent history of human trafficking and the intent of the legislature with this action?

Are you really defending the legalization of child prostitution?

Patrick says

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

Misleading. The age of consent remains 18. 17yos can't be charged for prostitution, but two 17yos could both be incarcerated for statutory rape regardless of who paid whom. It's part of a larger trend towards shifting penalties away from prostitutes (who tend to be female) and onto customers (who tend to be male).

rando says

Are you really defending the legalization of child prostitution?

This isn't even decriminalization let alone legalization. This is pure sensationalism.

Why in gods name did they do this?

Step back and look at the big picture: The point of this action is the first step towards doing what they did in Sweden: They passed laws that it is not a crime to be a (need I say female?) prostitute, but it is a crime to be a (male) customer.

The whole point is to criminalize men, to keep them in check, keep them barefoot and providing in the salt mines, to coin a phrase that might sound somewhat familiar.

Obligatory:

justme says

The whole point is to criminalize men, to keep them in check, keep them barefoot and providing in the salt mines

This is true.

rando says

Are you really defending the legalization of child prostitution?

No. Read again, carefully.

Quigley says

I wonder if they realize that this law would make under 18 the hottest commodity ever for pimps! Girls are going to be getting kidnapped, addicted to drugs, and then serve as whores (legally) in record numbers! They're creating an ENORMOUS demand for underage prostitutes, and the black market will fill that demand one way or another.

Fucking Democrats! They are just SO STUPID!

The best thing that can happen to the girls is to get arrested. It's the only way they can escape the pimps.

Where can I bet on rape incarceration going up?

Strategist says

The best thing that can happen to the girls is to get arrested. It's the only way they can escape the pimps.

Not true. The track record of recidivism under the current model is terrible. It's the same as the "drug war." Attacking the supply without addressing demand doesn't stop the problem, it makes the collateral damage on society exponentially worse, however.

This legislation is intended to address the problem of exploited underage sex workers reaching the age of majority with a long rap sheet making them unemployable outside the sex/drug trades. It doesn't prevent prosecution of pimps and johns; if anything it frees up legal resources to pursue them.

Critics of this legislation, can you point us to evidence that the old system was working well enough to leave alone?

Automan Empire says

Strategist says

The best thing that can happen to the girls is to get arrested. It's the only way they can escape the pimps.

Not true. The track record of recidivism under the current model is terrible. It's the same as the "drug war." Attacking the supply without addressing demand doesn't stop the problem, it makes the collateral damage on society exponentially worse, however.

Prostitution is the world's oldest occupation. You will never ever get rid of it. May as well legalize it and control it.

It's kind of funny that so many take the position that teens are responsible for getting into prostitution, and should be punished. Yet, they don't think that prostitution should be legal. If the teens could consent to such an arrangement, why should it be illegal in the first place?

Patrick says

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

I don't get how this is a bad thing. If your goal is to protect teenagers, then how do you accomplish that by arresting, convicting, throwing them in prison, and giving them a criminal records, particularly one with a great social stigma, for the rest of their life? Seems to me that if you really want to protect minors, you should make it impossible to try them for this victimless crime. And if you are arguing that they are the victims, then why would you be calling for their prosecution? It's like shooting someone for jaywalking to prevent them from the risk of being hit by a car.

The real question is why should any prostitute be charged with a crime and thrown into a cage? What right does the state have to imprison any person who is committing no harm to other people and not violating anyone else's rights?

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

It's a truly horrible law.

rando says

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

It's a truly horrible law.

The only ones to benefit are the pimps.

rando says

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

So to discourage behavior that shouldn't be illegal in the first place, your plan is to inflict suffering and the fear of suffering on anyone who dares engages in that behavior. This seems like neither a wise nor a moral policy. It's like threatening to shoot someone who thinks about jay walking and then carrying out the threat if he still decides to do it. It's highly counter-productive.

It also does not answer the question as to why the state should have the power to use violence and the threat of violence to force its will unto people in this matter. Placing a person in a cage at gunpoint is an inherently violent act. It should not be taken lightly.

rando says

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

It's a truly horrible law.

I think thats a really naive point of view.

Most underage prositutes(and California just happens to have six of the major "circuit" cities in SF, Sacramento, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego) are foster children who a pimp lures away or runaway kids. Very very few come from middle class or better homes, though in the 90's there was more of a prevalence of this as laws against pimping were weak enough that many pimps felt empowered to recruit at malls in middle class neighborhood.

Anywho, I'd probably be against this law, but Kamela Harris really went hard after human sex trafficking. Its hard for me ever to give a Democrat politician credit, but its very due here. https://www.facebook.com/notes/kamala-harris/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-bill-to-combat-human-trafficking-unanimously-pa/10151681221270663/

So because she so aggressively went after pimps, I'm ok with the California legislature essentially decriminalizing the acts underage prostitutes engage in for purposes of attempting to turn their lives around.

I do agree that prostitution(and drugs) should be legalized, but I also recognize thats unlikely to happen. I do want to see law enforcement continue to target and harshly punish those who coordinate prostitution activities, esp those that traffic minors.

Fucking White Male says

rando says

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

It's a truly horrible law.

I think thats a really naive point of view.

Yeah, someone who is going to engage in prostitution isn't going to be deterred by the law. I didn't mention this because I didn't want to distract from the core points though.
1. Why should it be illegal?
2. Why should the state have the right to inflict suffering on prostitutes who are in no way harming anyone?
3. How is arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a minor for life going to help that minor?

Fucking White Male says

I do want to see law enforcement continue to target and harshly punish those who coordinate prostitution activities, esp those that traffic minors.

Of course that's drastically different from targeting the prostitutes themselves.

The net effect of the law will be a new way to criminalize (and blackmail) men. Under-18 women will be prowling the street and the internet looking for their next blackmail victim.

Bullshit.
A certain percentage? Yes.
Certainly not a blanket statement.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, someone who is going to engage in prostitution isn't going to be deterred by the law.

They are the highest carriers of STDs.
They physically harm their customers, probably most unknowingly.

Dan8267 says

Why should the state have the right to inflict suffering on prostitutes who are in no way harming anyone?

Not the point.
It will help the future health prospects of all the johns she didn't service who then gave up looking.

Dan8267 says

How is arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a minor for life going to help that minor?

rando says

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

There is a danger for this, but I think it's more like a hungry person stealing a loaf of bread. Putting them in jail is not the best solution, especially if they are a kid.

MrEd says

Not the point.

MrEd claims this comment is ad hominem:

What is the point mr ed? The truth is an ad hominem? Why don't you let patrick stand up for himself? He's the one that pimped out fake news.

Why are you so interested in the health of men so depraved they pick up children for sex? Why do you have zero concern about the welfare of the children who are victims of these scum? Don't even try to pull the adhom bullshit copout. Answer the questions.

The johns could just keep their dick in their pants and they wouldn't have any health concerns from any prostitute. But no, they get in their cars, go get cash, drive to the seediest neighbourhoods, and hunt down women to pay for sex because what the heck, they are the victims. Perfect, you can't make this shit up.

Look, there was a safe and responsible way to ensure that teenaged trafficked girls would avoid prosecution for forced prostitution. Just add an exception for women who have been victims of sex trafficking! Say, if their arrest leads to a pimp being charged, they get out of any charges.
But instead, the idiot Democrats create a market for teen prostitution.
Brilliant! You fucktards!

MrEd says

Bullshit.

A certain percentage? Yes.

Certainly not a blanket statement.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, someone who is going to engage in prostitution isn't going to be deterred by the law.

Prostitution has rarely been legal, yet has existed in every single society not only since the Stone Age but even since before our ancestors were human. You are going to say that the state can effectively fight at least ten million years of primate evolution? Yeah, good luck with that.

The burden of proof, of course, is on the person proposing to outlaw something to show that the laws against it are effective in preventing the behavior.

Even more importantly, the negative consequences and ethical ramifications of outlawing prostitution must be considered and weighed against any benefits.

[stupid comment limit]

Is it ethical to inflict considerable suffering on a good person (a prostitute) who is harming no one simply to prevent other people from engaging in a non-harmful business (prostitution, not sex trafficking)? Hell no. Is it ethical to inflict considerable suffering on people engaging in one activity (prostitution) to decrease the amount of activity by other people (pimps) in a different activity (sex trafficking)? Again, hell no. It's like arguing we should arrest anyone who drinks beer because they enable a beer industry to exist, and some minors will use fake IDs to buy beer. So we have to destroy the entire beer industry to prevent that.

There are also practical consequences to making something illegal. As soon as you make something illegal, you remove ALL protection of the law for anyone who engages in that activity. People who overdose on illegal drugs don't seek medical attention because they risk arrest. People who engage in prostitution are subjected to abuse and violence and cannot seek protection from law enforcement because their activity is illegal (and wrongfully illegal at that).

Inflicting punishment on prostitutes, especially minors, actually greatly endangers them because they have no protection of the law, no means of redress in the courts, no way of forming collective bargaining power, no way of improving their conditions. Make no mistake, making prostitution illegal harms and endangers prostitutes especially the minors you claim to want to protect.

It makes no sense to attack a person you are trying to help.

MrEd says

They are the highest carriers of STDs.

They physically harm their customers, probably most unknowingly.

Dan8267 says

Why should the state have the right to inflict suffering on prostitutes who are in no way harming anyone?

Following this philosophy, all sex should be illegal beyond having a single partner for life.

If we want the state to end all STDs there is a simple and highly effective way to do so, and it does not involve making or keeping prostitution illegal. The solution is to force everyone for the next 100 years to wear a chastity belt and to divide the population into two groups: those born before Jan 1, 2017 and those born after. No member in either group can mate with a member of the other group, ever. Anyone in either group can mate with unlimited willing partners in the same group.

This will prevent the transmission of STDs. Would you be willing to let the state force you and everyone else to wear a chastity belt and follow this policy? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, your stance is pure hypocrisy.

By the way, I'm all for this solution. I'm willing to make that sacrifice. It would be the greatest gift we can give countless future generations, an end to all these STDs.

Nonetheless, making prostitution illegal actually increases STD transmission as the field cannot be regulated. Under legal prostitution, the state can enforce condom usage, prevent prostitutes from being coerced not to use condoms, regularly test prostitutes, provide needle exchange programs to prevent disease transmissions, and treat prostitutes for STDs that can be cured to prevent transmission.

If you really want to lower STD transmissions, then you most certainly should be for legalizing prostitution.

MrEd says

Not the point.

It will help the future health prospects of all the johns she didn't service who then gave up looking.

Dan8267 says

How is arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a minor for life going to help that minor?

It most certainly is one of the central points of this discussion.

Furthermore, I doubt you actually care for the johns. If you did, you would be advocating legalizing their participation as well. How does arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a customer for life going to help that customer?

Making prostitution illegal does not help any of the participants in the field.

YesYNot says

If a 14 year old can not consent to sex, I don't see how they can consent to sex for money.

Why would you think that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex? I was 14 years old once, and I was not only willing to have sex, but desperate to do so.

Is it rape when a 14-year-old has sex with another 14-year-old? Both parties would have to be rapists, by definition, if 14-year-olds cannot consent to sex. This is a ridiculous conclusion that demonstrates the ludicrousness of the premise.

Are you going to argue that a person in certain groups is capable of consenting to sex with one group of persons but not another? That is arbitrary and ridiculous. It would be like saying a white woman cannot consent to sex with a black man, but can consent to sex with a white man. It's justify only by bigotry. A person is either capable of consent or not.

YesYNot says

There is a danger for this, but I think it's more like a hungry person stealing a loaf of bread. Putting them in jail is not the best solution, especially if they are a kid.

It's more than that. A person stealing a loaf of bread is doing another person harm, even if that harm is justified by preventing a far greater harm. A person engaging in prostitution, not sex trafficking, is not doing harm. Some people will have pseudo-moral or religious objections to the activity, but it is not harming others and it is not violating the rights of others. I would argue that using the state to punish such people is essentially and foremost a violation of the First Amendment by forcing religious beliefs onto people against their will.

Quigley says

Look, there was a safe and responsible way to ensure that teenaged trafficked girls would avoid prosecution for forced prostitution. Just add an exception for women who have been victims of sex trafficking! Say, if their arrest leads to a pimp being charged, they get out of any charges.

That may be appealing in principle, what it would fail miserably in practice. We have a legal system that has no problem convicting and punishing many innocent persons in order to also capture the maximum number of guilty persons. In practice there would be plenty of victims prosecuted as prosecutors will not want to risk letting a guilty person use the loophole as a defense against prostitution. So they will believe the ends justify the means and throwing some innocent victims in prison is worth cleaning up the streets.

Of course, this philosophy completely ignores the ethical objections to criminalizing prostitution. I would say those ethical objections are also damn important.

FortWayne says

If you are asking questions like that, you lack moral compass.

Only a fool would consider asking questions about ethics and morality to be indication of "lacking a moral compass". In fact the exact opposite is true. The only way to have a moral compass is to question what constitutes good morality and why. Those who don't question are the ones who are immoral.