Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
User avatar
recceguy
Seasoned Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby recceguy » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:41 pm

dira necessitas wrote:Not too mention the down turn of your neighbourhood when a brothel opens up next door to your house.



No different than the streetwalkers hanging out on your sidewalk....
"If you make a mistake live with it......your parents did"
-An unnamed Sgt. Major

User avatar
To a T
Grand Poobah
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:19 am

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby To a T » Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:15 am

:ponder:
Last edited by To a T on Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby gotchya » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:01 am

mack_silent wrote:Prostitution, even with imposed regulations for health testing (IE: Monthly checks for STD / HIV AIDS), will not inherently protect society.
The signs and symptoms of various communicable diseases which would create a positive test result, are often days, weeks or months behind the capabilities of spreading such harms.
In the meantime, someone with a serious sexual health related disease in this industry, will be actively infecting dozens or hundreds of "clients".

Prostitution has inherent social and health risks that I believe militate in favor of prohibition.

However,if we are going to legalize it (which I don't nessisarily agree with), then we should make it highly regulated. Create a registry and require prostitutes to submit STD test results every (however many days/months/years required), require the prostitutes to register every John they've had an encounter with so that if it is discovered that the person has an STD, public health can work backwards and construct the possible web of infection.

Not to mention, there should be a "prostitution tax" which is collected for every John that uses the service, as well as the fees for licencing to be a prostitute, the proceeds of which should go towards those whom are victims of human trafficking, one of the most evil criminal acts.

Make the registry public, with name,licence number, and date last test for STD's.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

User avatar
mack_silent
Rookie Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:36 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby mack_silent » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:59 pm

I agree that prostitution should remain prohibited. If it became "legalized", the industry would grow and society would suffer.
KCCO. Wake up. Kick butt. Repeat.

User avatar
D-Fry
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby D-Fry » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:30 pm

I disagree; I grew up in Europe /Germany where prostitution is legal. There are the odd brothels here and there, but usually there are designated red light areas, which are divided from the rest of the street by a gate. In my opinion prostitution will be around, legal or not, including pimps, gangs and human trafficking; legalizing it allows authorities to keep a better tap on it and the "clean" kind of brothel managers (yes they do exist). Further, tax prostitutes, dictate health checks and give them health care, a win-win situation. If you ever been to Hamburg, you know what I mean, it isn’t just a red light district, clubs and bars are always pumping in the area. While I wouldn't ever pay for such services, some people out there just can't get lucky, I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to pay for it.
Suum Cuique

User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby Punisher-One » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:39 pm

Legalize it all you want there will still be the criminal underworld prevalent in it smuggling girls, making under age girls work, abusing girls, and slinging dope to the girls.
Legal or not you will have the drug addicted diseased prostitutes that can't get a "certification" that will still work on the street being pushed and beat up by the degenerate pimps.

Legalization doesn't cure any problems it simply sweeps them under the rug of "legalization" so people don't feel bad about doing it. It's still morally wrong. It shouldn't be legitimized as a "profession".

User avatar
D-Fry
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby D-Fry » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Punisher-One wrote:Legalize it all you want there will still be the criminal underworld prevalent in it smuggling girls, making under age girls work, abusing girls, and slinging dope to the girls.
Legal or not you will have the drug addicted diseased prostitutes that can't get a "certification" that will still work on the street being pushed and beat up by the degenerate pimps.

Legalization doesn't cure any problems it simply sweeps them under the rug of "legalization" so people don't feel bad about doing it. It's still morally wrong. It shouldn't be legitimized as a "profession".


Moral or immoral, that lies in the eye of the beholder. Look at the Japanese or Nordic model for example, they appear to be working.
Suum Cuique

User avatar
Von
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:50 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby Von » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:47 pm

Punisher-One wrote:Legalize it all you want there will still be the criminal underworld prevalent in it smuggling girls, making under age girls work, abusing girls, and slinging dope to the girls.
Legal or not you will have the drug addicted diseased prostitutes that can't get a "certification" that will still work on the street being pushed and beat up by the degenerate pimps.

Legalization doesn't cure any problems it simply sweeps them under the rug of "legalization" so people don't feel bad about doing it. It's still morally wrong. It shouldn't be legitimized as a "profession".


Who are you or the state for that mater to deem what two consenting individuals do in a bedroom moral or immoral?

While I don't personally agree with prostitution I will defend to the death an individual's right to engage in voluntary economic interaction with another. Moreover, if it is deemed by society that prostitution and or it's social consequences are undesirable then I think that it's fairly obvious that prohibition is not particularly successful. If prostitution is illegal then drinking should probably be illegal too, but I know there's no support for that even amongst the average social reactionary, so perhaps we ought to be looking at some of the European solutions to Prostitution instead of throwing the word immoral around so liberally.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

User avatar
mack_silent
Rookie Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:36 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby mack_silent » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:02 am

Von wrote:Who are you or the state for that mater to deem what two consenting individuals do in a bedroom moral or immoral?

While I don't personally agree with prostitution I will defend to the death an individual's right to engage in voluntary economic interaction with another. Moreover, if it is deemed by society that prostitution and or it's social consequences are undesirable then I think that it's fairly obvious that prohibition is not particularly successful. If prostitution is illegal then drinking should probably be illegal too, but I know there's no support for that even amongst the average social reactionary, so perhaps we ought to be looking at some of the European solutions to Prostitution instead of throwing the word immoral around so liberally.


I believe he articulated himself more than well enough by mentioning that the subsidiary crimes and harms to society created by prostitution go far beyond what "two consenting individuals do in a bedroom".
We're in Canada, not Europe. What also "works" for Europeans is soccer as a national sport. No thank you.
You'd "defend to the death" a prostitutes' rights to have sex for money? I'm somewhat surprised you're on a police forum.
KCCO. Wake up. Kick butt. Repeat.

User avatar
D-Fry
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby D-Fry » Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:52 am

You'd "defend to the death" a prostitutes' rights to have sex for money? I'm somewhat surprised you're on a police forum.[/quote]

Why? If a law makes it legal, it is your / our job to enforce it, regardless of your personal opinion, one way or the other.
Suum Cuique

User avatar
Von
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:50 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby Von » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:01 pm

mack_silent wrote:
Von wrote:Who are you or the state for that mater to deem what two consenting individuals do in a bedroom moral or immoral?

While I don't personally agree with prostitution I will defend to the death an individual's right to engage in voluntary economic interaction with another. Moreover, if it is deemed by society that prostitution and or it's social consequences are undesirable then I think that it's fairly obvious that prohibition is not particularly successful. If prostitution is illegal then drinking should probably be illegal too, but I know there's no support for that even amongst the average social reactionary, so perhaps we ought to be looking at some of the European solutions to Prostitution instead of throwing the word immoral around so liberally.


I believe he articulated himself more than well enough by mentioning that the subsidiary crimes and harms to society created by prostitution go far beyond what "two consenting individuals do in a bedroom". We're in Canada, not Europe. What also "works" for Europeans is soccer as a national sport. No thank you.


And I articulated that if society deems those externalities to be undesirable then we should look at what the best reduces them, and I think that there are very few empirical arguments to be made in favor of prohibition. I'm the first to criticize most "European" ways of doing things, but I think that their models should not be overlooked or dismissed. If people really care about this issue they'll keep an open mind about potential solutions rather than resorting to immature reactionary behavior anytime people suggest something they don't agree with.

mack_silent wrote:You'd "defend to the death" a prostitutes' rights to have sex for money? I'm somewhat surprised you're on a police forum.


It doesn't matter what I think of prostitution. I won't engage in it because I don't approve of it and because it is (or was), illegal, but I will always defend an individual's economic rights. Now since prostitution does have negative externalties that would be justification to infringe on said individual rights, but only if the infringement (prohibition) is the best way to address the externality. I believe it isn't; it isn't the best way to address alcohol's externalties nor do I think it's the best way to address marijuana's externalties.

So on the balance between an individual economic rights and society's collective individual rights, I believe that prohibition of prostitution, and the consumption of alcohol and marijuana to be ineffective at reduces the externalties they produce and thus prohibition cannot be justified. On the other hand, the consumption of hard drugs has demonstrated to have much more severe negative externalities and thus the infringement upon individual liberty can be justified due to the inherent threat to the liberties of others that it poses.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby gotchya » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:30 pm

Von wrote:It doesn't matter what I think of prostitution. I won't engage in it because I don't approve of it and because it is (or was), illegal, but I will always defend an individual's economic rights. Now since prostitution does have negative externalties that would be justification to infringe on said individual rights, but only if the infringement (prohibition) is the best way to address the externality. I believe it isn't; it isn't the best way to address alcohol's externalties nor do I think it's the best way to address marijuana's externalties.

So on the balance between an individual economic rights and society's collective individual rights, I believe that prohibition of prostitution, and the consumption of alcohol and marijuana to be ineffective at reduces the externalties they produce and thus prohibition cannot be justified. On the other hand, the consumption of hard drugs has demonstrated to have much more severe negative externalities and thus the infringement upon individual liberty can be justified due to the inherent threat to the liberties of others that it poses.

I would simply like to know where there is a premise to "economic rights" as you put them. I know of no such "right" under Canadian law.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

Gardenfit
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1279
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:03 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby Gardenfit » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:41 pm

Works well downunder.

http://www.pla.qld.gov.au/

1. Brothels are only allowed in industrial areas, not residential.
2. You must be licenced to operate a brothel...very stringent.
3. It has virtually eliminated streetworkers, except the drug addicts.
4. Regular inspections/audits ensure OC involvment is not an issue.

It's the worlds oldest profession, you are never going to get rid of it, might as well control & tax it.

User avatar
mack_silent
Rookie Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:36 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby mack_silent » Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:12 pm

Prostitutes have already showed no respect for following the laws (for years or decades).
Are they going to suddenly pay for licensing fees and follow stringent testing legislation?... I doubt that very much.

Just because something is "old" and "hard to control", doesn't mean it should be legalized.
Heroin is "old" and "hard to control"... should we legalize that too?
The day Canada legalizes prostitution it will become even harder to control, and the subsidiary negative activities and harms related to it will flourish.
KCCO. Wake up. Kick butt. Repeat.

Gardenfit
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1279
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:03 am
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court strikes down prostitution laws

Postby Gardenfit » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:17 pm

mack_silent wrote:Prostitutes have already showed no respect for following the laws (for years or decades).
Are they going to suddenly pay for licensing fees and follow stringent testing legislation?... I doubt that very much.

Just because something is "old" and "hard to control", doesn't mean it should be legalized.
Heroin is "old" and "hard to control"... should we legalize that too?
The day Canada legalizes prostitution it will become even harder to control, and the subsidiary negative activities and harms related to it will flourish.


Well you'd be wrong. They have been for quite some time now. Did you have a look at the website?
Brothels are legitimate businesses now, like pubs. You need to have a licence to operate one, and to keep the licence (just like a pub) you need to abide by guidelines and are subject to regular inspections.
You are never going to completely get rid of street walkers, but now punters have the better (and safer) option of going to a brothel instead of some crack head on the street. Im just saying it how it is down here, I'm not taking a side either way. From a policing persepctive it works well in my opinion.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests