Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if they are the ones putting themselves on the street?
As I mentioned in another post it's no longer necessary to work as a streetwalker with the internet.
Yes there are still streetwalker prostitutes but they can make more money on backpage or other 'escort' websites.
They don't need pimps for this either.
If it's just them prostituting themselves and a pimp isn't coercing them they shouldn't be treated like criminals?..
Why not?
Well, the question we need to ask is why child prostitution is illegal in the first place. The child part because sex between anyone above the age of 18 and below the age 18 is illegal, usually for the reason of child abuse. And prostitution is illegal presumably to maintain social order. I'd start out by saying that the prohibition of prostitution has probably had the opposite effect. While I understand that the romantic view of humanity, as well as the puritan view (which is here for better or worse) doesn't typically include prostitution, the laws against it really just create a place for organized crime and underground prostitution, which is obviously going to be less safe and humane much of the time, rather than actually keeping people from taking part in the act. The fact is, the human desire for sex can be strong enough for some people to want to spend money to satisfy it and the need for money can be strong enough to fake an orgasm for someone. No matter how it contradicts romanticism or puritanism, it's sort of a fact of life.
The child part is tricky. We can all agree that avoiding child abuse is what the laws should do, and sexual exploitation is no exception. Certainly, cases of exploitation are pretty easy to deal with. Someone has sex with someone via coercion or some other similar act of force, it's illegal, and if it's done to a person with the legal status of minor, that usually just makes the conviction worse. When it comes to non-obviously coerced cases, we all agree that acts against young children shouldn't be viewed differently. Even if a 9 year old was convinced that a sex act was ok, we can assume that some coercion happened somewhere long the lines anyway and something wrong has happened. It's the older "children" that become a problem. The ones who are technically not children, but rather in adolescence and late adolescence.
There have been cases where teenagers were convicted of trading child pornography. Obviously, child porn is illegal because the creation of such material involves the abuse of a child. The thing is, if a 15 year old sends a picture of his penis to another 15 year old who asked to see it, it's not really child abuse. If we're to keep a consistent argument, this would realistically apply to prostitution. Lets face it, no 10 year old is going to volunteer to have sex for money without coercion. But a 16 year old might, both because they may need or want money and because they are 16 and generally want to have sex anyway. While I'm not really advocating for making such a circumstance legal, I'm not really sure what the legal precedent for making it illegal is, other than the fact that it's prostitution, which is illegal, but since I disagree with that being illegal, I'm not really sure I have a one size fits all argument here. As I said, a child (prepubescent) isn't going to willing choose to have sex for money without some kind of coercion. The child is, in that situation, a victim. But a teenager might, and since I think it's wrong to punish someone for victimizing themselves, which isn't a thing, I'm not so sure I think they should be punished at all.
This thread is long on attempts at shaming and short on rational defense of a law which appears to limit the ability of authorities to stop underage prostitution.
Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, the article is misleading and clearly has intent other than offering both sides of the discussion.
That's shameful of you consider yourself an informed reader but refuse to consider both sides and views.
This thread is long on attempts at shaming and short on rational defense of a law which appears to limit the ability of authorities to stop underage prostitution.
I addressed that. While the law prevents underage prostitutes from being convicted, nothing prevents an arrest of someone who is paying for one or who is pimping one out. The article makes a claim that the law could prevent intervention, though I fail to see how that could be the case.
Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex.
Just wondering on the legalities of that...
If the children cannot be arrested, then how would law enforcement take them into custody?
I know SB-1322 itself cites section 305 of the welfare code, but that code has a limitation in that it only applies to dependent minors (minors over the age of 14, one of the lowest age bars of any state, who do not live with their parents and have a legal source of income are not dependent minors) and only allows temporary custody. That itself might draw a challenge, because section 625 requires minors taken into section 305 custody to be mirandized and given access to counsel; it mostly appears that an officer would need a section 300 ruling of dependency first before taking a minor into custody.
Just wondering on the legalities of that...
If the children cannot be arrested, then how would law enforcement take them into custody?
I know SB-1322 itself cites section 305 of the welfare code, but that code has a limitation in that it only applies to dependent minors (minors over the age of 14, one of the lowest age bars of any state, who do not live with their parents and have a legal source of income are not dependent minors) and only allows temporary custody. That itself might draw a challenge, because section 625 requires minors taken into section 305 custody to be mirandized and given access to counsel; it mostly appears that an officer would need a section 300 ruling of dependency first before taking a minor into custody.
Doesn't it also fall under disorderly conduct and public lewdness? It is fairly easy for a police officer to site disorderly conduct to temporarily detain an individual.
I am a supporter for legalization of prostitution. However, child prostitution like human trafficking needs to be eliminated. Since we have laws, courts, and penal systems specific for juveniles, wouldn't it make more sense to have codes that limit punishment of underaged prostitutes? The juvenile system tends to be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. So could juvenile prostitution penalties be written for mandatory help (therapy, social work etc) with provisions to have the record expunged and no jail time?
This way police have a more direct code to take children off the streets (and wherever) while getting the "victim" the help they need without the long term impact of an arrest record and jail time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
