Ravenwood - 06/06/05 06:30 AM
Oakland plans to join the list of cities who put photos of Johns on billboards.
City Council members in Oakland are planning to crack down on prostitution by posting photos on billboards of men convicted of trying to buy sex.How much clearer can they make it that they are wasting taxpayer resources cracking down on what is the world's oldest profession, and essentially a victim-less crime?The billboards will have the headline, "How Much Clearer Can We Make It?"
The measure is part of a "shaming campaign" to crack down on prostitution. The city's interim police chief says officers arrest about 70 "johns" and prostitutes a week.
Prostitution has been around as long as the institution of marriage. The idea that you cannot charge someone money for something it is perfectly legal to give away, is perplexing. What's more, if you film it and distribute it, it's called art and you can pay both parties.
Cracking down on prostitution will never eliminate it. Instead it will simply divert police resources away from real crime. Prostitution is a vice (enforced by the vice squad). Vices, in my opinion, whether they be prostitution, gambling, overeating, or drinking, are personal demons that people must fight on their own. They can draw their inspiration from God and family to help them resist temptation, or they can embrace their weakness and choose to live in sin. Either way, as long as their behavior doesn't deny anyone else of a right to life, liberty, or property, as a libertarian I feel that it should not be prohibited.
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (5) top link me
You feel prostitution "should" not be prohibited.
Do you think the federal Constitution bars it prohibition?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 6, 2005 7:57 AMI never said it was enumerated in the Constitution, but I don't see the harm in two people pleasuring each other and then exchanging money afterward.
It seems pretty innocuous, especially when it's the money exchange that is illegal.
Posted by: Ravenwood at June 6, 2005 8:05 AMI don't know where in the constitution it is (well, actually I do know its not in the constitution) but that whole "Constitutional Right to Privacy" thing seems to cover this one.
In any case, I am with Steve on this one. Why are we wasting resources on this. If the women are being forced into prostitution you can file kidnapping or false imprisonment or assault or whatever charges against their pimps. But I assume - judging from the number of women working the profession in Vegas where its all legal and regulated - that at least a sizeable percentage of these women simply want to recieve cash rather than the in-kind payment traditionally associated with sex (ie: dinner and a movie and maybe some jewlery)
Heck, here's a question for you. If you pay your hooker in jewlery (which she could then sell) is it still prostition? IF so, then whats it called when you give your girlfriend a new bracelet????
Posted by: countertop at June 6, 2005 9:18 AMWhen will the high-profile political, business and Hollywood types who spend large on expensive call-girls have their day on the billboards as "Johns"?
What a waste of police resources.
Posted by: Steve Scudder at June 6, 2005 12:35 PMPersonally, I think prostitution should be legal, and regulated.
That way the taxes get paid, the health codes are met, and life is a little safer for all concerned.
Posted by: Lornkanaga at June 6, 2005 2:02 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
