"Patrons" of Child Prostitutes Need to be Registered as Sex Offenders
Photo by Flickr user lawgeek. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Earlier today I mentioned an article, via Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors, about an underage girl from Massachusetts who was being prostituted out of a New Jersey motel room.
Authorities: Kidnapped girl rescued at motelABSECON — Police arrested a Vineland man and three other people after a Massachusetts girl called her mother to report she was being held against her will at a White Horse Pike motel.
...
Authorities would[n't] give the exact age of the victim, or when she was first allegedly kidnapped, stating only that she is under 18.
Response #2:
I've mentioned this elsewhere recently but can anyone explain why let alone pimps and traffickers of the underaged, let alone their customers, shouldn't spend the rest of their lives on sex-offender registries?
And no, it doesn't matter whether their prostitution is voluntary or, as in the case of the New Jersey girl, coerced. Nor does it matter that (as Lux Alptraum correctly points out) "...adolescents are not children." Because as she also points out, neither are they adults.
And yet, as Debra Boyer pointed out in "Who Pays the Price? Assessment of Youth Involvement in Prostitution in Seattle" (pdf)
The routine fine for those arrested for “patronizing” is $500 although the maximum that can be imposed is $1,000.
What's not just wrong but sick and wrong is that in virtually all instances the penalty for "patrons" of minors is no higher with the result that...
- Customers have no incentive to check. Which is ironic because in cases of non-prostitution "She looked old enough to me" isn't a defense. It's also ironic because evidently customers have no qualms, at all, about checking whether a sex-worker is actually an undercover cop.
- There's no additional penalty for those pimps and traffickers who conscript minors. Which is a particular shame since minors, especially runaway or kicked-out minors, are particularly vulnerable.
- Particularly disturbingly from my perspective is that, evidently, if there are no additional penalties then police and prosecutors evidently have no additional incentive to investigate or bring charges against prostitution, or "patronage" of minors.
- And finally, if "patrons," pimps, and police aren't checking ages and responding accordingly then it's easier for minors themselves to slip into prostitution, either voluntarily or by conscription.
Show of hands, please, if anyone thinks that status quo is just hunky-dory? Didn't think so. So! WTF?
Actually, three WTFs
1) Why aren't anti-prostitution activists specifically targeting child prostitution for reasons other than flash or buzz value? (For instance would Professor Bartow have given the New Jersey child case any attention at all if she wasn't pushing to extend TVPA coverage to all adults?) It seems to me that even if you wanted to stop *all* prostitution going specifically against prostitution of minors would let you build up a lot of momentum. Unless I'm mistaken and anti's are content to let children be prostituted in order to maintain a high scare-quote quotient against prostitution in general. (Anyone know why anti's are so reluctant to single out prostitution of children? Is it that they like the shock-troop value that child prostitution adds to what might otherwise be a more straight-up libertarian issue?)
2) Why aren't pro-prostitution activists specifically supporting targeting child prostitution? It seems like a no-brainer if you really wanted to see prostitution legalized and/or normalized. Not least because anti-prostitution types get so much mileage with prostituted-child statistics (even if, evidently, they never otherwise lift a finger to stop it -- see the preceeding point.) And not to put too fine a point on it but why on earth do adult prostitutes tolerate competition from minors in the first place? Why on earth do they tolerate the diversion of paying customers to generally less expensive and more conventionally desirable child prostitutes? (Anyone know why pro's are so reluctant to single out prostitution of children? Is it that most adult sex-workers have better sense than to draw attention to themselves for fear of arrest? Is it because nominally pro-prostitution customers themselves enjoy "patronizing" children when they can get away with it? Especially since there appear to be no, zero, none consequences if they do under the current system?)
3) Why aren't reporters, parents, community activists, politicians, and police specifically supporting targeting child prostitution? Actually this might be less of a no-brainer than the preceding ones because, to too many people, once someone's had sex, even if they're a child, they're "broken" or "damaged goods" or their "innocence" is "lost." On the other hand, it seems to me that they'd be most easily recruited to support anti-child-prostitution policies.
At any rate this seems like a classic case of if you're not part of the solution you're the problem** whether you disapprove of, approve of, or are utterly indifferent to prostitution between adults. So again, WTF? If you're not part of the solution you ought to be ashamed of yourself: pimps and patrons of prostituted minors should be registered as the unambiguous sex offenders they are.
[** Not just part of it. --fl]
Where I live, prostitution is treated as a neighborhood problem that makes people who live here (who aren't involved in the trade - there's no public recognition of people who live in the neighborhood *and* do sex work) unsafe and lowers property values.
There's not a lot of care for victims on the part of "anti-prostitution activists" - we do have some social services outreach, and some public "get out of sex work" programs. But the "activists" are just trying to move the trade off their own block or out of their own neighborhood. All of the rhetoric focuses on the negative effects (trash, noise, shady people hanging around) on people living in affected neighborhoods.
So that may be one reason.
[All well and good but I'd think that even if your neighbors don't care about sex workers as human beings that they'd be willing to try every angle, including sending a strong message that johns who cruised the neighborhood could wind up as forced-to-register child-sex offenders. It's pretty harsh that they don't care that some of the streetwalkers are underage and/or conscripted though. But if ordinary neighbors don't care how can we expect *customers* to? Thanks, Rosa! --fl]