An academic response to criminalizing prostitution in Rhode Island

Several weeks ago, first in the Providence Journal and then here, Ron Weitzer, a professor of criminology at George Washington University, debunked myths about prostitution that were being circulated during testimony and press coverage of Rhode Island's attempts to recriminalize the private exchange of sex for money. Donna Hughes, a Women's Studies professor at University of Rhode Island, wrote a commentary piece for the Providence Journal in which she continued to promote those myths and the moral panic they fuel, and in the process also ridiculed sex educator a Megan Andelloux and $pread, a magazine by sex workers for sex workers.

It has been easier for a small but vocal group of academics to ridicule the sex industry and condemn it with deeply flawed research and tired stereotypes than it has been for a larger more reasoned group to publish honest examinations and advocate for evidence-based policy. In light of the steps that Rhode Island's legislature is taking to criminalize legal sex work, Ron Weitzer and I, with organizing help and feedback from a Michael Goodyear (Dalhousie University) and Melissa Ditmore (Editor of the Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work, and research consultant at the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center) decided to coordinate an academic response to the irresponsible attempts to promote moral panic and bad policy under the guise of protecting women and communities.

That effort resulted in a letter to be delivered to the Rhode Island State Legislature and to Rhode Island media outlets. It is a letter that involves compromises, as all collective efforts do. The letter does three important things:

1. It focuses specifically on the change that the Rhode Island legislature is trying to make: criminalizing the exchange of sex for money where it has not been interpreted as a crime since the early 1980s. The letter does not explicitly call for the decriminalization of loitering (and in effect street prostitution) because it is intended to address the specific legal change that is on the table in Rhode Island. The need right now in Rhode Island is to resist a dangerous change in the law. After that we can move on to affecting positive changes. It is important that we who support the right to work, the right to one's body, and the right to freedom of sexual expression can unite over incremental actions.

2. It distinguishes between street prostitution and indoor prostitution arguing that indoor prostitution is safer. The rationale for making this distinction is to explain to the Rhode Island legislature that reducing the opportunities for safe work indoors is a bad move.

3. It argues that the problems typically associated with street prostitution are best understood as outcomes of poverty, addiction, homelessness and runaway youth, suggesting that the best way to deal with street prostitution is to address those problems and the inequalities that cause them rather than spending resources arresting sellers. 

Click here to read the letter.

We are looking for as many academically affiliated supporters as we can find to sign on to this letter. As of this posting 26 researchers from a wide range of institutions have signed on. We intend to send the letter to the legislature and to Rhode Island media outlets in one week.

If you support the sentiments expressed above, please email Elizabeth or Ron so we can add your name to this list. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More information about Rhode Island law as it relates to prostitution:

• Chapter 11-34 as it now stands (dealing with prostitution and pandering in RI)
• H5044 Amending Chapter 11-34 (PDF)
• S0596 Amending Chapter 11-34 (PDF)

TinyURL for this page: http://tinyurl.com/m33noe