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
The curious case of sex in Rhode Island
Background
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is relatively small (population 1,050,788) constituting only 0.3% of the population of the United States, yet its significance is enormous in the debate over morality and law. The history of the regulation of the exchange of sex in Rhode Island is a complex and curious case. In brief, Rhode Island decriminalised the selling of sex in 1980, that is to say it repealed the provisions of the General Laws of Rhode Island which made this a crime, leaving loitering as the main offence under which public prostitution could be prosecuted. Since this only applied to the outdoor market, this effectively discriminated against it. Now this made it an anomaly in the United States which had prohibited both the selling and purchase of sex in all States, bar certain rural counties in Nevada.
Measuring effects
This apparent social experiment should have made Rhode Island a sociologist's and criminologist's dream, allowing both before and after, and cohort studies of the effects of prohibition and its repeal. If all the arguments advanced in Rhode Island this year (and for several years now, since this is an annual ritual in Providence) to justify recriminalisation were in fact true, Rhode Island should have become a haven for organised crime, drugs and trafficking, and sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS should be epidemic. In effect Rhode Island should have become the centre of moral degeneracy of the United States. All this should have been relatively easy to document.
In fact no such data has been advanced to prove the social utility of the prohibition of sexual exchange, and one is forced to assume that this represents one further demonstration of the futility of regulating morals by legislation. Futility, that is, in terms of stated objectives, and hence lack of legitimacy in criminal law. This does not mean to say that such laws are not without effect, in fact the harms of such laws have been well demonstrated as has the negative economic impact. Virtually nobody outside of Rhode island was even aware of the anomaly.
Law making
Thus the moral crusade of Representative Joanne Giannini, Rhode Island Women's Studies professor Donna Hughes and the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women has no chance of improving the lives of Rhode Islanders, and every chance of diminishing them, a burden that will inevitably fall disproportionately on the disadvantaged and on women. It is thus, like all morals legislation, symbolic rather than instrumental. In vernacular terms, it is 'feel good' legislation, laws that have no demonstrable effect on the perceived evil, but make their champions feel vindicated.
We should not underestimate the symbolic function however. If Rhode Island joins the other 48 States in prohibiting the exchange of sex, the pressure on Nevada to conform will be considerable, and any 'moral victory' in Rhode Island is almost certain to immediately appear in arguments to prohibit sexual exchange in other jurisdictions.
The question is whether the legislators of Rhode Island, who have for the first time passed two conflicting bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, will base public policy on sound evidence or on social purity, and leave well alone rather than introduce meaningless laws.
Choosing the agenda
There will be those who feel that those of us who have commented on these develpments should have gone further and called for the removal of all laws relating to prostitution, rather than be seen to endorse the status quo. The status quo is far from ideal, but considerably better than what is proposed. To call for more radical change now rather than adopt a path of least resistance and leave the laws standing, would dilute the effort to prevent these bills becoming law and likely damage the credibility of those advocating this step. Simply put these are the social and political realities we have to work within at present.
Call to arms
We have called for the academic community to demand rational law making based on empiricism. Understandably there will be those who disagree with some of the wording, want some sections deleted, reworded or new sections added. These are all valid viewpoints. However to not sign on to this initiative also has implications. Unwise and unjust laws are passed when the wise and the just remain silent. The implication will be that if people do not sign that they endorse the legislative initiative, and that would be most unfortunate.
However all of you who read this, even if you do not sign on, consider writing to Rhode Island legislators and media yourselves. Abstention is not an option.
When silence is not an option: Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
(When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.)
Pastor Martin Niemöller 1892–1984
TinyURL for this page: http://tinyurl.com/lzfmkp
Click here for Rhode Island Resources
Assessing the evidence and unintended consequences
House Bill 5044 was passed on May 13th 2009 by a vote of 64:9 with Representatives Ajello, Diaz, Driver, Gemma, Handy, Petrarca, Segal, Walsh, and Williams voting against it. Now Representatives Segal and Ajello have publicly stated why they opposed this bill. This is admirable, but what is even more impressive is the reasons they provide. They base their position on two grounds, an examination of the expert evidence, and a consideration of the potential consequences of legislation, no matter how well intended.
It is an unfortunate characteristic of some legislators to react reflexly to public concerns and especially special interest groups, without a thorough examination of all the evidence and a consideration of the issues within a larger societal context. Legislation concerning the exchange of sex and intimacy between consenting adults has all too often fallen into this category. A large part of the pressure to change the laws in Rhode Island revolved around the activities of Citizens Against Trafficking, which framed the issue as one of fighting human trafficking and sexual slavery. Segal and Ajello questioned the link, the extent of the problem and the consequences of the proposed actions. In this context it should be noted that Representative Giannini also had a parallel bill, H5661 addressing trafficking directly. In coming to this conclusion they studied the evidence presented by academic experts such as Ann Jordan, Director of the Program on Human Trafficking and Forced Labour at American University Washington College of Law. They also examined the testimony of groups such as the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, American Civil Liberties Union, Family Life Center, and the Urban Justice Center, Nowhere did they find evidence that supported the claims of the proponents of the bill.
If there is common ground between supporters and opponents of the bill, it is concern for the health and wellbeing of sex workers. It is in regard to the appropriate actions that they diverge sharply. Putting large numbers of people in jail, and spending vast criminal justice resources in doing so seems a highly illogical solution, apart from the obvious affront of depicting people as victims and then punishing them. The costs of policing prostitution in the United States are enormous (Pearl 1987), and Segal and Ajello point out that 215 women were incarcerated for prostitution in Rhode island last year. A recent report by the Government of the United Kingdom (Corston 2008) strongly recommended that women should not be imprisoned except for the most serious crimes that represent an immediate danger to society.
NOTES
H661 passed the House on June 25, 67:0
References
Julie Pearl: The highest paying customers. America's cities and the costs of prostitution control Hast LJ 1987
Corston Report: Review of women with particular vulnerabilties in the justice system 2008
The Premise
Michael,
I would argue that the evidence indicates that your premise (highlighted above) is faulty. Hence, the logical contradiction.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
Punish the sinner
Lou,
If there is common ground between supporters and opponents of the bill, it is concern for the health and wellbeing of sex workers.
I would argue that the evidence indicates that your premise (highlighted above) is faulty. Hence, the logical contradiction.
I agree that on the face of it, your assertion based (presumably) on the evidence of disdain and seemingly wanton disregard of consequences indicates a lack of concern for sex worker health and wellbeing.
Given the nature of the supporters of the bill within the context of their world view, punishment and incarceration may to them be the appropriate response to sinful behavior and a handy way to elicit cooperation from the 'victims' of sex work. Under that logic it makes sense that punishing consensual sex workers will smoke out the traffickers that they feel are out there, and give sex workers pause concerning their choice of profession. One unintended consequence of this disenfranchising of sex workers is to further prevent them from career transitions due to their criminal record.
Examining the motivations and concerns of opponents allows for better honed arguments to be used against them and for persuasion of less entrenched opponents. Slowly eroding the support of polemic positions is more effective in the long term than hard pushes that drive opponents to lean on each other for support.
That their logic is not my logic is no excuse for not informing myself of their thought train, to do so is to hobble myself in any effort to counter their efforts.
As Sun Tzu said;
Rouse him, and learn the principle of hisactivity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself,
so as to find out his vulnerable spots.
Feminists rethinking sex work
It is not so much a premise as an examination of feminist writing on sex work at a number of levels. Without getting into a long and complex discourse, that is what you will find, whether in the United States or Sweden to take two examples.
It is some of the other premises that occur in self-styled radical feminism that lead to different solutions, such as criminalising male clients or enabling workers and advocating decriminalisation. Sometimes the schisms within feminisms are portrayed as running much deeper than they really are. In the end it is the fundamental vision of the nature of gender and the relationships between genders that most sharply demarcates. This in turn leads to divisions as to whether, as Elizabeth Iglesias puts it, there is a redemptory trajectory within the vision or not. If not feminisms would seem to be doomed to exist within an oppression model for ever.
You are however correct to say that the literature is full of contradictions.1
Notes
1. See for instance Donna Guy (1995) "Full of apparent contradictions and discrepancies, the history of modern prostitution control offers a dynamic perspective on the private lives of women as well as the public functioning of medicine, patriarchy and the nation state and
emphasizes the need to understand how gender and sexuality are interrelated
inextricably to race, cultural diversity and economic circumstances."
References
Guy, D. (1995) Sex and Danger in Buenos Aires: Prostitution, Family and the
Nation in Argentina. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Iglesias, E. Rape, race and representation: The power of discourse and the reconstruction of heterosexuality. (1996) Vanf Law Rev 49(4) 869-992
Scoular, J. The subject of prostitution in feminist theory (2004) Fem Theor 5(3) 343.pdf
Barbara Sullivan: Rethinking prostitution (in, Transitions: New Australian Feminisms) 1995
What does it mean to say you care about sex workers?
I have to agree a bit with Lou. it does seem that some of those on the prohibitionist side (even those who claim feminist ideals) don't seem to be genuinely concerned with the health and well being of sex workers. They do seem genuinely concerned with the health and well being of victims, though even there the manifestation of their concern - arrest at worst and elimination of livelihood at best- seems counterintuitive.
That said, I do think many on the prohibitionist side believe some how that they have the interest of a whole population of women at heart. How to help them understand that they don't is one very important question.
Perhaps another way to look at it, and more constructive, is to ask this question: what exactly is it that we can all agree on? And then how do we talk about that in a way that helps. I was thinking about this last night in terms of trafficking and sex work. Could we possibly frame the discussion in terms of all agreeing that forced labor is wrong? I think we all agree on that. So if we take out the sector of the labor and focus on the condition of the labor (forced or not) then we can have some productive discussions about economic inequality, migration, and other issues.
Or maybe not. I put it out there for discussion :)
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Caring in Rhode Island
For the record, my comments were derived from analysis of feminist literature on sex work, which is of course driven by concerns about gender equality. However we now have Rep. Joanne Giannini (D) in Rhode Island explaining in an interview that her motivation is that she cares about sex worker and wants to protect them.
That seems to me a position that allows us to meet her somewhere. She has been introducing bills now for four years. Perhaps some new information might persuade her this is not helping sex workers. Even the discourse has been harmful. On the other hand a broad coalition has spoken out against her legislative campaign.
Round One: Prohibitionists 1: Evidence Based Policy 50
In response to Professor Donna Hughes' contributions to the legislative debate in Rhode island, the Center for Sex Work Research and Policy has sent this letter to the Rhode Island legislature, signed by 50 members of the world wide academic community.
NBC News
Local RI NBC affiliate has a blurb up about the letter:
Academics oppose RI banning indoor prostitutionBaby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
More news coverage of academic response to RI legislature
More stories mentioning the letter:
Fox News: Professors Oppose Rhode Island Banning Indoor Prostitution
ProJo: Academics urge Rhode Island to keep indoor prostitution legal
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Post new comment