Legalization of Prostitution

Prostitution: Ethics to Legitimize the Business
Many people find the ethical considerations of the death penalty to be highly controversial. However, another highly controversial topic is the legalization of prostitution. Considering my knowledge on this subject and talking to average women who aren’t prostitutes, I’ve come to the conclusion that prostitution should be legalized.

The courts and the police have more to contend with than two adult people having consensual sex. Prostitution has a long and interesting history. It’s mentioned in numerous texts and often referred to as the “oldest profession.” Indeed, it has always been a common way for women to make money, even in biblical times. It wasn’t until Christianity and the Bible condemned prostitution within versus such as Proverbs 23:27-28, “For a prostitute is a deep pit and a wayward wife is a narrow well. Like a bandit she lies in wait, and multiplies the unfaithful among men.” Basically, prostitutes were shunned for their corruption of married men as a moral conflict. Historically, it was common to trade women for property, pleasure and used as alliances between countries and kingdoms. A person can be against prostitution all he or she wants to, but the fact remains that prostitution happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. It’s a common act of the sexes where biological needs can out way monetary cost and societal norm ethical barriers. The business minded culture would call this supply and demand and the blue collar worker would call it an honest day’s work for an honest days pay. Either way, it’s not that legitimate kingdoms or governments have not recognized prostitution throughout history, but it appears that they merely renamed and justified it into something legitimate.
History also reminds us that in many ancient cultures, female prostitution was an accepted profession for many women, especially those who could not earn a living any other way – husbands killed in war or died from laboring. It wasn’t until the church – especially the Christian church – decided that sex was bad and that prostitution became a ‘sordid’ form of employment. Even then, on and off, prostitution and brothels enjoyed varying levels of acceptance in the public eye. Some cities and towns had entire ‘red light districts’ where brothels were, if not welcomed, at least tolerated, so long as the owners and management made their ‘donations’ to the local law enforcement. Thus, while strictly illegal, the proliferation of prostitution enabled police corruption to flourish as well.
The roots of prostitution may be more evolutionary than previously thought stemming from hereditary instincts of our long forgotten ancestry. A study was conducted in 2003 by Michael Gumert, of the Division of Psychology of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore which was accepted for publication in the journal Animal Behavior (Dec, 2007). In his study of the macaque monkeys he discovered that the amount of grooming a male performs on a female prior to a sexual interaction is related to the supply/demand ratio of females per male and males to females at the time of the grooming. Here’s where that “supply and demand” or “an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” philosophy comes into play. Basically, male monkeys – especially lower status ones – have to groom more and longer to get some female action when there are fewer females around. Gumert, analyzed a wild population of long-tailed macaques at Tanjung Puting National Park in Indonesia, from 2003 to 2005.
Dr. Gumert analyzed the long-tailed macaques from 2003 to 2005 located at the Tanjung Putting National Park in Indonesia. There he documented 243 male-to-female grooming sessions, most of which were directed at females who were receptive to mating. The “grooming before sex” bouts lasted anywhere from a few seconds to a half hour or more, with the durations frequently linked to either the number of potential other partners or to the status of the groomer or recipient. Accordingly he found that the rank or status of the male did not remove the set standard but only skewed it. The monkeys who were considered a higher status would take more and give less than low-status monkeys. This suggested that such corruption of the fair trade ideal appears to be an inherent facet of primate social life that can apply to everything from monkey sex to, quoting Mr. Gumert, “human politics”.
He also found that females with higher status also skewed the system because, in the case of macaques, they demand more attention before they agree to mate. Just like Homo sapiens, the males often have their work cut out for them, but would try to flirt first with the females, using facial gestures before they approach. This reminds me of when I mastered the gift of gab to attract women. Just like the monkeys, talking and grooming was cheaper than getting them drunk and also shortened the courting/mating ritual. I asked a few women privately about this paper and my chosen topic and, interestingly, 4 our 5 thought it was o.k. for women to exchange sex for money stating that it was their body and they can do with it as they please. I offered fifty dollars to the ones I knew fairly well, but they all said I better bring my check book.
The females believed that legalized prostitution would also have some safe and healthy advantages for anyone who chooses to have that kind of working lifestyle. With government intervention legalization would create a set of standards where there would be fewer cases of people contracting STD’s and other communicable diseases. I will discuss this later in my research paper.
In western society, there has typically been a double standard, two-faced attitude towards prostitution. Men who publicly voiced disgust against prostitution and declared integrity and goodness, such as Eliot Spitzer, were also men who were the prime customers of many madams and prostitutes. It seems that when prostitution is illegal, standards for cleanliness and safety are difficult to carry out or enforce, and also lead to the rise of ‘pimps’ to manage and control the individual prostitute, paying off the police and controlling their areas. When prostitution is legalized and regulated through standards, the women are usually safer and cleaner; there are no payoffs with no fighting for control of areas. Given this, there are parts of Nevada that contain legal brothels where regulation is strictly controlled and there are no epidemics of disease or public outcry against the brothels.
Since prostitution is one of the oldest professions in history, we can expect it to continue and, with the advent of the internet, continue unhindered. Much like illegal drugs it can only be slowed down by fractions of a percent. No matter how much a person is against prostitution, consensual sex for profit between adults will continue to occur as long as men and women have two body parts that are made to fit together. Get rid of those private parts and you can eradicate most of the issue. The current perception of prostitution is a pimp controlling several women by abusing them physically, mentally and forcing them into a sex for money situation against their will. In contrast to this belief, I found out in Houston, Texas, working a police contract job at the intersection of Hornwood Drive and Tarnef Drive, that many prostitutes no longer have pimps. While contracted to work traffic control for a Mosque located at the intersection I noticed early that many women walked this area and there was virtually nothing there but the Mosque and some apartments. I confronted a couple of the prostitutes and spoke to a local beat officer named Conner who regularly arrests them. It was at this point and to my surprise that I found out the prostitutes walking the area have no pimps, are free lance and that they are nomadic. They surf special prostitute websites and instant message each other looking for the safest and best money making locations within the U.S. This explained why I would see different hookers nearly every day of the week – they rotated out. How did they get to a small street like Hornwood near a mosque? Many of the prostitutes watch the news on television, surf the internet and follow special events, especially large ones, around the country where they can increase their ability to make the most money. This takes prostitution to a new level without even touching Craigslist yet. When the 2004 Super bowl was held in Houston hundreds of prostitutes arrived. These women found out that the money was so good in Texas that they decided to stay informing their female counterparts via the web.
The direction of prostitution appears to be taking slow gradual turn towards legalization. Even though it is considered non-acceptable by most states the cry for freedom in the bedroom have more courts and legislators taking a more relaxed stance with court decisions such as People v. Freeman (1988), Oregon v. Ciancanelli (2003), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
In 1988, the government took a unique stance which helped define prostitution. This first case involves the state of California where an arrest was made comparing pornography as illegal as prostitution. In the case of People v. Freeman, 46 Cal. 3d 419 (1988), Harold Freeman hired and paid actors and actresses to perform in an erotic film, titled “Caught from Behind, Part II.” His claim was that as a part of their roles, the performers engaged in various sexually explicit acts, including sexual intercourse, oral copulation and sodomy to make the DVD. Freeman was charged and convicted on five counts of “pandering” as “procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution” under the California Penal Code. However in the California Supreme Court’s review they noted that in order for there to be “pandering,” there must be “prostitution.” Prostitution defined under California law is “any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.” It was argued that since the performers engaged in sexual acts in front of movie cameras “for the money they received,” they were engaged in prostitution, and accordingly Mr. Freeman was engaged in “procuring” them for prostitution. Ultimately, the question was raised since it was illegal to pay a prostitute for sex; then it should be illegal for a film director to pay two people to have sex in front of a camera and then make money for his product in the form of a DVD or an online download.
However, The California Supreme Court noted that for an act to constitute prostitution, “the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute.” They concluded since the payment of the “acting fees” were the only payment, there was no evidence that any payment was made for the purpose of sexual gratification.
The court started with the correct presumption that the film was expressive material, and afforded all the presumptively First Amendment protection. The Court had previously held that it was “too evident to require elaboration” and that applying criminal penalties to sexual activity in a live theatrical performance “would have an inhibiting effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
Justice O’Connor noted that the state might have had a right to appeal had the California Supreme Court decided the case solely on First Amendment grounds. However, the decision was based on two independent rationales – statutory and First Amendment. Even if the Supreme Court were to review the California Supreme Court’s decision and find that the state court had misapplied the First Amendment, on remand the California Supreme Court would still have reversed the conviction on statutory grounds. Accordingly, the opinion of the court was that this case was over one way or the other because the decision is not binding upon any other state. The California Supreme Court decision only binds and applies to the State of California.
Oregon has had its own encounter with defining prostitution which addressed live sex shows. In Oregon v. Ciancanelli (2003), the Oregon Supreme Court struck down a state law against conducting live sex shows and a local ordinance regulating conduct of nude dancers as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Oregon in a 5-1 decision concluded that statues against live sex shows violate the Oregon Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and free expression. The free-expression rulings continued the state court’s modern pattern of broadly interpreting state constitutional rights as forbidding nearly all regulation of obscenity.
The court’s decision gives Oregon a broad protected discretion regarding the interest and approaches to the freedom of expression of any state. Additionally, this decision by the courts will keep many states on edge when deciding what is considered expressive activity. The State of Oregon’s constitution, created in 1859, reads, “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever.” This verbiage severely limits the state’s ability to enforce lewd type laws. Justice Michael Gillette, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “…the protection extends to the kinds of expression that a majority of citizens in many communities would dislike — and even to physical acts, such as nude dancing or other explicit sexual conduct that have an expressive component.” Basically meaning that freedom of expression is being taken into new areas not dealt with before.
The next case is actually involves two lower court rulings that focused on freedom of expression adding strength to the idea that prostitution should be legalized.
In 2003 a case went before the Supreme Court with the outcome of the decision affecting a second case with similar circumstances. The first case involved the owner of a Roseburg adult business which featured live sex performances in private rooms. Charles Ciancanelli, who ran the club Angles, was arrested and convicted when undercover police paid women to engage in sexual activities while the officers watched the performance in other rooms of the business. After being arrested for promoting a live sex show, the court upheld Ciancanelli’s conviction for promoting prostitution but when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court his conviction was tossed.
The court’s ruling took Oregon’s free-speech law and substantially expanded it. This ruling also brought into question and doubt as to whether the laws regulating indecency are even constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court intended to limit legislature’s authority to regulate sexual public conduct with more freedoms granted to society.
The second case occurred at Miss Sally’s Gentlemen’s Club which is related to Ciancanelli’s cases with slightly different details. At the same time of the Ciancanelli case the higher court also overturned an ordinance in the City of Nyssa where it was a requirement for nude dancers to maintain a minimum four foot distance from patrons.
In The City of Nyssa v. Sally A. Dufloth (2003), the Supreme Court clarified that even though some sex acts in entertainment shows might violate some laws, the laws that prohibit the representation of shows that commit to restraining freedom of expressions with be overturned. The Supreme Court’s ruling reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals decision. The lower court was also decisively split and contended that bans on sexual performances should be allowed as “historical exceptions” to free-speech rights because restrictions already existed on public nudity and sexual conduct during the time the constitution was adopted.
Only Supreme Court Justice Paul De Muniz dissented from both decisions stating that he didn’t believe that masturbation and sexual intercourse in a live public show is a form of speech that the drafters of the Oregon Constitution sought to protect.
The last case in defense of prostitution is Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which addressed one’s sexual conduct as your own privacy. Harris County deputies, responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The State Court of Appeals affirmed and held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, was referenced as the guiding U.S. case for their decision.
However, the Supreme Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. A main point of the Supreme Court was that the law does more than prohibit a particular sexual act. The penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The State of Texas sought to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The constitution protects the liberties of homosexual persons and the right to choose to enter in relationships in their own privates lives and in the confines of their homes while still retaining their given freedoms.
Furthermore they stated, “Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.”
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declared Texas’ anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The law did not criminalize the same behaviors if performed by opposite-sex couples but had criminalized certain forms of sexual behavior if performed by persons of the same gender. Furthermore, the ruling has a far broader impact than merely overturning a law in Texas and similar legislation in other states. It should be added that Justice Kennedy inferred that the state or federal government cannot pass a law criminalizing a behavior; simply because the vast majority of its citizens feel that an act is immoral or sinful. Justice Kennedy also pointed out what some people consider to be immoral behavior can no longer be criminalized if done in private; what some consider sinful behavior can no longer carry a jail sentence.
The significance of Lawrence v. Texas relating to prostitution is that it delves deeper into private acts between consenting adults. Although discussed in an earlier assignment, this decision has very wide implications. It eventually could impact laws which prohibit obscenity, prostitution, sado-masochism and indecent exposure, to name a few. The state laws criminalizing prostitution might eventually be ruled unenforceable based on freedom of expression, due Process and the Fourteenth Amendment. These rulings could have ramifications that are more widely spread throughout the United States than Roe v. Wade in 1973 making early abortions available to women.
Justice Scalia wrote the court’s minority opinion, stating that the majority Justices pretended that they have left enough freedom “…that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada” or “…dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” He continued to reemphasize the fact that laws against bigamy, adultery, prostitution, bestiality and obscenity were now susceptible to challenges.
In reviewing the referenced cases of my paper that are related to prostitution, it seems the issue is continually under moral development and ethical debate. The Supreme Court continually uses some type of ethical formalism, a form of deontological system, in deciding most cases. They keep the focus on the basic moral rules but must also interpret what our forefathers meant in the foundation of our constitution. Each case deals with moral and ethical judicial discretion and the associated correlated results on society. It seems important to the court that the determinant used for judging is not whether the act was moral regardless of the consequence, but only the motive or intent of the actor.
In People v. Freeman it appears the Supreme Court again used ethical formalism, of the deontological system, in deciding this case. It seems important to the court that the determinant used for judging is not whether the act was moral regardless of the consequence, but only the motive or intent of the actor. In this case it was to pay people to perform or act and then use media equipment to copy and sell the performance. This means that if Mr. Freeman is doing something for the good of society by selling a DVD, but the outcome results in bad consequence like promoting unethical behavior, it is still considered to be a moral action.
In most of the case it seems the Supreme Court is also using a portion of the teleological ethical system approach on most of the cases associated in my research. The consequences of the act are judged, even if questionable or viewed as bad, but the foundation of the act is good – freedom of expression, due process and constitutional protection. In each case the intent of the actor or defendant was not to break the law but was restricted in some way where imposition of laws was based on the ethical behavior or perceptions of the law creators. The court’s utilitarian thought was that no money was exchanged for sex but for acting. For Oregon this made the law too restrictive even if the creators thought the explication of how the law was applied was understood.
In Oregon v. Ciancanelli the issue was a more fundamental question of freedom of expression; and did the morality of an action determined how much it would contribute to the good of the majority.
The Supreme Court addressed this issue again, in this particular case; it is the freedom to expressing one’s self that is protected and not necessarily the act. If one person, who was actually innocent, was found guilty of a crime to provide an example of crime deterrence, this would be utilitarianism. This theory does not care if one has to suffer, just as long as it would provide a good outcome for the majority. The free-expression rulings continued the state court’s modern pattern of broadly interpreting state constitutional rights as forbidding nearly all regulation of obscenity.
It appears the justices used the thought of cultural relativism when deciding on Lawrence v. Texas. They believe that the good to society was enhanced with additional protection of privacy in one’s home. They seem to have let the subculture of deviant behavior, in this case sexual behavior, be accepted by the court as an approval of the behavior by society. The culturalist way of thinking appears to have swayed the court’s decision. This, in turn, opened yet another door for news media controversy and examination.
Each case had the news media focusing attention on the court’s decisions regarding freedom of expression and personal protections. wrote in a report titled “House Bill Seeks Local Regulation of Oregon Strip Clubs” and informed the public of Representative Kevin Cameron dropping priority bills to aid the local government in regulating strip clubs in 2007. The news media referenced HJR 56 to amend the Constitution of the State of Oregon. It limits strip clubs but does not include other adult establishments. The news site reviews the 2005 Oregon v. Ciancanelli and the city of Nyssa ordinance being struck down and how it declared live sex acts as constitutionally protected freedom of speech, thus restricting local communities from making good decisions for its citizens. This news site is against the court’s decision and states that , “This extreme interpretation of the State of Oregon’s freedom of expression law comes at a cost to local communities, families, and public safety,” commented by Rep. Cameron. “This bill is an attempt to balance important civil liberties while at the same time giving people options to keep their children and communities protected and properties safe.” Also noted was the unsuccessful attempt by members of the Faye Wright Neighborhood Association to restrict a strip club from opening near a park and schools validating the strength of the court’s decision.
Ridenbaugh Press wrote an article referencing the City of Nyssa case in 2006. The news article points out that Oregon has the most lax rules of any state in the union limiting adult – sexually-oriented – businesses but noting that Nyssa, the less striking of the two decisions, that the two cases came from two of the more culturally conservative places in the state. They conclude that there is a continuing attempt to regulate strip clubs but voters rejected it three times as of the time of this article.
CNN did an article on Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. CNN pointed out that the ruling appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but laws governing marriage remained unaffected. They went on that the Supreme Court ruling establishes a benchmark in privacy that had not existed before and, according to Diane Haskel, the ruling, based on due process arguments rather than equal protection laws, would push out new areas in privacy. “This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior,” Hassel said. “As long as it’s between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it.” CNN refreshed the case details between John Geddes and Tyron Garner of Houston and that their arrest violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is also hailed as a great leap into protection of privacy in one’s home.
Andrew Cohen commented on Lawrence v. Texas, a CBS News legal analyst, and said that the Supreme Court “has created a broad new legal rationale for future challenges by gay rights activists…This is a major ruling that will change a lot of other laws down the road.” He said that “gays and others” may be able to use the ruling to challenge a wide range of laws on the basis of a right to privacy.
In my review of court cases and legalized prostitution I cannot leave out the wonderful State of Nevada. Nevada is one of only two U.S. states that allow some legal prostitution; in most of its counties, brothels are legalized and heavily regulated. In Rhode Island, the act of sex for money is not illegal, but street solicitation and operation of a brothel are. However, as of July 2004, prostitution is illegal under state law in Clark County, where the City of Las Vegas sits, and under county or municipal law in Washoe County, where the City of Reno is located, Carson City, which is an independent city, and in Douglas County, and Lincoln County. Eureka County neither permits nor prohibits licensed brothels, and also has none. The other 11 Nevada counties permit licensed brothels in certain specified areas or cities. The precise licensing requirements vary by county. License fees for brothels range from an annual $100,000 in Storey County to an annual $200 in Lander County. Licensed prostitutes must be at least 21 years old, except in Storey County and Lyon County (where the minimum age is 18).
Nevada law requires that registered brothel prostitutes be checked monthly for HIV and weekly for several sexually transmitted diseases; furthermore, condoms are mandatory for all oral sex and sexual intercourse. If a customer becomes infected with HIV after a prostitute has tested positive for the virus, the brothel owners can be held liable. Nevada has laws against engaging in prostitution outside of licensed brothels, against encouraging others to become prostitutes, and against living off the proceeds of a prostitute. For many years, Nevada brothels were restricted from advertising their services in counties where brothel prostitution is illegal; however, this state law was overturned in 2007.
Prostitution is typically shunned upon in society and should be regulated like any other job in America today. If the participants consent to sex and it pays the bills, puts food on the table and pays the rent, then prostitution is no different at earning money than any other blue collar job.
Legalizing prostitution would have healthy benefits and ensure safety for all those involved in the profession. For example, with the legalization of prostitution comes regulation. This means that prostitutes will be required to get medical checkups on a daily basis, which would help to decrease the spread of STD’s and other communicable diseases. As a result, the quality of life for prostitutes will improve as well as the environment for his or her clients. The working environment between a prostitute and his or her client will be safer. The CDC conducted a study in southern Nevada, where only one woman has been reported with AIDS and none of the 34 prostitutes for the study had the HIV antibody. According to Bruce Lambert, U.S Department of Public Health statistics have been consistently reporting that only 5 percent of sexually transmitted disease in the United States is related to prostitution, compared to 30 to 35 percent that is transmitted among sexually active teenagers….The National Research Council notes: ‘Many people fear that prostitutes (who by definition have multiple sex partners) will not adopt safer sex practices with their clients and will therefore be the conduit through which HIV infection will spread to the heterosexual population. Yet existing data on prostitutes do not support this concern.’
Legalization allows for taxation on the earnings of a prostitute just like most jobs. If those who participate in this profession are taxed, then prostitutes will be able to benefit and contribute to unemployment and disability insurance, social security and a 401k retirement. Prostitutes would have the choice of continuing or quitting their career in prostitution at will. If prostitution is taxed, cities and states can profit from it and set new regulations, city ordinances and violations to increase revenue. Legalizing prostitution would result in less money spent on judicial costs to incarcerate prostitutes and the people who are caught with them. If all this money and time is saved, then law enforcement will have more time to deal with the more serious crimes other than prostitution. Additionally, jails wouldn’t be so overcrowded and the county and district courts would have fewer defendants. Furthermore, prostitutes would be afforded a safer environment to work in and afforded the given rights of every citizen to do what they want to do without the fear of being arrested. Prostitutes will be earning their own wages and be able to keep their money for themselves – except for taxes of course. There would be a new found freedom for “working women” where the pimp won’t be able to take advantage of them, their money, or physically and mentally abuse them. If society continues to swing towards a relaxed “it’s my privacy” attitude, sooner more than later the profession of prostitution will no longer be labeled as “wrong” to many people. It will evolve into a choice made by two consenting adults. If kept illegal it will continue to thrive with all of the self-created societal negative aspects. Clearly, the benefits of legalizing prostitution far outweigh the reasons for keeping it a criminal activity. Hence, common people and law enforcement officials shouldn’t continue fighting a battle, throwing tax payer money away, and fighting an endless battle against natural instincts and privacy.
Questions of morality surround the debate of whether or not prostitution ought to be legal. Should sex, or a woman’s body, be for sale? Does accepting prostitution teach young women that their bodies are objects to be profited from? Moral views regarding prostitution vary greatly from person to person; however, should prostitution even be a question of morality? Pre-marital sex, one-night stands, homosexuality; the list of sex-related moral’ issues goes on. While the moral argument is quite intriguing to undertake, the imposition of ethics and morality on the conversation of prostitution has resulted in a largely slanted discussion on the subject. I will suggest that the essential argument surrounding the legalization of prostitution be not one of morality, but one that focuses on finding the best way for society to deal with it, not as civilization’s oldest profession, but as one of civilization’s most common professions.
The United States continues to ignore two alternative approaches invoked in several other countries with success: legalization and decriminalization of prostitution. Hopefully this paper questions the validation typically associated and supportive of laws controlling any legalization options. The research conducted on prostitutes, their clients, and societal studies, strengthen debates that would legalize and decriminalize the profession. Outside of the moral implications associated with the “working girl” it is obvious that requiring criminal sanctions (punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation) are furthered by the current prohibition of prostitution. There are more societal advantages than disadvantages if the practice of prostitution legalized.

Albert, A E, (1998) Facilitating condom use with clients during commercial sex in Nevada’s legal brothels, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88, Issue 4, pp. 643-646. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from, RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=88&firstpage=643&resourcetype=HWCIT

City of Nyssa v. Dufloth S49963, A113180 (2003). Retrieved October 3, 2008, from,

Cohen, A (2003). Sodomy’s Ruling Ripple Effect. CBS. Retried 13 October 2008, from,

Constitution of Oregon (2007). Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 8. Retrieved 19 October 2008, from,

Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Female Prostitutes (1987), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, March 27, 1987 / 36(11); pp.157-61, Retrieved 11 October 2008, from,

Gumert, M D, (December 2007). “Payment for sex in a macaque mating market”. Animal Behavior, Vol. 74, issue 6: pp. 1655–1667. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from,
c-info(%23toc%236693%232007%23999259993%23676415%23FLA%23display%23Volume) &_cdi=6693&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=25&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3fd696d89391548f42fffeb33acdff26

House Bill Seeks Local Regulation of Oregon Strip Clubs (2007). Capital Watch.,
Retrieved, October 1, 2008, from, club_bill_041907.php

Lambert, Bruce, AIDS in Prostitutes, Not as Prevalent as Believed, Studies Find; (New York Times, September 20, 1988).Numerous sources in the U.S. confirm the fact that prostitutes do not spread AIDS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1993;5 (no. 3): pp. 7, 11,

Lawrence v. Texas, (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Retrieved October 8, 2008, from, Find Law for the
Legal professionals website, 000&invol=02-102

Oregon v. Ciancanelli (CC 98CR2685FE; CA A108122; SC S49707) (2003). Retrieved October 1,
2008, from,

Pollock, J. M. (2007). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth. Ch. 6.

Rio, L M (1991). Psychological and Sociological Research and the Decriminalization and Legalization of Prostitution, Archives of Social Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 2. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from,

Rocha, G L (1999), Nevada State Library and Archives. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from,

Stapilus, R, (2005). Racy? Pacific Northwest political/social change
analysis and commentary, Ridenbaugh Press. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from,

Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law (2003), Law Center. CNN. Retrieved October 3,
2008, from,