Whilst I am not surprised that two of the most inept women in politics (Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman) are pushing a bill to allow a prosecution without intent, I am shocked that the rest of the cabinet have allowed them to announce it. I am of course referring to the proposal to change the law relating to prostitution and trafficking.
Now let me put my cards on the table. I do not and have never used a prostitute. Nor, do I pretend to understand why a woman would want to sell her body or a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy. That may make me a little square or old fashioned and I will accept that criticsm, albeit I have a right to my opinion. However, I do respect a woman’s right to sell her body if she wishes and a man’s to pay for sex if that is his will. Two consenting adults conducting a transaction that hurts no-one is none of my business. Therefore, whilst I must confess I do not fully understand the motivation for the two parties, I do not judge either party, nor do I say they should have the right to make that choice removed.
My concern here is the fact that these two cabinet ministers a peddling a piece of legislation that if introduced in its current form, will change some of the fundamentals of our criminal laws in this country and add nothing to the cause of vulnerable prostitutes. This is because Smith and Harman now intend to introduce legislation that will make it an offence if a man has sex with a woman who is under the control of a third party, such as a pimp, or has been trafficked or forced into prostitution against her will. Here is the issue, The home secretary has made clear that under the proposed legislation it will not be enough for a man to say “I didn’t know”. The new offence will include a “strict liability” test so that police will only have to prove that the man paid for sex, and that the woman had been trafficked. There will be no need to prove he knew it at the time.
In other words, even if the man asked the prostitute if she had been trafficked, was working under duress, or for a pimp and she says NO, if he pays for sex with her, he will still be guilty of an offence, which could even result in a prosecution for rape, which comes with a potential life tariff. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it could be argued that the man was diligent and had no intent, he could still be found guilty of one of the most serious offences on the statute book. Not only that, but if the Metropolitan Police figures are to believed, some 70% of prostitutes would fall into this category, which means a man seeking out the services of a prostitute has, in effect, a 70% chance of committing an imprisonable offence.
I am no law expert, but by introducing a “strict liability” clause into criminal law, (I believe it is already used in civil law), means a serious criminal offence can be committed without there being any intent. Now I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this legislation means that even if a man asked the necessary questions and was given the appropriate responses, he is still playing a game of Russian Roulette, with odds that would not be lawful in a casino! Worst still, the man doesn’t even need to have sex in order to commit the offence, he just has to conduct the transaction. This type of law is without precedence in a developed country.
My other concern is, what message does it send out to women who have been raped in the conventionally accepted sense (sorry I couldn’t find a better way of describing this). Rape is one of the most abhorrent crimes on the statute book, yet here, a man can be charged and found guilty of rape, for having sex with a prostitute that has been trafficked or is under the control of a pimp, even if he believed this was not the case. Now compare this with a man that stalks and rapes his victim, or one where a young girl is fed with a date rape drug and subsequently raped, are these offences the same? Because theoretically the charge and sentence would be identical, just brought under different criminal Acts.
Without wishing to be melodramatic about the whole issue, is it not possible that some men will take the view that if they have a 2 in 3 chance of being charged with rape for having sex with a prostitute, that they may as well take their chances elsewhere? A ridiculous or plausible suggestion? This proposed legislation, it will achieve nothing. I strongly suspect that if the Police do bring prosecutions, that even though the judges are only there to intepret and implement the law, they may well demonstrate their contempt for this legislation when it comes to sentencing.
Even the English Collective of Prostitutes has rang the alarm bells saying that they believe it will make prostitutes more, not less vulnerable and run the risk of driving prostitution underground. In fact a spokesperson for the Collective even stated that they believe the governments claim that “most” prostitutes have been trafficked is a “complete fabrication”. Nicki Adams from the Collective is quoted as saying: “What we do know is that women from all walks of life, also working as teachers and students, are also working in prostitution. It’s consenting sex.”
One question I have is that if 70% of the women working as prostitutes have been trafficked or are controlled by pimps, why can’t the police go in and rescue them? By implication, the police are suggesting that they know that 2 out of every 3 prostitutes they find, will have been trafficked or under the control of a pimp. By not ’saving’ these women, they are in effect, allowing them to act as an Agent Provocateur. Quite frankly the whole thing is a complete mess.
Surely there is no logic in introducing a new law that attempts to create a situation where a man can be found guilty of a serious charge even though there may well be no criminal intent. My own view, is that the government should have been more forthright. If they wanted to make prostitution illegal, then they should have done so. Of course they wouldn’t because there would have been a massive backlash in what is accepted as the oldest profession in the world. This legislation if passed, poses a massive risk that if two consenting adults conduct a transaction for sex, one could face very, very serious charges. What will these men do in the face of such dire consequences, will they accept the risk, will they look elsewhere? I would hate to speculate what the consequences of this ill-though out, draconian, unwanted law would be.
I have lived in a country where prostitution is legal. Women work from brothels which are licensed and controlled. This takes most, albeit not all, prostitutes off the street. It means the police know where they are and the authorities can keep an eye on things. Charities have access to the prostitutes and can raise the alarm if anything is untoward. The public do not have to put up with prostitutes walking the street or industrial estates at night. Prostitutes are in a relatively safe and protected environment. The prostitutes earn a living and the men get to have sex with a consenting partner, albeit for sex. Legislation can no more stop prostitution than it can prevent drug use. Introducing a law that seeks to criminalise sex with a prostitute in this way is an appalling use of the legislature and a clear abuse of power.
I am fortunate that I do not live in an area frequented by prostitutes. So I can say in all honesty, they don’t bother me. A transaction that takes place out of sight, between two consenting adults is okay with me. I don’t find it objectionable. On the other hand, girls that have been forced into prostitution by a pimp or trafficker are entitled to expect the protection of the law. The police have existing powers to prosecute the pimps and traffickers. If so many girls fall under this new legislation, then it must be easy pickings for the police. So why don’t they get off their backsides and prosecute the scum that would seek to profit at the expense of these victims of crime? The police in this country have gone soft, they don’t want to have the problem of investigating and proving crime anymore, they just want the laws changed so that virtually everything we do or say can lead to a prosecution and now, if this bill becomes law, there won’t even have to be intent.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Just another example of this government blaming everyone else other than the guilty - the politicians who’ve known about this situation developing for women for years, but have singularly failed to do anything constructive about it. Now it’s become a political football and they’ve decided to blame the men, since blaming the women themselves is no longer PC.
What a load of shit we voted in. Like you, I’ve never intentionally paid for the services of a prostitute, but I have no moral objection whatsoever to doing so - it is after all the woman’s body and, if she wants to sell her sexual skill to another, whose business is it but hers?
If I’m right, then they’ll tell you, “Ah, but that’s not what we intend.” The answer to that is that the poor bastards they’re proposing to lock up didn’t intend that either, but that won’t save them. On top of that, if a law CAN be abused by authority, then they WILL be abuse it - they always have in the past!
However, I’d like to challenge you on the “I’ve never paid for sex” statement: have you never had sex? have you never wined and dined a girlfriend and then got “lucky” after doing so? If you have and that woman was at the time “free”, but was PREVIOUSLY trafficked, you might be guilty under the law as I understand they are proposing it!
How typically stupid is THAT?
It is NOT a law to protect women, it’s a law to attempt to reduce the number of prostitutes by stealth. Which is also typical of the devious and underhand behaviour of this government.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:05 am
This is pure speculation, of course, but, inspired by your excellent post, I got to thinking about this proposed legislation and why two women such as Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman would want to promote a law which would clearly have such an adverse effect on the lives of many women who (apparently willingly) work as prostitutes, rather than help and protect them as their jobs suggest they should.
I can’t help wondering if Messrs Smith and Harman might not, perhaps subconsciously, be only too pleased, for personal reasons, if men who can afford it were scared off from using the services of prostitutes.
After all, it takes a degree of intelligence and imagination to be really good at sex, faculties which the two women in question plainly lack. Er … they are both married, aren’t they?
November 24th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Gosh, what a lot of words! I thought I was bad enough. Though the basic point you make about the principle of strict liability and the principle of mens rea is a good one.
If there was a reasoable likelihood that the prostitute had been trafficked or was pimped, conceivably an argument of reckless negligence might be used against a person who used their services. However, the 70% figure came from the Metropolitan Police, so must be assumed to be utter codswallop insofar as the nation as a whole is concerned, as Met officers have numbers in case they get lost outside the M25.
The proposals in the Government Review of Demand outcome for prostitution do not include prosecution of clients for rape. The proposal is for a £1,000 maximum fine for clients who have used prostitutes found to have been trafficked or to have been controlled for gain.
These offences mean very different things to those the media normally writes about if you read the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In this vertiable catalogue of sins you can discover that you can be trafficked for all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with prostitution, such as to have sex in a public loo or to commit incest with your children, for example. Should you be a prostitute, and cadge a lift from a friend to your brothel, you become trafficked in the process under section 58 even though (a) you’ve not set foot out of the country and (b) you’ve travelled at your own request.
Needless to say, only about as many journalists have read the act as politicians.
“Controlling for gain” is a similar mess. “Gain” is defined (very widely) but not “controlling.” The Scots define controlling in their separate legislation as including aiding and abeting, and it doesn’t even have to be for gain north of the border.
This law is an attempt at social engineering. The message the Government’s trying to put out is that it doesn’t like prostitution even though it hasn’t got any really good rationale for stopping consenting adults doing what they wish. So effectively they’re trying to change the perceptions of punters by changing the prostitutes into a minefield, in which the punters never know which one is going to explode and turn out to be trafficked or “controlled for gain.”
Despite the Government playing silly numbers of thousands and thousands of supposed trafficking victims, two major operations taking between them nearly two years by 55 police forces with a total manpower of 185,000 police officers
discovered only 250 ’sex slave’ trafficking victims in the UK.
This is less than a third of one percent of the 80,000-strong estimated prostitute population, so in reality, the chances of any particular prostitute being trafficked is minute.
As to whether they’re ‘controlled for gain’, that’s another matter, it really depends for a start on what controlled for gain is supposed to mean.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am
@ Stephen Paterson: Yes, of course it’s social engineering, what else does this goddam government ever do?
Spot on comment in my opinion.
Only one issue, unless you have the training, you need a mind like a corkscrew to even read, let alone understand Acts of Parliament. However, it’s rare to need spectacles to spot the loopholes you could drive a London bus through - they’re so BAD at it!
November 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
@ Stephen Patterson: Yes, sorry, my posts are always a little wordy. That is the trouble with someone that has an opinion on everything. Anyway, to get to the point, thanks for your very useful insight which has added a great deal of value to my original post.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
@ CJ: I guess I hadn’t considered, when writing my post, that in a way, we all pay for sex one way or another. Yours is an interesting perspective on the whole thing. As you rightly say, most government legislation is often as badlt drafted as it is ill conceived.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“…, Nor, do I pretend to understand why a woman would want to sell her body or a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy. ” I would like to help you understand these things: First, I resist saying that the ubiquitous cliché that a prostitute “sell their body” is ridiculous. It’s not as if when when the transaction is over the poor girl remains without a body! I think it’s much better to say that a the prostitute “rents out” her body. Why would a woman rent out her body? - That’s simple - to make money! (easy money, lots of money, sometimes money she desperately needs to satisfy a drug addiction). Why would a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy? Well there could be a number of reasons. Maybe the man feels very horney and impatient and does not care or for or does not have the patience for “the usual intimacy” at that particular moment. Or maybe the man is lonely, socially awkward, has looked for the “usual intimacy” for a long time always rejected, always failing. So the man is *compromising* on getting sex for money, without the intimacy, rather than keeping on getting *nothing*.