Busting the John Instead of the Hooker - Good Policy or Potential Disaster?

[Zona]

Police set up a sting operation with a sexy, female cop posing as a hooker. She lolls around a street corner, smiling at passing motorists. When a john pulls up, she engages him in conversation designed to get him to offer her money for sex. When he does, he is then busted. The idea is, if they arrest the johns, they will force the hookers to find some other form of work.

But what about the aftermath of all this? Most of the time, the john is some lowlife who is out looking to get laid by a hooker. This guy has nothing going for him and very little to lose by being busted for solicitation.

But, all too often, the potential customer is not just some lowlife with nothing to lose. All too often, he is a married man with a family, a good job, and a great deal to lose by being arrested for solicitation. In many communities, the local newspaper takes great delight in publishing the names of men arrested in prostitution sting operations, the idea being that public shame will deter other, potential offenders.

So what happens to the businessman who gets caught soliciting a "hooker" for a quick blow job or some such? Potentially, a great deal. The immediate, legal consequences are obvious: arrest, guilty plea, probation, fine, conviction on record until expunged. But what about the other consequences to a man of substance? Potentially - divorce, loss of job, possibly loss of career, loss of children, financial disaster and, in some extreme cases, death by suicide caused by depression over everything that happened because of the arrest, prosecution and conviction.

On balance, is this right? Is it fair? Consider what happens to a hooker if they bust HER for engaging in prostitution. Very little. She is taken to the station and booked. If she has a pimp, the pimp bails her out and she is back on the street within a matter of hours. She may ultimately have to pay a fine (that is, her pimp has to pay the fine as a practical matter), she may have to do a day or two in jail, end of story. To the hooker, it means very little, because she has very little to lose.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

This thread is prompted by a post MikeK made in the other thread on legalizing prostitution. I await, with interest, the comments on this OP.

The solution is obvious..let that honest, family man with scruples become a prostitute as a vocation. That way if he gets busted, its no big deal. Its just part of his job.





Make it legal, regulate it, and tax it. End of problem. Remember prohibition? The resolution to that problem was to make it legal...(again).

 

[ConHog]

Police set up a sting operation with a sexy, female cop posing as a hooker. She lolls around a street corner, smiling at passing motorists. When a john pulls up, she engages him in conversation designed to get him to offer her money for sex. When he does, he is then busted. The idea is, if they arrest the johns, they will force the hookers to find some other form of work.

But what about the aftermath of all this? Most of the time, the john is some lowlife who is out looking to get laid by a hooker. This guy has nothing going for him and very little to lose by being busted for solicitation.

But, all too often, the potential customer is not just some lowlife with nothing to lose. All too often, he is a married man with a family, a good job, and a great deal to lose by being arrested for solicitation. In many communities, the local newspaper takes great delight in publishing the names of men arrested in prostitution sting operations, the idea being that public shame will deter other, potential offenders.

So what happens to the businessman who gets caught soliciting a "hooker" for a quick blow job or some such? Potentially, a great deal. The immediate, legal consequences are obvious: arrest, guilty plea, probation, fine, conviction on record until expunged. But what about the other consequences to a man of substance? Potentially - divorce, loss of job, possibly loss of career, loss of children, financial disaster and, in some extreme cases, death by suicide caused by depression over everything that happened because of the arrest, prosecution and conviction.

On balance, is this right? Is it fair? Consider what happens to a hooker if they bust HER for engaging in prostitution. Very little. She is taken to the station and booked. If she has a pimp, the pimp bails her out and she is back on the street within a matter of hours. She may ultimately have to pay a fine (that is, her pimp has to pay the fine as a practical matter), she may have to do a day or two in jail, end of story. To the hooker, it means very little, because she has very little to lose.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

This thread is prompted by a post MikeK made in the other thread on legalizing prostitution. I await, with interest, the comments on this OP.

Sounds like George got busted for soliciting a prostitute and he's pissed.

 

[Middleman]

From the libertarian, consenting adult point of view, why shouldn't two people be able to freely have sex, with one paying the other money? Why does selling sex for a specific, mutually agreed upon price have to be illegal?

 

[Luissa]

Police set up a sting operation with a sexy, female cop posing as a hooker. She lolls around a street corner, smiling at passing motorists. When a john pulls up, she engages him in conversation designed to get him to offer her money for sex. When he does, he is then busted. The idea is, if they arrest the johns, they will force the hookers to find some other form of work.

But what about the aftermath of all this? Most of the time, the john is some lowlife who is out looking to get laid by a hooker. This guy has nothing going for him and very little to lose by being busted for solicitation.

But, all too often, the potential customer is not just some lowlife with nothing to lose. All too often, he is a married man with a family, a good job, and a great deal to lose by being arrested for solicitation. In many communities, the local newspaper takes great delight in publishing the names of men arrested in prostitution sting operations, the idea being that public shame will deter other, potential offenders.

So what happens to the businessman who gets caught soliciting a "hooker" for a quick blow job or some such? Potentially, a great deal. The immediate, legal consequences are obvious: arrest, guilty plea, probation, fine, conviction on record until expunged. But what about the other consequences to a man of substance? Potentially - divorce, loss of job, possibly loss of career, loss of children, financial disaster and, in some extreme cases, death by suicide caused by depression over everything that happened because of the arrest, prosecution and conviction.

On balance, is this right? Is it fair? Consider what happens to a hooker if they bust HER for engaging in prostitution. Very little. She is taken to the station and booked. If she has a pimp, the pimp bails her out and she is back on the street within a matter of hours. She may ultimately have to pay a fine (that is, her pimp has to pay the fine as a practical matter), she may have to do a day or two in jail, end of story. To the hooker, it means very little, because she has very little to lose.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

This thread is prompted by a post MikeK made in the other thread on legalizing prostitution. I await, with interest, the comments on this OP.

Sounds like George got busted for soliciting a prostitute and he's pissed.

I wouldn't make fun of someone else regarding prostitutes.

 

[rdean]

It's all bad policy.

If "purchasing pussy" were legal, you could tax it and make it "safe". Both by making sure the girls weren't ripped off, and by keeping a check on disease. It would also remove the "criminal" element.

But it's all about those "fake" morals.

We are against abortion and equal rights for gays but:

Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

Starve the poor, they’ll stop breeding

Vitter receives standing ovation at Southern Republican Leadership Conference after trysts with many prostitutes.

The reason Vitter received a "standing ovation" from the right wing is because they were just glad the prostitutes weren't "dudes".

 

[ConHog]

Police set up a sting operation with a sexy, female cop posing as a hooker. She lolls around a street corner, smiling at passing motorists. When a john pulls up, she engages him in conversation designed to get him to offer her money for sex. When he does, he is then busted. The idea is, if they arrest the johns, they will force the hookers to find some other form of work.

But what about the aftermath of all this? Most of the time, the john is some lowlife who is out looking to get laid by a hooker. This guy has nothing going for him and very little to lose by being busted for solicitation.

But, all too often, the potential customer is not just some lowlife with nothing to lose. All too often, he is a married man with a family, a good job, and a great deal to lose by being arrested for solicitation. In many communities, the local newspaper takes great delight in publishing the names of men arrested in prostitution sting operations, the idea being that public shame will deter other, potential offenders.

So what happens to the businessman who gets caught soliciting a "hooker" for a quick blow job or some such? Potentially, a great deal. The immediate, legal consequences are obvious: arrest, guilty plea, probation, fine, conviction on record until expunged. But what about the other consequences to a man of substance? Potentially - divorce, loss of job, possibly loss of career, loss of children, financial disaster and, in some extreme cases, death by suicide caused by depression over everything that happened because of the arrest, prosecution and conviction.

On balance, is this right? Is it fair? Consider what happens to a hooker if they bust HER for engaging in prostitution. Very little. She is taken to the station and booked. If she has a pimp, the pimp bails her out and she is back on the street within a matter of hours. She may ultimately have to pay a fine (that is, her pimp has to pay the fine as a practical matter), she may have to do a day or two in jail, end of story. To the hooker, it means very little, because she has very little to lose.

I submit that the potential harm to the man of substance who gets caught in one of these operations is far, far worse than the potential harm to the hooker. Yet, our system seems totally oblivious to this fact. It doesn't care. I think it should care. I think that a little weighing and balancing should be done on a very realistic and practical level, and the criminal justice system should recognize what is going on in this type of situation, and back off on "busting the john." Bust the hooker, if you want to continue to make prostitution illegal, but lay off the john. The punishment to him, all in all, is WAY out of proportion to the punishment for the hooker.

This thread is prompted by a post MikeK made in the other thread on legalizing prostitution. I await, with interest, the comments on this OP.

Sounds like George got busted for soliciting a prostitute and he's pissed.

I wouldn't make fun of someone else regarding prostitutes.

Other than PMing with you a few times, I've had ZERO contact with prostitutes in my life.

 

[Luissa]

Sounds like George got busted for soliciting a prostitute and he's pissed.

I wouldn't make fun of someone else regarding prostitutes.

Other than PMing with you a few times, I've had ZERO contact with prostitutes in my life.

So someone who charges people to piss on them is not a prostitute?

 

[fyrenza]

For myself, I see the "johns"/"men of substance" as sexual predators,

willing to betray the trust of their wives,

as well as whatever confidence their children and colleagues could put in their judgment.

Whatever "price" they pay?

They knew the risks, going in, and decided for themselves to take that gamble.

Last I heard, the folks in this country are free to make decisions for themselves, regardless of how good, bad or in-between those choices are...

 

[Luissa]

For myself, I see the "johns"/"men of substance" as sexual predators,

willing to betray the trust of their wives,

as well as whatever confidence their children and colleagues could put in their judgment.

Whatever "price" they pay?

They knew the risks, going in, and decided for themselves to take that gamble.

Last I heard, the folks in this country are free to make decisions for themselves, regardless of how good, bad or in-between those choices are...

Very true.

Then there are the ones who just can't get it anywhere else. I watch Cathouse on HBO every once in awhile. Many of the men just seem awkward, and like they probably find it difficult to find a woman to have sex with them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Make it expensive for the johns, the hookers will go away. There are always more hookers, but the supply has to meet the demand. Reduce the demand, you reduce the supply.

How expensive? Loss of marriage? Loss of marriage and children? Loss of marriage, children and job? Loss of marriage, children, job and career? Where do we stop?

First off, prostitution should be legal. So long as our blue-nosed, hypocritical society doesn't want it that way, then bust the hookers, not the johns.

If the guy was worried about his marriage, kids and career, he wouldn't have been out trolling for hookers in the first place.

IMO prostitution being illegal is stupid; 2 consenting adults should be able have sex whenever they want even if one gets paid for it but for now it's illegal and a guy decides to pick up a hooker then he's taking the gamble. The consequences are his and his alone to bear.

 

[marv]

There are actually three criminals involved; the "john", the prostitute, and the pimp. And now HIV and Aids can be added to the health hazards.

The pimp keeps the prostitute hooked on drugs which may eventually kill her. The prostitute may have sex with 30 or 40 or 50 "johns" a day, any of which may have god know what disease. The "john" goes home and spreads it to his wife/gf. The pimp drives off in a new Cadillac to find more girls. And the beat goes on!

We should legalize this, and tax it?

 

[bodecea]

Good idea.

Some products, like prostitution, pose health and crime hazards. All products require a market. Take away the market, and the hazards go with it.

True - but, in this case, shouldn't the potential harm to the male customer be considered, since it is so out of proportion to the crime committed? Compare the potential harm to the real criminal here - the hooker herself. Very little potential harm to the hooker as a practical matter.

Too bad.

 

[syrenn]

The short answer Gerorge is. That is the fucking you get for the fucking you got (or thought you were going to get)

Ya know. I have no sympathy for the john. They know full well what they are risking of they get caught.

 

[zzzz]

There are actually three criminals involved; the "john", the prostitute, and the pimp. And now HIV and Aids can be added to the health hazards.

The pimp keeps the prostitute hooked on drugs which may eventually kill her. The prostitute may have sex with 30 or 40 or 50 "johns" a day, any of which may have god know what disease. The "john" goes home and spreads it to his wife/gf. The pimp drives off in a new Cadillac to find more girls. And the beat goes on!

We should legalize this, and tax it?

It is legal in Nevada! Legalization though is another argument. George is (from my perspective) proposing a double standard. Sure a fine upstanding man loses a lot of face if he is busted solicitating a prostitute but if you commit the crime you must be willing to do the time or pay the consequences. That is what is wrong with society today, everybody wants a free ride! When you do or say something there are consequences, letting people off without paying those consequences is what leads to anarchy. Thats why there are laws and morals. This thread and the comments contained within show how far this country has fallen into the abyss of me, me ,me. It is no wonder why politics are so muddied with lies and mud throwing, why our families are falling apart and why we, America, are looked at by the world as imbeciles.

 

[konradv]

Prostitution seems to cause a host of problems around it. As it general rule, it seems that when you want to end a market, it is more effective to remove the customer from the equation than the supplier.

The drug market is a great example of this. As long as the customer base is constant, the supply will come in. No mater what the interdiction methods.

The Reagan policy on cocaine and the Kennedy Johnson policy on opium derivatives caused problems way beyond just the enforcement on the streets, and hurt US foreign policy.

Make it expensive for the johns, the hookers will go away. There are always more hookers, but the supply has to meet the demand. Reduce the demand, you reduce the supply.

Get the customer out of the equation? What you suggesting, we make men illegal?!?! The reason why there's no concerted effort to "go after the john" except for short-term political gain, is that it would lead to the eventual legalization of prostitution. Would the powers that be stand for such a thing over the long term, if it could potentially compromise their position? No, in such a situation, prostitution would become legal in short order.

 

[JWBooth]

Make it expensive for the johns, the hookers will go away. There are always more hookers, but the supply has to meet the demand. Reduce the demand, you reduce the supply.

How expensive? Loss of marriage? Loss of marriage and children? Loss of marriage, children and job? Loss of marriage, children, job and career? Where do we stop?

First off, prostitution should be legal. So long as our blue-nosed, hypocritical society doesn't want it that way, then bust the hookers, not the johns.

If the guy was worried about his marriage, kids and career, he wouldn't have been out trolling for hookers in the first place.

IMO prostitution being illegal is stupid; 2 consenting adults should be able have sex whenever they want even if one gets paid for it but for now it's illegal and a guy decides to pick up a hooker then he's taking the gamble. The consequences are his and his alone to bear.

Nailed it.

 

[George Costanza]

The short answer Gerorge is. That is the fucking you get for the fucking you got (or thought you were going to get)

Ya know. I have no sympathy for the john. They know full well what they are risking of they get caught.

That may be, but the ultimate punishment to the john does not fit the crime. Also, when a man wants a little, he isn't thinking with his brain . . .

 

[Skull Pilot]

The short answer Gerorge is. That is the fucking you get for the fucking you got (or thought you were going to get)

Ya know. I have no sympathy for the john. They know full well what they are risking of they get caught.

That may be, but the ultimate punishment to the john does not fit the crime. Also, when a man wants a little, he isn't thinking with his brain . . .

The punishment doled out by the court is not excessive.

You have an issue with the social stigma of being arrested for soliciting sex not the legal.

And as I said, a guy who cares so little about his wife, kids and career deserves to be thought little of just like any other idiot who can't exercise a little control over his bodily urges.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The prostitution laws seem to cause more problems than they fix. That said, if the state wishes to shut down an anti social activity, they need to do so in a way that does not create more problems and actually works.

The girls have nothing to loose, or they wouldn't be doing this.

The guys have a lot to loose. The way to shut down a crime is make it so there is no positive (HIV or otherwise) outcome.

enough guys do 30 days plus $2000 fines, there will be fewer of them trolling. And the fewer customers, the fewer vendors.

Another good rule would be guys are totally responsible for the real calendar age of the prostitute. Brining a new risk to jailbait.

 

[konradv]

The way to shut down a crime is make it so there is no positive (HIV or otherwise) outcome.

How is that possible? If there was no positive outcome to the crime, there'd be no crime in the first place! The reason it exists at all is because of this positive outcome and no amount of moralizing is going to change that or the desire of some to achieve it. The only real solution to the negative aspects are licenscing and testing. All others have tried and failed. They don't call it "The World's Oldest Profession" for nothing!