Prostitution Sting Operations

[Dre89]

I saw a TV program where female police officers would pose as hookers and initiate conversations with men for sex. If the man agreed they'd take him to a room where he would be arrested for using prostitution.

I think they just spend a night in jail, but to me these sting operations are controversial because the cops are actually baiting men into 'crimes' they may not have committed otherwise.

I think what makes it worse is that the legal system is focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. So the cops are baiting people into a punishment that may be gratuitous because they may never have committed that crime otherwise and thus a punishment wouldn't have been required.

Anyway, just something to try and bring some life back to the deadbate hall.

 

[Sucumbio]

uh, lol, ok.

thing is though that undercovers are in operation within the confines of other real criminals, so... it's not exactly baiting men into breaking the law. it'd be different if undercover cop prostitutes tried to pick up men at say, the McDonald's or the Public Library, but... it's usually in a city's "red light" district (like the combat zone in boston) so if a dude is there to begin with, chances are he's there to pick up a prostitute.

same goes for undercover drug operation... typically if you get busted buying dope, it happened not because a cop lured you into buying it, but because you were there to buy it, and you just happened to buy it from the wrong person.

moral of this story: don't trust anyone!

I always get a kick out of people who ask "are you a cop?" as if it means they'll be saved if the undercover fails to identify themselves. I dunno how this misnomer got circulated, but an undercover has no obligation to blow their cover just cause you ask them to.

 

[Ussi]

If she was dressed like a hooker then arresting the men who fall for it seems fine to me. If its only a night in jail, that's a wake up call for most people. But for those who are caught again should be charged in court with rehab. Of course going off what the guy above said as well with the area the man is in.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Honestly, it's doubtful the cop posing as a prostitute actually lured the guy herself, as men tend to willingly approach prostitutes and initiate deals. It's understandable if it was the woman who initiated it, as you mentioned, in which case could be a potential cause for entrapment, but seeing as what Sucumbio mentioned, these stings take place in areas where men are there solely for prostitutes, so it's not like they were unlikely to commit any crime.

 

[Sinister Slush]

Exactly, Sol.
If the male approached the cop and paid for her to engage in sexual acts with him. Then he most likely has done it before which is only understandable that he'd get taken in for doing this.
If the female cop initiated, it's still mostly the males fault for agreeing to the terms when he could've objected at any time.

Let's use this terrible example, if she was selling drugs and a random guy came up to her to get the goods without hesitation, he'd of course get taken in right off the bat for obviously taking illegal drugs at one and doing it on a regular basis.

If the cop offered first while the male eventually agreed to buy them off her hands, he'll only get taken in right then and there as well for agreeing. Since even if it was gonna be the first time he bought/took drugs, that only meant he'd most likely get addicted and start going around the general area for more.

I don't think comparing Drugs to Prostitutes was the correct thing I should've used as an example, but it was the best one I was able to conjure up.

 

[rvkevin]

I'm just going to drop this here.

Illinois Law:

720 ILCS 5/7-12) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-12)
Sec. 7-12. Entrapment.
A person is not guilty of an offense if his or her conduct is incited or induced by a public officer or employee, or agent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the prosecution of that person. However, this Section is inapplicable if the person was pre-disposed to commit the offense and the public officer or employee, or agent of either, merely affords to that person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense.
(Source: P.A. 89-332, eff. 1-1-96.)

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Boy that pre disposed line in that law is sure open for wide interpretation. What man isn't predisposed to getting a hooker? I wonder how wide the courts have ruled on that predisposed qualification.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm just going to drop this here.

Illinois Law:

Not sure if his point was that it was illegal, but more so that it is wrong.

 

[Dre89]

Sol- I saw the footage, the cops definitely initiated it. In fact some of the victims were complaining about that.

I think it's a grey area when a person will only commit a crime given a certain temptation. In some cases the cops could be creating crimes that may have never been committed otherwise.

 

[Sex Robot]

You shouldn't punish a man for wanting to get doooooooooooown.

Then again you shouldn't have to pay to sex up this tooooooooooooown.

 

[Dre89]

Sex Robot strikes again.

 

[Claire Diviner]

@Dre.: Then if that was the case, couldn't that be labeled as entrapment? I mean, again, I suppose it could depend on where it happened, and who it is they lured, but surely there should be a fine line between stings and entrapment that the cop who initiated the conversation crossed.

 

[_Keno_]

Eh, I think drugs and prostitution should be legal anyways. They will both always go on regardless of laws and just cause more trouble being illegal.

As for entrapment, I'm absolutely fine with it as long as it's not an absolute waste of time and money.

 

[Dre89]

I would definitely consider that a waste of resources.

To me it's the equivalent of sending someone to jail overnight for being gay.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Yeah I don't see how having sex with tons of people for fun is just fine but you get paid to do it and then you are in trouble.

 

[Pachinkosam]

Prostitution is a bad way to have sex but the scary part is if that women or men has AIDS and got guts to give people AIDS. remember always hear a comdom to be safe i can go for more details.

 

[Kal]

Personally, I see no reason why prostitution should be illegal. Legalizing (and specifically regulating) prostitution is absolutely the best way to go, both pragmatically and, in my opinion, ethically.

I also think these sting operations are unethical, though this is difficult for me to explain without tying in the above aspect. I suppose it's possible that I would have no reservations about a sting in general, but the only examples I have at the moment are prostitution and drug-related.

 

[Ussi]

Prostitution being legal has a big grey area... Like will they be able to try to find customers anywhere now? What about public display of indecency? Can they look for customers where children will be? I think the worst might be teenage boys who might consider it for experience or cutting to the chase. Particularly the ones who think they have no hope in getting a girlfriend.

Guess regulation works, but the moment you announce its legal, you'll have riots from people against it. (unless i'm overestimately the amount of people against it)

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, prostitution, theoretically, can be legal with no real repercussions, if controlled properly. Yes, there's the whole indecency thing, but what if it was available late at night when most children should be in bed? When most people think of prostitution, they oftentimes think of the really dirty and diseased hookers, which is a fair thing to think of, I admit, but there's also such thing as classy, clean prostitution as well. There are brothels in the U.S. somewhere in Nevada that's running, and to my knowledge, they haven't run into legal issues, possibly due to the way they're run maybe.

Also, let's not forget the irony that is prostitution - a job where a man or woman is paid for sexual services - is illegal, yet pornography - a job where a man or woman is paid for sexual services in film - is perfectly fine. Plus, I imagine that by legalizing, and maybe even taxing prostitution, it could, in theory, help the economy if just by a little bit.

 

[Kal]

Prostitution being legal has a big grey area... Like will they be able to try to find customers anywhere now? What about public display of indecency? Can they look for customers where children will be? I think the worst might be teenage boys who might consider it for experience or cutting to the chase. Particularly the ones who think they have no hope in getting a girlfriend.

Guess regulation works, but the moment you announce its legal, you'll have riots from people against it. (unless i'm overestimately the amount of people against it)

You have to understand that prostitution has been legal before. It's also legal in Nevada (there is some upper-limit on population, so it's illegal in Las Vegas, but legal in some other cities), and yet there are no riots or commotion. And prostitution there is considerably better because it is regulated. I'm going to avoid any moral issues because it often falls down to whether you hold certain libertarian beliefs. Instead, let's agree to the following: prostitution will happen, whether it's legal or not.

Once we've agreed to that, it seems the best course of action is to regulate it. Regulation increases revenue for the state and increases safety for both the consumers and suppliers of prostitution.

There are some great analogies to be made regarding the legality of drugs, but I won't touch on them just now. An important point to realize is that the only people who benefit from prostitution being illegal are, essentially, the pimps. If prostitution is legal and someone refuses to pay a prostitute after having sex, the prostitute doesn't need to call a pimp who threatens both the safety of the prostitute and the safety of the customer. The prostitute can just call the police! But, when you make this service illegal, you can't resort to legal channels to acquire justice.

Sol Diviner, the actual legal distinction is that, in pornography, the actors are being paid to perform with other actors. With prostitution, the customer is paying the prostitute for sex. The distinction is stupid, in my opinion, but that is the way the law sees it.

In my opinion, a much better common-sense justification for the legality of prostitution (especially since there are some who would seek to make pornography illegal) is to note the following: a person can give away sex for free, and there are no legal ramifications for it. But once that person charges for it, it suddenly is illegal. So, I ask, what sense does it make to not allow someone to sell what they can legally give away for free?

Edit: I also urge people to avoid demonizing the profession. You can have personal qualms with prostitution, but it's important to keep them personal. Not everyone shares these views. I personally have a hard time thinking less of a man over sixty years old who, having lost his wife, "resorts" to prostitution to acquire some intimacy.

 

[Pachinkosam]

But imagine getting AIDS in such a young age and you can't have kids.
Theres always pornstars but they dont get paid alot money as we speak.
My point is that sex is good but when it needs to be good man.

 

[Kal]

The likelihood of getting HIV from a prostitute when prostitution is regulated is extremely low. And honestly, does anyone really think that, with legalized, regulated prostitution, we would allow minors to engage in sexual acts with prostitutes, when we don't even allow them to purchase tobacco or alcohol? Also, women with HIV are very much capable of having children (not that this should necessarily be relevant). When taking the proper medication during pregnancy, a mother is very unlikely to pass the virus onto her child. I can try and find specific details on this if you'd like.

How much money a prostitute or porn star earns shouldn't impact the morality or legality of these professions.

And I don't really understand what you're going for with the third line.

 

[Battlecow]

Boring topic. Of course prostitution should be legal, and of course the issue is entrapment, which the female cops were probably not committing, technically.

 

[Dre89]

If the topic is boring why would you post?

"Oh that boring show is on, I better go watch it".

We get it mate, you're some straight-talking enigma that lives by his own rules. You don't need to develop your image anymore by making posts that contribute nothing to the conversation.

 

[1048576]

It's absurd. Here's $20 lets have sex is illegal but here's a $20 walmart giftcard celebrating our first sex lets have sex is fine.

Anyway if someone left $5 on the ground and then arrested you when you kept it and didn't turn it in, that's pretty much the same thing, and equally stupid. People are rational creatures. They will commit crimes if they think reward > risk. Instead of spending 1000s of dollars to test that theory over and over, why don't they try actually reducing the reward or actually increasing the risk.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

This isn't a moral issue, we can't have the government taking "moral stances", the motto for the US is that a free country is a superior country to live in. As a result it should be legal and simply regulated. I think that is Battlecow's point, it is clear that the government shouldn't have it illegal. It literally makes no sense, especially when people aptly point out strange distinctions and the poor logic behind it.

Also just imagine how much better guys will treat girls when they have an outlet for sex that is separate from friends and acquaintances. XD Kind of serious with that, I mean, guys are always concerned about getting their fix, now those that have that problem bleeding into their approach with the opposite sex, they may actually have a healthier lifestyle from using prostitution. Who would have thunk it?

 

[Battlecow]

If the topic is boring why would you post?

"Oh that boring show is on, I better go watch it".

We get it mate, you're some straight-talking enigma that lives by his own rules. You don't need to develop your image anymore by making posts that contribute nothing to the conversation.

I was giving input. I think the topic is boring, so we should move on to a better topic, in which there might be actual disagreement and, y'know, debate. I don't have any ideas, but it's worth a post to point out that everyone agrees and that we should move on.

You seem to be waxing somewhat more emotional than the situation warrants.

And I totally am a straight-talking enigma who lives by his own rules. I resent the implication that it's some kind of "image."

It's absurd. Here's $20 lets have sex is illegal but here's a $20 walmart giftcard celebrating our first sex lets have sex is fine.

yup

Anyway if someone left $5 on the ground and then arrested you when you kept it and didn't turn it in, that's pretty much the same thing, and equally stupid. People are rational creatures. .

People aren't perfectly rational creatures. They're pretty moral as well. Grabbing five bucks off the ground isn't immoral by any standard, whereas many people consider soliciting a prostitute to be immoral. Therefore, laws regarding dollar-picking-up will not be enforced for small amounts, whereas prostitution laws will be, to some extent.

They will commit crimes if they think reward > risk. Instead of spending 1000s of dollars to test that theory over and over, why don't they try actually reducing the reward or actually increasing the risk

You wouldn't call undercover sting operations resulting in many arrests an increase in risk? Out of curiosity, how would you increase the risk of soliciting a prostitute, if not by arresting johns?

 

[Claire Diviner]

This isn't a moral issue, we can't have the government taking "moral stances", the motto for the US is that a free country is a superior country to live in. As a result it should be legal and simply regulated. I think that is Battlecow's point, it is clear that the government shouldn't have it illegal. It literally makes no sense, especially when people aptly point out strange distinctions and the poor logic behind it.

It's funny how the U.S. is the land of the free, yet prostitution is illegal, while in other countries, it's perfectly fine. U.S. law and so-called morals seem to have quite a ways to go.

Also just imagine how much better guys will treat girls when they have an outlet for sex that is separate from friends and acquaintances. XD

I don't really think that will actually change how men treat women. If a guy finds women as objects and treat women in general badly, then there isn't much that legal prostitution will do to fix that. Worst case scenario, it could actually worsen how men view and treat women, unless there's something I'm missing from your point.

Kind of serious with that, I mean, guys are always concerned about getting their fix, now those that have that problem bleeding into their approach with the opposite sex, they may actually have a healthier lifestyle from using prostitution. Who would have thunk it?

I'd like to believe it would go some way into improving the self-esteem to those with already low self-confidence. It can also theoretically (and I stress the word "theoretically") reduce the amount of **** and other sex-related crimes, seeing as a man can simply release whatever tension and stress he may have through prostitution services. With taxing and regulation, an escort service can actually be beneficial for the country as a whole. Of course, the same can be said for women looking for gigolo services as well.