I was watching one of the "Cops" shows the other night. In this episode, this very pretty policewoman--sans uniform--stood out on the street, flagging cars down. When a guy would stop, she would ask him if he wanted to party. If he asked how much, she'd say $20 and told him to meet her behind a building. And if he drove back behind that building, well, you know who would be waiting---handcuffs and all. Maybe it would have never even this crossed his mind but he sees this pretty and healthy looking young lady standing there----I'm not trying to justify his actions, but isn't this seduction in it's "broadest" terms? Why couldn't his attorney claim entrapment--isn't it?
***************************************************************
12-08-03, 10:34 PM
K.K.
If he accepts the offer it clearly implies the intent to participate the commission of a crime.

This is similar to the times we have all seen where a wife or husband hires what they think is a hit man (undercover cops) to knock off the spouse. These are crimes of conspiracy, an illegal act in itself.

So, no, entrapment is an excuse in court, but in reality there is no reason to think that these individuals would not have gone on to commit the 'rest of the crime' had they been allowed.

John DeLorean had the best case for entrapment ever seen and he went to prison anyway. I am one of the people who watch all of the thirty+ hours of surveillance tapes of him being framed. That was a loss of innocence for me.

I could not believe he was so obviously framed when all he wanted was a loan to make some good cars for the people of the world. He repeatedly told the agents he was not interested in breaking the law but they convinced him that if he would carry some cocaine for them, he would get the loan he needed. And his legacy was that he went to prison, his wife left him and posed nude in a magazine and the world missed out on the second "Tucker" of the modern era.

Quite simply he was a threat to the big guys and they pulled strings to get him shut down. That was entrapment IMHO, but they did get him to commit a crime.

12-08-03, 10:46 PM
Kelleygirl
KK, in the scenario that I gave,is it a crime if they haven't engaged in sex yet? Some guys pay prostitutes just to talk with them because they're lonely. They're soliciting their time but not always for the same reason.

12-08-03, 11:18 PM
K.K.
"some guys pay them to talk to them"

Uh huh...

That is one of the lame excuses they use in court I imagine. And although there are probably a small handful who do this, it is unfortunate since most prostitutes are misanthropes in the first place and don't care a hill of beans about men.

12-09-03, 12:27 AM
LaPisLaZuLi
In all the tapes I've seen of this type of thing, the conversation goes like this:

Girl: Want to party?
Guy: How much?
Girl: Well, that depends. What do you want?

Aha! There it is! Now he has to say what it is he is out to get. I never have seen a guy say, "Oh, I just want to talk."


But, yeah. I have to agree. It still seems like entrapment to me, also. My reason being that the definition of entrapment is the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it.

When the girl says, "Want to party?" There is a chance that the guy wasn't thinking of that at all, but slowing down to turn the corner when the girl flags him down. That is a lure. Not as blatant as poor Mr. DeLorean, but to my eyes it's entrapment anyway.

12-09-03, 09:30 AM
Georgia85
I'd say it was either entrapment...or poor police procedure. From my understanding, an undercover vice cop is never supposed to quote a price nor a sexual activity.

12-09-03, 10:50 AM
Texan-In-Exile
Entrapment?
Hey - they could just say No! Wink

Like the traffic cop hiding behind a tree - if you're not speeding, you have nothing to worry about.

12-09-03, 12:11 PM
DorianGreyed
Courts have almost uniformly recognized that the offender must broach the subject of price and specific activity. Once that has happened, the courts generally feel that the customer has committed the crime of solicitation. Prior to the talk of price, the conversation could easily be a legal one, but with the introduction of a price, it becomes a discussion of an illegal activity, one the courts will allow an officer to engage in only because the other party has first mentioned a price, thus showing an interest in violating the law. If the courts did not allow police to pose as hookers, it would be very difficult to enforce prostitution laws, a situation regarded by some as a bad thing. To answer Kelley's question more completely, it is not entrapment because the courts say it isn't. Using the dictionary definition of entrapment, it is.

12-09-03, 02:32 PM
puppyblues
What's a 'sans' uniform?

12-09-03, 02:39 PM
IamTWP
Puppy, sans means without...

12-09-03, 02:53 PM
DorianGreyed
Pup, just click on the word, remember?

12-09-03, 02:55 PM
blam
What's wrong with entrapment anyway? Somebody has to want to commit a crime, for whatever reason, to do it. To hell with them, nail the jerk.

12-09-03, 03:27 PM
DorianGreyed
In the US, and possibly in the UK as well, entrapment by law enforcement is regarded as illegal, just as prostitution is in all but one state. There is no way of knowing that a person had prior intent of committing a crime if they were lured into it. KK's example above gives such a case.

12-09-03, 10:14 PM
puppyblues
doh! forgot about the double click, DG! Thanks Big Grin

12-09-03, 10:54 PM
Tree
I suppose that the guy should have said "YA, I wanna party.." and merely asked for the address of the "party place". No monetary information should have been exchanged!

Entrapment - YES! Stupid - YES!

12-10-03, 04:40 AM
blam
I know entrapment is illegal, I just don't know why it is, it's not as if it would turn an honest person into a criminal, it just gives the criminal an opportunity to commit crime while being observed. Unfortunately opportunities arise when they are not being observed and they take them and never get caught, so entrapment is just a way of finding out who's who.
Send 'em down!

12-10-03, 06:31 AM
Katanya2000
My question is why is so much money, time, and effort made on the part of the police force for something which is, essentially, a victim-less crime. Don't Police have some REAL criminals to catch?

12-10-03, 07:05 AM
K.K.
Not victimless. If your husband, boyfriend significant other patronized call girls and gave you a deadly dose of aids, you would not see it as victimless. If he was arrested and you were ousted from the ladies clubs you had become respected in, you would not see it as victimless. If the perpetuated spread of aids led to the death of your child born with aids, you would not see it as victimless.

12-10-03, 07:31 AM
Katanya2000
The commission of the crime itself is victimless. Not everyone who sleeps with a prositute is married. NOt everyone who sleeps with a prostitute gets aids. To state that the laws are there to protect hapless wives is beyond silly. A man who wants to cheat will find a way to cheat whether he pays for it or not.

12-10-03, 07:47 AM
Kendor
Katanya, your insight is most definitely refreshing.

12-10-03 10:15 AM
DorianGreyed
Blam, are you saying that Delorean (above, in KK's example) was a criminal before he was enticed into smuggling? Please tell us what crime he had committed. While this may come as a surprise, every john had a first time, and most men arrested for soliciting a prostitute have no priors, according to a news report I saw on prostitution a few years ago. Illegal betting on football in the US is a huge business, and millions of men (and women) do it every week-end in football season. Are they all jerks and criminals who should be sent down, Blam, or is there possibly something wrong with the law?

KK, only the fact that prostitution is illegal (and the resultant publicity) would cause the 'loss of face' with the ladies' club you mentioned. If prostitution were legal, there would be no arrest, and therefor no such loss. If a woman's husband was arrested for taking bets, she would probably suffer the same loss, but if another husband owned a casino, there would be no similar loss. So it is not the act, but the law that causes the problem that you mentioned.

If, as some desire, cigarette smoking becomes illegal, do smokers then become hardened criminals, to be avoided by polite company? Does the enactment of a law really change the morality of an act? If a man frequents prostitutes only where it is legal (most of Nevada), is he still moral when he goes back home to Texas, or would his wife suffer the same loss of club membership?

12-10-03, 01:17 PM
babthrower
I hardly ever disagree with Kat but...

Street prostitution is horrible and should be stopped. Here we have just tried our most prolific serial killer in Canadian history. He lured at least 50 women with promises of drugs, then killed them.

If only 'house' prostitution were legal, then there would be much better control, and fewer deaths like the Green River killer's victims.

There are cowards out there who simply love to kill people. They find street prostitutes easy prey. The prostitutes themselves are not overly attached to life, it seems, and almost flirt with death. But just because a person is not O.K. mentally is no excuse for killing her.

So, yes, I want to see those who patronize street prostitutes harassed (by local citizens) and prosecuted by the law. Almost as much as I want to see the patrons of child pornography harassed and prosecuted. Without the patrons, these harmful and antisocial behaviors would not 'pay'.

Paying for something encourages it.

[This message was edited by babthrower on 12-10-03 at 01:52 PM.]

12-10-03, 01:29 PM
JohnGalt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KingKrimson:
Not victimless. If your husband, boyfriend significant other patronized call girls and gave you a deadly dose of aids, you would not see it as victimless. If he was arrested and you were ousted from the ladies clubs you had become respected in, you would not see it as victimless. If the perpetuated spread of aids led to the death of your child born with aids, you would not see it as victimless.
-----------------
But what if that same married man goes to the local bar and hooks up with a woman willing to perform the same "service" for free and he gets AIDS from her? I don't know the numbers, but I would imagine this "legal cheating" spreads diseases far more than prostitution. Besides, since prostitution was legalized in Nevada, the Center For Disease Control in Atlanta reports there has never been a single case of AIDS or any other STD from a legal brothel. If it were legalized, there could be some form of regulation and safety/medical measures taken - as is now the case where it is legal in Nevada. Heck, not even I would complain about some regulations and taxes on it! Smile None of that can happen now that it is driven underground.

12-10-03, 02:03 PM
Katanya2000
Babthrower, actually we DO agree. I also thing that street prostitution is horrible. The answer to stopping prostiution is not to harrass or arrest those that sell themselves or the buyers. It is to focus on the social ills which create the type of prostitution which you (and many others) find so abhorrant. Prostitution is a symptom of a greater problem and it is THAT which needs to be addressed. However, even in our most enlightened societies, prostitution exists in some form. People "sell" themselves in many ways, not just on the streets. That is the reality which most people choose to ignore, unfortunatly, and unless the core of human desire changes drastically, it will always exist.

Stripping prostitution of it's social stigma, sanitizing it, regulating it, and taxing it would solve a number of the other problems that are associated with prostitution. Violence, disease, drugs, ect. ect. Cops will continue to harrass the sellers and the buyers, but the trade is not hindered and is not stopped. It is an effort in futility to FORCE people to comply to a level of morality which would eliminate prostitution, because in the end that is what it comes down to. What is prostitution really, except an agreement of services between two consenting adults for a prearranged price? Viewing it as anything more than that would involve coloring the act with moral, ethical, and social values. When the activity in question is, as I stated earlier, victimless (except when it's not), the moral standards of others shouldn't be the law.

Laws should be designed to protect. The best way to protect the public welfare is to legalize and regulate prostitution. Not, as JohnGalt stated, force it into the shadows.

12-10-03, 05:06 PM
JohnGalt
I'm sorry, Katanya2000, but if I gave the impression that I think prostitution should be driven into the shadows, then I was wrong - at least not driven into the shadows by the state. I may not like prostitution, but I think education, not legislation is the best way to reduce the practice. The social stigma involved can still exist on legal activities.

This issue goes beyond just the theoretical discussion on the nature of freedom and morality involved , or the paradox of why something perfectly legal becomes a crime the instant money exchanges hands - or even the discussion of money changing hands.

A very important aspect of this whole discussion is the siphoning of law enforcement away from more serious issues. On September 11, 2001, the FBI had a dozen agents investigating a brothel in New Orleans - they'd been listening to dirty phone calls for months as the terrorists took their flight classes and planned the attacks. And after the terrorist attacks, these FBI agents CONTINUED eavesdropping on the prostitutes' phone calls! Eek It is well known that prior to Sept. 11 there were more than twice the number of FBI agents assigned to drug crimes than there were assigned to terrorism. I'd be interested to know if a similar situation were true with the FBI and prostitution. Which activity really poses a bigger threat to our Republic? The voluntary and purely natural act between consenting adults or the violent act of trying to murder as many innocent people as possible?

If the FBI's own Classification Number Index is any indication, then their priorities are slightly skewed in my opinion. Prostitution is number 13 on their list. Acts of terrorism within the United States is listed dead last at number 266. Kind of makes you wonder if number 266 was hastily added to the list on September 12th. Wink

With only limited amounts of law enforcement personnel and tax money to pay for their investigations, where would law enforcement manpower and money be better allocated?

12-10-03, 06:16 PM
aminator2002
Interesting that this topic is appropriate.

I think it is entrapment. I think it is ridiculous that it is shown on TV. I think it is insane that people who are busted this way have their lives ruined and I think it's ridiculous that it is illegal in the first place. Prostitution is never going away... the police have better things to do than to protect men from felatio.

I think the Dutch have this right. Make it legal, keep it in certain areas, test the women for AIDS and protect them from violence by making it a legal activity.

12-11-03, 01:01 PM
Katanya2000
John Galt, I understood what you meant. I think I misphrased the sentance to make it seem like I thought your stance was opposite what it is. A little bit of akwarkd grammar. Where is Maiku when you need him?

12-11-03, 01:40 PM
cattywampus
I'm not maiku but my understanding has always been that it's entrapment if the cops lead/encourage/entrap someone who has no intention of committing a crime into comitting it.

For example, when I was a volunteer cop the Lt. gave me and my partner a stack of flyers to pass out to various businesses. She had already told me I was not to get out of the car (I didn't even have a bulletproof vest) but when my partner asked me to deliver one, I got out and did it. And I was let go. They deliberately set me up to see if I would get out of the car; my partner was in on it. Now I wasn't panting to deliver flyers, I simply did it because my partner told me to. To me, that's entrapment. I chose to follow my partner's orders instead of those of our superior's. Stupid, yes, but I still say I was entrapped.

Catty Roll Eyes

12-11-03, 03:03 PM
babthrower
That's a blast from the past, Catty. When I took my driver's test lo! these many years ago I was warned by a friend that the tester would tell me to do illegal things, i.e. make a left turn on red if the coast was clear.

So I didn't do it when he told me to do an illegal lane change. "Can't do that, sorry, it's illegal," I said, primly. Got my license.

I don't call it entrapment. It's just testing.

REmember those conversations you had with your mother?

"Why did you ride your tricycle through Mr. Smith's flower bed?"

"Janie told me to do it."

"Oh, and I suppose if Janie told you to jump off a cliff, you'd do that too, would you? DON'T DO STUFF YOU KNOW IS WRONG JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE TELLS YOU TO!"

You should have listened to your mother.

***********
Kat, I agree that we all sell bodily parts for a time for a fee; I've hired my brain out by the hour many times. Technically it's no different if I hire out my hands for typing, my legs for delivering flayers, or my ... well, you get the idea.

What's wrong is the environment. It's legal here, but persistent soliciting is illegal. But the hookers are still on the streets, and that's where the danger is. They're not health-checked, so I have no stats but I believe they become disease vectors in time. They themselves are at risk from those with a perverse hunting instinct.

So while there may (or may not) by pathology in wanting to sell one's body, and it may (or may not ) be possible to change their willingness to hire themselves out, I still think we could ameliorate the situation for both hookers and their customers if we legalized and health-checked houses of prostitution.

12-11-03, 03:16 PM
blam
If I hire my brain out I could make a fortune!


For hire, one brain, never been used!!!!! Razz

12-21-03, 11:29 AM
Ritzmar
I have just found this thread. This is my response to Kelleygirl's original post.

I think that any action by the police, of attempting to inveigle an innocent person into committing a crime or to indulge in immoral acts is odious in the extreme. If this nefarious practice really exists in certain parts of the US, then some the police officers there are as evilly corrupt as some of ours, and equally terminally contaminated. One wonders whether the worst villains of all are the ones in uniform. I have no words to express my true feelings on this filthy scenario, so unfortunately I will have to let you all draw your own conclusions... Mad

12-21-03, 12:04 PM
cattywampus
If entrapment is not illegal, it is at least morally indefensible, as Ritzmar says, and despicible besides. With the jails and prisons so full they are freeing convicted murderers to maske room for the newly convicted, you'd think the police would be satisfied to arrest those who break the law on their own, without police help.

But the line is fine, and it would be difficult, I think, to persuade lawmakers to broaden the law. If it happens to us, there are things we can do: write a letter to the editor, call your congressman and complain, vote for legislation that aids police in avoiding this practice. It ought to be illegal for law enforcement, on the job...in the home? Hmmm, I wonder...

Bab's statement "But just because a person is not O.K. mentally is no excuse for killing her," made me wonder. Babs, whould you have voted for the death penalty had you been on the jury that convicted Andrea Yates, a schizophrenic who drowned her 5 children? Would you?

Catty Mad

12-25-03, 07:50 AM
Super Atheist
cops dress up as hookers doing a sting are not supose to bring up money. when the john asks how much for this or that, then he can be bust.
if ya want to tell who's a cop and who's not, just listen for a money propistion or not.
If the prositute says hey cutey do ya want to party, try to keep her talkin and if she doesn't bring up money, she's propbly a cop. she has to wait for you to bring the subjuct of moeny before she can arest you.

[This message was edited by Karrow on 12-25-03 at 06:20 PM.]

01-03-04, 04:17 PM
blam
I still say, if one is not a criminal, then one won't commit crime.

01-03-04, 04:47 PM
DorianGreyed
In order to be a criminal, one has to have committed a crime, or are you saying that even the thought of committing a crime is a crime? If that is the case, you need to slow down, Ashcroft hasn't gotten there...yet.

01-03-04, 05:29 PM
JohnGalt

quote:Originally posted by Doriangreyed:
In order to be a criminal, one has to have committed a crime, or are you saying that even the thought of committing a crime is a crime? If that is the case, you need to slow down, Ashcroft hasn't gotten there...yet.


We got there long before Ashcroft came along and covered up the indecent Statue of Justice. Wink

We currently have thought crimes, and we've had them for quite some time. Although they are better known as "hate crimes."

A person kills another person for their money and they get charged with murder. A person kills another person because the murderer - in his mind - has bad thoughts about the victim, then they are charged withi committing an extra crime above and beyond the existing crime of murder. Hence, Thought Crime.

01-05-04, 05:52 PM
babthrower
Belated reply:

Sorry, Catty, I was too busy to check AP much over Christmas, I wasn't being rude not answering.


Bab's statement "But just because a person is not O.K. mentally is no excuse for killing her," made me wonder.

I would have listened to evidence presented by expert witnesses, and made my mind up based on that plus common sense.

If I thought she was sane, I'd have voted for the death penalty.

If I thought she was not sane, I would have voted for acquittal. But I would have to believe that she would be in custody for as long as she remained dangerous -- even slightly dangerous. Otherwise in the interests of public safely I would vote for death. It's okay to kill insane people if they are a danger to public safety.

The guy up here may have believed that it was okay to kill prostitutes and/or drug addicts because they are mentally unstable, weak, whatever. But he was wrong. Just because a person is not O.K. mentally is no excuse for killing that person.

01-05-04, 05:55 PM
babthrower
Can't edit my post (above).

I ought to have put Catty's quotation

"Bab's statement "But just because a person is not O.K. mentally is no excuse for killing her," made me wonder,"

in quotation marks.

01-05-04, 07:18 PM
cattywampus
My verdict, had I been given the choice would have been "not guilty by reason of insanity." I don't remember that the jury had that option. Insanity is a legal term, meaning, did the defendant know she was doing
wrong when she committed the act? The evidence (Some of her actions that day)seemed to indicate she did (waiting till her husband went to work, for example). However, a person can act completely sane and still kill children. I don't know the exact statistics, but probably one out of every 50 people you see on the street is mentally ill. Many of them are stabilized on meds so that you'd never know unless they told you. But Andrea Yates had stopped taking her meds weeks before. That should have raised a bright red warning flag to her husband, but he seems not to have cared one way or the other.

People need to realize that mentally ill people do not experience the world the way "normal" people do; they do not think like you do, they do not act or react as you do, necessarily. DON'T EXPECT NORMAL BEHAVIOR FROM THEM NO MATTER HOW THEY ACT! It's like a tiger raised by humans, it may act very loving, but don't be fooled - it's a predator and a wild animal and always will be.

Catty Cool

03-02-04, 03:30 AM
blam
Entrapment = (the mind of a normally law-abiding citizen) "I don't normally use prostitutes, in fact I usually wouldn't dream of using them, I'm a happily married man with two kids, but as she's asking if I want to do business, I think I'll see if I can afford a ****"

Gimme a break!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

Tonight's presentation of "One Minute Theatre"

The scene: A pub, at the legal closing time

Barkeep: Well, I've still a bit of work to do. Blam, you can have one more if you want it while I finish up.

Blam: One it is.

(Barkeep gives Blam another, accepts money, and gives Blam the change)
Barkeep (flashing badge): Busted, Blam, for purchasing alcohol after the legal time.

Blam: Well, that's fair enough. It's not like I was tricked into buying this. I must not be an honest person. I must have intended to commit a crime, and you gave me am opportunity. No need for a trial. I'm guilty. Send me down!
(Music swells)


Tomorrow's program will be pre-empted for the live coverage of "The Arab-Israeli Celebration: 56 Years of Peace, A Joyful Co-Existence", followed by "Kid Rock Sings Gershwin - Two American Classics "

Late Sports News- Luxembourg beats Andorra for World Cup, reversing the finish of the last Cup's finals.

Dateline, Washington: A reliable White House source said today that US forces are "close" to finding WMDs in Iraq.

And this, from Rome - Pope Dogspit has resigned, and Cardinal Ronny the Gent is expected to become Pope tomorrow.
*************************************************************
03-03-04, 01:08 AM
Ritzmar
I think your post illustrates my much earlier opinion expressed here eminently, DG...thank you. I could not have made your point more clearly however I tried. Wink

03-03-04, 02:29 AM
DorianGreyed
Thanks, Ritzmar, but my taking credit would be like Mel Gibson taking credit for the script of "The Passion of the Christ." He had great material to work with, and I had Blam. An old interviewing trick, known to both police and personnel managers alike, is to allow someone enough time, and they will trip themselves up. While it took almost 2 months to the day, it worked.

03-03-04, 03:42 PM
blam
What a crock! If I had a drink after time, then yes, I'm breaking the law, if I'm caught (by whatever means) then yes I deserve punishment (though I've never known anybody to be sent down for AT) so before you get any more smug with your 'victory' all you've done, in effect, is state what I think is right. How about paedophiles? Should we let them off if those nasty policemen set a trap for them?

03-04-04, 01:41 PM
babthrower
Crock is right! What, is there some special law that diminishes your responsibility if someone else asks you to do it?

'Honest, Judge, I never would of robbed that bank if Toby hadn't asked me to do it.'

Yeah, right.

If someone invited you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

Well, maybe you would. But you couldn't get the 'somebody' to pay your medical bills if you agreed to do it.

Responsibility has to start somewhere.

03-04-04, 04:08 PM
blam
Yeah, I mean ........... "I was only drinking after hours because the barman asked me!" It just doesn't wash. It's more like "I was only drinking after time because I wanted to and was provided with the opportunity."
Another scenario, boy throws brick through window. Are we to blame the person that left the brick where he picked it up?

03-04-04, 04:31 PM
DorianGreyed
Sorry, Blam, I just don't buy your story that you would accept being arrested without protesting that you were somehow tricked. Apparently, I am not the only one.

03-06-04, 11:36 AM
blam
What's tricked? Someone asks me if I want to do something that I know is illegal, I make the choice, knowing fully, the consequences if I get caught, by whoever, whatever the circumstances. Simple as that. Anybody who accepts a tempting (to them) offer from a stranger, or from someone they don't know really well, is a fool and a criminal. Stuff 'em!

and just to fall into line with your crock...

Dateline Washington :- Brick company sued for broken window. Razz

03-06-04, 12:04 PM
teeceeum
I am reminded of the story of Big Jim Folsom, Alabama politician and former governor, who, during one of his campaigns, was confronted with published photos of himself and women other than his wife in "compromising" positions.

His response was, "It's a clear and simple case of entrapment. My political enemies filled a hotel room with whiskey and women. Bait a trap like that and you'll catch ol' Big Jim every time."

I think he was re-elected.

11-04-05, 08:16 AM
Sarah51
Katanya -

You feel that prostitution is a victimless crime, but let me ask you this... what if your neighborhood and street were infested with prostitues stading out on the streets and having sex in alleys? Wouldn't you want the police to do something about it??? Also, prostitues frequently work for money to buy drugs, therefore some prostituion is supporting the drug market, which is absolutely not a victimless crime.

Let me just add this... police enforce what the public wants. More often than not, police pay little attention to crimes such as prostitution and gambling... until the public speaks up and the strategies are altered to reflect the wants of society. Check out the idea of selective law enforcement, that may answer some of your questions.

11-06-05, 05:45 AM
Ritzmar

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah51:
Katanya -

Also, prostitues frequently work for money to buy drugs, therefore some prostituion is supporting the drug market, which is absolutely not a victimless crime.



Some coal sellers, some fishmongers and some owners of liquor stores buy drugs. I cannot worry about what they do with my money once I have bought anthracite, a kipper and a bucket of malt whisky. Some shop owners may use my money to buy cigarettes (yuck! Revolting, filthy and highly dangerous things) and I am sure that some priests use money collected for a bottle of scotch, over which purchase some charitable contributors might protest in horror (I think it is money brilliantly invested, but that is another matter).

We cannot concern ourselves about how our cash, given for goods received, whatever the goods, will be used in the future by the receiver (obviously drugs, illegal arms deals, child-selling, etc. are not included. I know that this is obvious to most, but for one or two it just might need spelling out!)

On a purely personal level, and here I expect to receive heavy criticism from one or two (worry not, my shoulders are broad!) I have far more sympathy for prostitutes than do most of my friends and acquaintances. It can be a highly dangerous job (there are some murky characters out there) and hazards appear in many forms for the girls. Some men through deformity, age, feelings of inadequacy or what you will, find approaching women through 'normal' channels unproductive and ineffective. Others, maybe recently widowed or divorced may seek female companionship, and find it less complicated to visit a prostitute than to attempt to start a new relationship so soon, with all its commitments and responsibilites.

It has been said many times that, if there were no customers there would be no prostitutes. Well, there are customers and so there are prostitutes to cater for their needs. I am extremely lucky to have been married to a wonderful woman for 36 years. I make no great claims to have the answer as to how one goes about achieving a long and happy relationship. It seems to me that luck is a massive factor, as I am certainly no saint. But I do know that, had my circumstances been very different I might well have availed myself of the services which prostitutes provide. I happen to believe that some form of legally approved system of prostitution, rigorously monitored, will one day be in place in the UK. In fact when that day does finally come I will welcome it with open arms Only because my life fell so fortuitously into place have I never felt the wish to spend cash for what has always been here for me at home. But from my incredibly fortunate standpoint I could never condemn those who pay women for sexual favours...there but for the grace of God...

11-06-05, 11:16 AM
frankvan
I couldn't agree more with Ritzmar. What people choose to spend their money on is none of my business. And the fact that Katanya or anyone else might object to the activities taking place in her alley doesn't mean that the solution to the problem is to burden the police with enforcement of a stupid law.

The problem comes about because the practice is declared illegal in some places at the behest of puritanical voters. In those few locales where prostitution is legal, it is confined to places where the general public is spared from witnessing the activities taking place. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal it is under the regulation and control of the government. As a result a useful service is available to those who wish to participate and without danger to either party, from violence or sexually transmitted disease. Who could possibly object?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,