California May End Mandatory Jail Time for Sex Workers

[Libertine]

California Moves to End Mandatory Jail Time for Sex Workers

A good move backed by bad reasoning

by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
May 3, 2016

Good news on the prostitution-decriminalization front is pretty hard to come by these days, especially in states like California, Texas, and Washington where stopping "human trafficking" has turned into a full-blown war on consenting adults selling and paying for sex.

But wonder of wonders, the California legislature is actually considering a measure that would reduce the criminal penalties for sex workers, including repealing the current mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat prostitution offenders.

Under current California law, anyone convicted of a second prostitution offense must serve at least 45 days in jail, with subsequent convictions mandating at least 90 days jail time. Offenders may also have their driver's licenses suspended for up to six months.

The California Senate has already approved a measure to abolish these mandatory minimum penalties and the licence suspension provision, with Democrats largely in favor and Republicans largely opposed. The bill is now headed to the state Assembly.

But—of course there's a but, right?—the bill isn't all sunshine and lollipops from a feminist, libertarian, or sex-worker rights perspective. The reason its sponsor, Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel), gives for favoring reduced penalties isn't because he believes adults should have the right to enter into consensual sexual relationships without state interference. Rather, it's predicated on a belief that women lack sexual and moral agency.

Mandatory minimum jail sentences for prostitution is a "flawed policy," he said, because the women selling sex are "victims of human trafficking." He's not hoping for less arrests and prosecution of sex workers, he just wants those convicted to be sent to "diversion" programs.

Right now, with the mandatory minimums, judges are forced to sentence repeat prostitution offenders to jail; now they can give them the option of attending bullshit propaganda programs and only send them to jail if they decline the "help."

But who cares if it actually helps, right? For politicians, it's attaching one's name to a bill that counts. Right now, California lawmakers have introduced so many human-trafficking bills that they've become redundant, with a slew of overlapping bills covering the same legal territory. There are currently some 25 to 30 bills related to human trafficking in the Assembly alone.

Because none of these shameless grandstanding hypocrites dedicated lawmakers will actually withdraw their bills and risk losing the do-gooder credit, the bills are currently being held and sorted out by the Assembly's appropriations committee.


http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/03/ma...tution-may-end


Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an associate editor for www.Reason.com where she covers culture with an emphasis on sex policy, criminal justice reform, reproductive freedom, gender issues, and free speech.

[asiansam]

Wanna bet the same courtesies will NOT be extended to the participants on the other side of the transaction, namely, mongers? Oh no! If anything, the punishments will get progressively worse. After all, mongers are enablers of human traffickers, exploiters of women, and male chauvinist pigs who view women as sex objects and mentally rape every woman they see. You can't promote "victimhood" on the one hand if you don't have a "victimizer" on the other. And the more, the merrier! You can put away a shitload more mongers than actual, real human traffickers. That'll bump up the War on Human Trafficking stats!

[needasianspinner]

Maybe they should look at putting mongers on the sexual predator database. it should qualify as sexual abuse via economic extortion.

[chanceforester]

I'm sure they will if they can

[marsean]

Originally Posted by Libertine

California Moves to End Mandatory Jail Time for Sex Workers

A good move backed by bad reasoning

by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
May 3, 2016

Good news on the prostitution-decriminalization front is pretty hard to come by these days, especially in states like California, Texas, and Washington where stopping "human trafficking" has turned into a full-blown war on consenting adults selling and paying for sex.

But wonder of wonders, the California legislature is actually considering a measure that would reduce the criminal penalties for sex workers, including repealing the current mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat prostitution offenders.

Under current California law, anyone convicted of a second prostitution offense must serve at least 45 days in jail, with subsequent convictions mandating at least 90 days jail time. Offenders may also have their driver's licenses suspended for up to six months.

The California Senate has already approved a measure to abolish these mandatory minimum penalties and the licence suspension provision, with Democrats largely in favor and Republicans largely opposed. The bill is now headed to the state Assembly.

But—of course there's a but, right?—the bill isn't all sunshine and lollipops from a feminist, libertarian, or sex-worker rights perspective. The reason its sponsor, Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel), gives for favoring reduced penalties isn't because he believes adults should have the right to enter into consensual sexual relationships without state interference. Rather, it's predicated on a belief that women lack sexual and moral agency.

Mandatory minimum jail sentences for prostitution is a "flawed policy," he said, because the women selling sex are "victims of human trafficking." He's not hoping for less arrests and prosecution of sex workers, he just wants those convicted to be sent to "diversion" programs.

Right now, with the mandatory minimums, judges are forced to sentence repeat prostitution offenders to jail; now they can give them the option of attending bullshit propaganda programs and only send them to jail if they decline the "help."

But who cares if it actually helps, right? For politicians, it's attaching one's name to a bill that counts. Right now, California lawmakers have introduced so many human-trafficking bills that they've become redundant, with a slew of overlapping bills covering the same legal territory. There are currently some 25 to 30 bills related to human trafficking in the Assembly alone.

Because none of these shameless grandstanding hypocrites dedicated lawmakers will actually withdraw their bills and risk losing the do-gooder credit, the bills are currently being held and sorted out by the Assembly's appropriations committee.


http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/03/ma...tution-may-end


Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an associate editor for www.Reason.com where she covers culture with an emphasis on sex policy, criminal justice reform, reproductive freedom, gender issues, and free speech.

Hope they do sort their way through this and end any jail time for what amounts to victimless activities by massage providers. Behind closed doors between consenting adults these gals are doing society a favor and keeping it off the streets where it is really out there for public to see.

If they think this through society has a bigger problem with free love spreading STDs but they would never think about prosecuting purveyors of disease if it is free!

[asiansam]

Originally Posted by marsean

If they think this through society has a bigger problem with free love spreading STDs but they would never think about prosecuting purveyors of disease if it is free!

Yeah, all the other fornicators (who feel so superior to the mongers and providers they try to shut down) would start screaming about their rights, and how the government can't tell them what to do with their own bodies. Lol. Hypocrites.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by asiansam

Yeah, all the other fornicators (who feel so superior to the mongers and providers they try to shut down) would start screaming about their rights, and how the government can't tell them what to do with their own bodies. Lol. Hypocrites.

the original, the highest power laws will take care of all those fornicating hypocrites:

Leviticus 20:10

"If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Deuteronomy 22:22

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Jude 1:7

"Those who indulge in sexual immorality and fornication, and pursue strange flesh, will suffer the punishment and vengeance of eternal fire."


hahahahaha

[marsean]

Originally Posted by asiansam

Yeah, all the other fornicators (who feel so superior to the mongers and providers they try to shut down) would start screaming about their rights, and how the government can't tell them what to do with their own bodies. Lol. Hypocrites.

Exactly, and with a nod to Libertine's comment above as well re: higher law taking care of the hypocrites...I am sure it is all true, but in the meantime we are all spinning around the globe, living in this life, and I am sure there are hypocrites and adulterers among those who are in position to modify or establish the laws governing all of us. If that be true it is quite an amazing point and the height of hypocrisy that the very thought about the other fornicators who would jump so high to scream about their rights about their use of THEIR own bodies would totally ignore the same argument when it would come to involve a group of people they feel they have the right to consider or classify as below them and subservient to the laws they would inact of a higher moral standard than THEY themselves are willing live their lives under. Total Hypocrites. Maybe the lawmakers in this move of look at the law would do well to look at what all people tend to do with their bodies as consenting adults in private and behind closed doors rather than to single out what they consider "classes of people" due to their particular employment or choice of going into any legally established AMP or any private location to see any provider. Why should their be any scrutiny by LE at all of what consenting adults do behind any closed doors even if in legally established locations, as none of it is in the eye of the public, as in activities of streetwalkers or activities that are "out there" for public to see? Just saying.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by marsean

Exactly, and with a nod to Libertine's comment above as well.

Live And Let Live