It’s a problem as old as civilization. It dates back to the dawn of humanity.
People fight over it, families are destroyed as a result of it. Neighbors argue with neighbors about it. Should we stop it? How can we stop it? Why won’t the government do something about it?
In horror we drive down the street, tsk tsking about them. We don’t want our children to see it, we just want the problem to go away. When is the City Council and the police going to do something? These people are elected and appointed to take charge, to make our fair city fairer, to keep them in their place.
What the heck am I writing about? Prostitution or homelessness? Hard to tell isn’t it.
The greater social evil is actually the homeless, yet which do we have laws against? Whom do we put in jail? Someone who is actually working for a living.
In the state of California we have a penal code that defines the criminal laws of the land. For example Cal. Penal Code 653.20. reads as follows: “For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (a) “Commit prostitution” means to engage in sexual conduct for money or other consideration, but does not include sexual conduct engaged in as a part of any stage performance, play, or other entertainment open to the public.”
Make no mistake about it, prostitutes work. Only we don’t consider it work, because a millennia or two ago, it was decided by some guy who probably got turned down by a professional, that it was “immoral” and therefore should be illegal. And a great source of tax dollars was relegated to the trash pile.
“Make no mistake about it, prostitutes work. Only we don’t consider it work...”
Two weeks ago, our fine police force was quite diligent in enforcing the law and arrested a business owner. He was arrested for providing a continuing nuisance because his hotel was used by prostitutes to ply their trade.
It remains to be seen what his actual role in this grand scheme was, but it seems to me to be another example of the law of unintended consequences. We as a society wish to foster stability in relationships and marriages. So to do this, we outlaw prostitution.
We politely ignore the fact that a fair percentage of marriages are those May/December kind that are a result of his money and her looks. But for the cover of decency provided by a marriage license, the above penal code section could be applied to many a marriage through that “… other consideration …” part. Personally I cannot tell the difference between that and the ladies of the night who are available for an evening — other than it seems like with the May/December marriage, one is buying wholesale versus buying retail.
Now the other reason we outlaw prostitution, in theory, is to reduce crime. Apparently there is a great deal of associated crime with the sale of pleasure and companionship. It seems that there is a probability of being mugged, drugged and infected with some nasty germs by associating with prostitutes. Frankly I think that comes with the territory and if you want to associate with people like that, you run the risks. Mom used to say, “If you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas.” But then again, Mary Magdalene was good enough for Christ, just not Pat Robertson.
I pretty much believe that the government should stay out of an individual’s right to be an idiot and a fool. Evidently I am in the minority here.
Our penal code is replete with language of morality and judgment that should be removed. I think the meaning of phrases like “house of ill repute,” “immoral place,” and “other place of questionable repute” are all rather vague. Given the high number of molestations in the Catholic church, maybe we should be shutting them down.
So the government decides that prostitution is bad, outlaws it and then arrests the hotel owner, the hooker, the hookee and the innocent spouse, then files for divorce. Sounds more like the full employment plan for criminal and divorce attorneys.
It seems to me that a better system would be to allow those who so desire it to become licensed prostitutes and limit the area in which they are allowed to ply their trade just like we do with other businesses. We could require that they be regularly tested for various sexually transmitted diseases and charge the businesses accordingly. That way we could increase the hotel tax income because many of these people do not want to use their own homes, understandably. We could increase the sales tax revenue by requiring the collection of taxes. We would increase our licensing fees and we would increase the number of government workers because where there is an industry, there must be a government agency to regulate it.
And with the added income to the city coffers, maybe we could hire a few more police officers to patrol the streets so my car wouldn’t get broken into by some drunk homeless guy who was kind enough to climb in through the partially open moon roof I accidentally left open, setting off my alarm at 2:15 in the morning. He did leave his ice cold beer for me though, so I guess I should be grateful for that. But it was only a Budweiser and I prefer the imported kind.
Clearly though, a hooker, who is minding her own business is a much greater societal ill than the homeless thieves that roam the streets of our fair city, driving away tourism and waking me up at 2:15 a.m. (David Pisarra is a partner in the Santa Monica law firm of Pisarra & Grist, he welcomes questions, and can be reached at (310) 664-9969 or e-mailed at DPISARRA@PISARRA.COM)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 19, 2003. Read the original PDF.