Legislators Mull Legalizing Child Prostitution
The Los Angeles Times reports on one of the few times our state legislature seems to have some courage and common sense. They're trying to end penalties for juvenile prostitutes and place them under "dependent children" status- under the control of Child Welfare Services in other words.
Why do I say they have courage? Because generally legislators fear dealing with the issue in this manner. They seem to feel if they support decriminalization of prostitution, everyone else will think they render themselves to the services of prostitutes.
That fear probably isn't too far fetched. I might have brought up here before the comments made on a Libertarian Party Facebook page. Someone asked how Republican Rand Paul felt about legalizing prostitution (though that shouldn't be a presidential issue). Someone else replied he's probably opposed to it since Paul was married. I had to point out just because someone might be supportive of others freedom, doesn't mean he engages in the behavior himself. The fact that Paul is married shouldn't have anything to do with it.
What's particularly striking about this effort is it involves juvenile prostitution and when kids are involved, people often lose their perspective and simply act on emotion.
It would be nice to see this effort extended to adult prostitution, where it probably should have started.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:37 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Punishing a prostitute, now that is after the fact as prostitutes are already punished when they decide to prostitute. Self imposed punishment due to lack pf self respect for ones sexual organs and immune system.
Personal choices Fred, remember, runaway girls are not free from guilt from their own puss poor choices.
Little Sympathy here.
The juveniles involved should not be prosecuted, just offered help to get out of their situation. But those who traffic them (pimps, gangs, organized crime) certainly should be, and so should the "Johns" who use child prostitutes. Because that's still child molestation, statutory rape, etc.
As far paid sex between consenting adults, that's another matter. I have no problem with that being fully legal.
Legalizing something isn't the same as decriminalizing something. The article you reference isn't about making child prostitution legal as your title suggests, but would decriminalize those children who are being sexually exploited i.e. minors who are being prostituted wouldn't be facing criminal charges.
if thats what gonna happen
leave it to calif. liberal legislature to make it legal to have sex with a minor
"eave it to calif. liberal legislature to make it legal to have sex with a minor"
As 12:37 pointed out they're just decriminalizing the acts of minors. I didn't see anything that said adults wouldn't be arrested for taking part in it.
"As 12:37 pointed out they're just decriminalizing the acts of minors. I didn't see anything that said adults wouldn't be arrested for taking part in it."
Your headline is potentially misleading, as it does kind of imply that might be the case, by saying that the legislature is "mulling legalizing child prostitution, which makes it sound like it would then be a legal industry. And that's not what they are "mulling."
"Your headline is potentially misleading, as it does kind of imply that might be the case, by saying that the legislature is "mulling legalizing child prostitution, which makes it sound like it would then be a legal industry. And that's not what they are "mulling."
Point taken. I do get confused when dealing with decriminalization vs. legalization.
11:11 already shared my thoughts.
12:37 is spot on. There's a huge difference between decriminalizing and legalizing something.
Now if they would only decriminalize those under 21 who smoke or who vape to stop smoking.
Speaking of vaping:
FDA says ecigs are more popular than tobacco, so therefore they must be obliterated. http://vapemestoopid.co/2016/08/the-fda-responds-to-the-right-to-be-smoke-free-coalition-lawsuit/
Post a Comment
<< Home