Posted on 03/16/2008 7:15:48 AM PDT by NYpeanut
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Selling sex isn’t illegal in Sweden, but buying it is — a radical approach to prostitution that faced ridicule when it was introduced nine years ago.
Now, while Americans are preoccupied with the downfall of New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer in a prostitution scandal, some countries are considering emulating the Swedish model, which prosecutes the client but views the prostitute as an exploited victim.
Officials say the changed approach has reduced the demand for prostitutes and reshaped attitudes toward the sex trade.
“We don’t have a problem with prostitutes. We have a problem with men who buy sex,” said Kajsa Wahlberg, of the human trafficking unit at Sweden’s national police board.
She said foreign law enforcement officials and politicians are coming to Sweden in droves to learn more about its 1999 law.
On Friday, Wahlberg was meeting with police officials from the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal but where authorities have closed some brothels in a crackdown on organized crime in Amsterdam’s red light district.
In January, a high-level British delegation came to study the Swedish approach as Britain reviews its own prostitution laws, which prohibit soliciting and loitering for sex, but not buying sex.
Norway’s government plans to propose a Swedish-style prostitution law after Easter.
Under Sweden’s so-called “Sex Purchase Law,” paying for sex is punished by fines or up to six months in prison, plus the humiliation of public exposure.
Pimps and brothel keepers are also prosecuted, but not prostitutes, because they are viewed as victims, treated as commodities in the sex trade.
While authorities judge the new system a success, critics question whether it has really reduced prostitution or merely pushed it off the streets into more isolated surroundings. Wahlberg concedes that accurate statistics are hard to obtain, but estimates the number of prostitutes in Sweden dropped 40 percent from 2,500 in 1998 to 1,500 in 2003.
She says police know from eavesdropping on human trafficking rings that Sweden is considered bad business because of its tough stance.
“They are calculating profits, costs and marketing and the risk of getting caught,” Wahlberg said. “We’re trying to create a bad market for these activities.”
If we just pass enough laws then we can create the perfect society.
Oh yeah, that’s what we are missing is more laws.
we do outlaw lying. If you make a false claim in an ad, you have to face a penalty. And tv shows are not allowed to have cursing or porn unless it’s on paid access cable.
Times Square used to be infamous for prostitution. The city is so much better after Rudy came and cleaned it up. Crime is down and people feel good about living here.
I've heard all of these arguments and moralizing by legislation reasonings before, not very convincing except for people who want the government to stop others from committing sexual sins.
“Just don’t come crying to to taxpayer for help if you get some strange STD, I say suffer with it, you made your bed, now sleep in it.”
that could work. we could have registries. “sorry, we can’t treat that lung cancer with tax dollars, you signed here in the “I want to smoke, leave me alone” registry.
next !!
“It’s usually only illegal when the recipient of the
largess has no doubt about the nature of their role
in the relationship.
Usually the legal indiscretion is merely being
insufficiently discreet.”
Wow.
“Why not legalize it? “
Which Country was that, that wanted to refuse young women unemployment money, because they refused to consider(legal) Prostitution as a career choice ?
it is limited by location. If you want it, you can go to nevada. I don’t want it in my neighborhood and most people here agree. I am not interested in changing nevada but I don’t want to live there.
Well, we’ve gone from hurting overall society to you don’t want it in your neighborhood. My work here is done. I guess this is my stop.
Since the Lesbo feminists have alot of power in Sweden, we should not be surprised that this law is in place.
Legalize it and regulate it. Tell the feminists and holy rollers that you can't change thousands of years of tradition, you will just push it underground.
Typcal lezbo mentality.
Make the man pay the woman for sex, then punish him for victimizing the woman he pays. Isn’t that just the way a lezbo would see it too?
well, most of American society doesn’t want it available in their neighborhoods either.
I doubt that for the information she is going to give when she spills her guts that her shyster wouldn’t have gotten her a deal that included no civil penalties as well.
Yep, it sure does. Tobacco, trans fats, candy, junk food, burgers ...
Don't tell me you object to any of these things being restricted, now!
How does Spitzer diddling someone about the age of his daughter harm YOU? You are part of society, please speak for society, because it doesn’t harm ME.
what do you mean how does it harm me? if spitzer stole $10 from Bob Smith, it doesn’t harm you either because he didn’t steal from you.
Maybe we should legalize stealing. It could be regulated so that it is ok to steal items less than $5. Most people don’t care about anything less than $5 anyway. So let’s make it officially legal and give an outlet for those kleptomaniacs who feel like pickpocketing spare change every once in a while.
we probably would have a lot less junk food if the govt didn’t subsidize grain (which leads to cheaper corn syrup and grain fed beef) and tobacco so much.
Your example is ridiculous. If he steals from another, he might steal from me or you, and that harms us. In any case, he did steal from the other, and should be punished (or better, should make good).
If someone diddles a willing prostitute, that in and of itself doesn’t harm the prostitute (who was willing, remember), nor does it increase the risk the person will want harm you or I.
But if you establish precedents that government should restrict certain behaviors, that DOES harm me because government never, ever stops at the limits first imposed on it, and now there are innumerable laws against other things, that infringe on my liberties - and yours too if you would look.
I agree with you that government shouldn’t subsidize things. They are especially schizophrenic on tobacco, subsidizing it as they do, and then taxing it and claiming it is responsible for all sorts of harms.
... and a murderer might have murdered you, but he didn't. If someone harms another, he is a threat to all and should be restrained or forced to make good.
And even if he did, you wouldn't care so much because he only stole a pen and even if you did care about the pen, for all practical purposes the police simply aren't capable of enforcing a law that goes after pen stealers.
You are mistaken, the law already recognizes different levels of crime for different levels of theft: larceny, grand larceny for example.
But in our case, Eliot was married. He signed a contract with his wife and broke it.
Breach of contract is a civil matter, not a criminal matter - unless fraud can be proved. Silda stands to gain hundreds of millions for her husband's breach if she chooses, and this without any criminal charges.
And most women do care a great deal if their husband breaks the contract.
I'm sure they do, which is why it's grounds for divorce on terms favorable to the wife almost everywhere.
And unlike other cases of adultery, it is possible for the govt to enforce because there is a money trail.
There are DNA trails and other such in many other cases (stains on blue dresses) too.
(also in this case, there is the issue of using public funds)
If that can be proved, I concur that he should go to the slammer immediately. But not because he spent it on a prostitute, but because he is corrupt. You don't need laws against prostitution to nail a corrupt politician, although I will concede it sure helped in this case.
His wife certainly wasn't willing.
First, you don't know this. They might very well have had a relationship of convenience or power-sharing. Second, that's why she stands to gain so much in divorce court if she chooses. So once again that argument is covered.
But what about the prostitute? In order for her to be willing, she has to know what she is giving up. She doesn't. She is giving up her human dignity which has an infinite value for a few bucks.
Life isn't certain, and is full of risks. You are verging far from the Founder's intentions if you think this should be under the purview of the federal government. Did someone who bought Bear Stearns on Friday for the bargain-basement price of $27 a share know what risks were present? It opened near $3 today. If you think the government has the duty to prohibit all forms of behaviors that bring risks, then you apparently don't want to live in anything like what I could call a free country. Skydiving, dining in restaurants, riding cars or bikes, or going surfing ... all of these things can kill you, let alone take your "dignity" (which incidentally isn't defined in federal law).
In this edge case, I'm saying No, that is an invalid transaction made on false information.
You can't legislate those and preserve freedom, I'm afraid. I wish people like you would stop trying.
In the case of child prostitution you'd probably agree that is also a transaction made on false information.
Sure, they can't give consent because they don't possess it.
In a case of a kid who buys a candy from a candy store, we'd agree that it is a legitimate transaction and should be legal. In that case, human dignity is not at issue.
Although liberals are starting to act against junk food, and you won't be in much of a position to object if they do, because they're using your argument ... obesity leads to lack of dignity. (They call it "self-esteem" or something.)
well, we can look at some European countries that have no problem with legalizing prostitution and they also have no problem with socialism.
One has no bearing on the other.
We've also seen that as a result of the sexual liberation, there are a lot of single moms and they are a key constituency for the democrats.
I don't think you can pin this on prostitution.
They want govt to provide stability. If we had a culture that promoted strong families, there would be less dependency on govt.
There might be a way for "culture" to promote strong families, but having the government ban prostitution isn't a way to do it, and neither does our government giving huge tax incentives for single women having lots of children do it.
The communists have always realized this and that is why they have worked so hard to break down traditional 'bourgeois' institutions, like marriage and religion, so that they can be replaced with govt institutions.
Um, I'm not suggesting that prostitution become a government institution. Rather, that government should not attempt to ban all bad choices from its citizens, in a misguided attempt to legislate into utopia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.