The Long Debate, part of a New Era?

Greetings from The Slave Detective,

Continuing on from my quick look at 2013 I also wanted to come back to The Big Debate.


Of course this is way to big a topic for me to settle in one blog!

It is a debate I have covered quite a few times and one I’m happy to coherently discuss. I even offered a Poll on the subject. Not many voted to be fair!

UN flag  V’s Dutch  flag  V’s Swedish flag

In the Free world we are blessed that to a certain extent we are free to make our own choices.

I believe that if someone wishes to sell their own body for sexual purposes and their own gain then as long as it is done within a legal frame-work this is their choice.

If one of my daughters came contacted me to say they had made a life choice (for themselves) that Prostitution was their life calling then I would have little option but to accept that. I have often spoken about that fictitious phone call “Daddy I want to be a prostitute!” and how unlikely that life choice would be.

So in a paper written in December 2013 I was interested to see how academics view things.  “Human Trafficking and Regulating Prostitution,” is written in an attempt to evaluate different Models of trafficking. It opens with this statement!

“All existing approaches – criminalization of prostitutes (“the traditional model”), licensed prostitution (“the Dutch model”), and criminalization of johns (“the Swedish model”) – fail to accomplish this goal, but we show that there exists an alternative regulatory model that does.”

It is only by discussing this theory and examining the merits of such research that we can make an informed decision. This additional article examines other research.

Certain sources estimate that 600,000 individuals are trafficked each year for commercial sexual purposes within and across borders – which corresponds to about one woman or child every 60 seconds. Although the clandestine nature of trafficking renders such estimates imprecise, it is clear that human trafficking is an enormous problem, not just for the number of victims but for the deplorable conditions under which they are held captive.

While condemnation of sex trafficking is near universal, there is disagreement on how to address it. Many in the debate have a vested interest or an alternative agenda in their argument.

Few have an honest held belief that their view is for the good of their country and man kind.

The equation is made all the more difficult when you take in various cultural beliefs, religious followings and interpretations of The Law of The Land.

The paper proposes a new regulatory model: licensing prostitutes and then criminalizing johns that buy sex from unlicensed prostitutes.

It states that:-

” This model can both eradicate trafficking and restore the purely voluntary equilibrium that would emerge in an unregulated market without traffickers.”

If this is a belief that I for one think it should be considered openly and honestly.

Read The paper and see what you think.

I think I should attempt a Poll on this subject too.

Tell me what you think?

 This report is obviously based on mathematical equations which often fail to work in the real world.

The theoretical analysis of how prostitution laws affect voluntary prostitution and sex trafficking yields several conclusions.

First, if the regulator aims to eradicate trafficking and restore the equilibrium that would arise in an unregulated market without traffickers, then the optimal regulatory framework combines licensed prostitution with severe criminal penalties on johns who purchase sex from unlicensed prostitutes. So far this model has not been implemented by any country, even though it is a combination of two existing regulatory frameworks.

Second, if the objective is to abolish all – voluntary and involuntary – prostitution, the Swedish model of criminalizing all demand is the optimal regulatory framework.

In the absence of voluntary prostitution, the Swedish model and the aforementioned one are equivalent.

Finally, criminalizing johns is always superior to criminalizing prostitutes.

The former is more effective against trafficking and comes without the by-product of inflicting criminal penalties on trafficking victims.

A central positive implication of our model is that the male-female income ratio is a key determinant of trafficking levels, the impact of prostitution laws, and the political support for such laws. A lower ratio reduces voluntary prostitution and thereby raises trafficking. With fewer voluntary prostitutes, criminalizing prostitution is more likely to reduce trafficking, and finds more political support.

Conversely, when the ratio is high, voluntary prostitution is more prevalent, political support for a ban on prostitution weaker, and such a ban is more likely to raise trafficking. To our knowledge, these predictions have not yet been tested.

Although the focus of this paper is the market for sex, our analysis in principle applies to other markets in which one side is voluntary but part of the other side is coerced. Examples include any other labor market supplied by human traffickers, or the market for organs where the analogue of the regulatory problem considered in this paper is that of curbing coercive organ trafficking while allowing for voluntary organ donations.

The one thing this report fails to adequately highlight is that if this model is not Policed properly it too will fail!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s