David Cicilline spoke about his support for making indoor prostitution illegal.  It's too bad his argument and his ideas are senseless.  If you think I'm wrong, read the article, then read the rest of this post.  You will see that the Mayor doesn't think before he speaks.

     If you visit this blog regularly, then you know that I support keeping indoor prostitution legal.  48 other states have banned indoor and outdoor prostitution, yet is still occurs regularly.  In Rhode Island, I believe we have the perfect law: Ban it on the streets, but allow it indoors.  After all, why would someone risk being arrested by engaging in prostitution outdoors when they could engage in the same behavior indoors without fear of arrest, fines, and humiliation? 

     Unfortunately, the more puritanical among us have done everything they can to get rid of prostitution, even going so far as to portray it as being interchangeable with human trafficking, while ignoring the fact that there are laws against human trafficking.  Sure, there might be some human trafficking, but that can be taken care of with existing laws.  Their goal is to go after individuals making money on the side.

     I think the current prostitution legislation is awful, but if David Cicilline had his way, he would make it even worse.  Check out some of his ideas:


The mayor also asked the Senate to consider taking the law further. He wants a law that penalizes landlords that knowingly rent to brothel operators, grants immunity from prosecution to prostitutes who were forced into the sex trade and funds police training and prostitute rehabilitation programs through the seizure of brothel assets. 


     Did you catch that last part?  He's looking for money from a prostitution bill for police training and prostitute rehabilitation!  First of all, police officers go through rigorous training in the academy.  What else could they possibly be taught that they would need to arrest a prostitute?  Second, we have prostitute rehabilitation.  I would really like to know what this would entail.  It also leaves me with a bigger question: Does he know how ridiculous he sounds?  Is there ever a time when he isn't trying to squeeze money out of a situation for foolish reasons?

     As for his rehabilitation, the Mayor has tried to help some prostitutes in the city.  Although, it really hasn't gone well:

The city even created an outreach team with a female Korean translator, sexual assault counselors and legal experts to try and persuade prostitutes to leave the sex trade.

But in his letter to the Senate, Cicilline says the city found prostitutes were unwilling to cooperate: “So complete is the power of those who control the women that not a single person has accepted our offer of help.”


     Not one person wanted help?  The mayor cites the "control" that those have over the women, but could it be because they weren't being sexually assaulted, or that they didn't want to leave?  I'm sure it never occurred to the mayor to consider either possibility.

     My problem with the prostitution debate is how opponents to indoor prostitution make the argument into something it's not.  They make it about human trafficking, despite existing laws against human trafficking, or against brothels.  Here's a suggestion: If public officials are so opposed to brothels, then why not ban brothels and allow indoor prostitution to remain legal?  This would be a perfect compromise, since it wouldn't regulate the behavior between consenting adults, but it would close commercial operations that might be involved in human trafficking.  It seems like a plan to me.