Law-enforcement officials are criticizing bills which aim to make indoor prostitution illegal by closing existing loopholes.  The House and Senate have each passed different versions of a prostitution bill, but according to law-enforcement officials, neither goes far enough, and may pose even more problems.  The Senate bill (S-0956) would actually replace criminal penalties with civil sanctions, which get progressively worse until a third offense is committed.  Robert Healey, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, had this to say:

“A fine does not equal a conviction,” said Michael Healey, spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch. . “So if you’re not convicted of a crime the first time, the second offense actually becomes the first offense. You see the sort of twisted logic there?”

The Senate bill, Healey said, treats first-time offenses like a “speeding ticket” and, as a result, “doesn’t fully criminalize indoor prostitution.”

     State police Supt. Col. Brendan P. Doherty also wrote that, “Rhode Island State Police cannot support civil sanctions for such reprehensible acts.”   Is anyone else troubled by how anxious the Attorney General and State Police seem to be to lock people up?  The General Assembly is working diligently to criminalize a behavior which takes place behind closed doors between consenting adults, which has been legal for over 30 years, and doesn't seem to bother most Rhode Islanders.  Then, we have law-enforcement officials complaining that they won't be able to arrest as many people or punish them as harshly. 

     The strong reaction from the law-enforcement community raises an interesting question: Why didn't they weigh in sooner?  Legislation has been proposed in one form or another for the last few years, and has garnered a great deal of attention.  Why did they wait until the eleventh hour to make their complaints known? 

     As for the General Assembly, it looks like they knew exactly what they were doing.  With groups like NOW, the ACLU, Direct Action for Rights and Equality, and others testifying, the typical legislator probably knew that support for a "tough" prostitution bill wasn't there.  Knowing that support would be lost as the penalties became harsher, they offered a watered-down bill to make it look like they were getting tough.  Maybe this wasn't the plan, but that is certainly the way it looks.

     It's too bad the General Assembly didn't mind their business from the beginning and spend more time focusing on the tough problems.  But then again, topics like taxation and pension reform don't get the sensational headlines like prostitution does.