As  you might know, Rhode Island is currently the only state where prostitution is legal if it occurs indoors (along with some counties in Nevada).  The current law is effective, but some representatives, namely Joanne Giannini, have been working hard to have the same ineffective laws shared by the other states.  I'm not sure if State Representative Joanne Giannini intentionally twists the truth when discussing legislation to close the prostitution loophole, or if she is genuinely misguided.  To hear her tell it, she doesn't want to punish prostitutes by putting them in jail, she wants to punish those who are responsible for human trafficking.  In Joanne Giannini's world, prostitution and human trafficking are synonymous, and every prostitute is a victim, not an individual making a personal choice.

     There are currently federal and state laws on the books which address human trafficking, but Ms. Giannini and law enforcement claim the laws cannot be applied, since prostitution is legal in Rhode Island (if it occurs indoors).  If criminalizing prostitution is necessary to prosecute those who are guilty of human trafficking, then how many arrests were made in the years prior to 2005, before it was discovered that indoor prostitution was legal?  If there were a precipitous drop in arrests and prosecutions, it would provide support for Ms. Giannini's position, but to date, I haven't seen such statistics. 

     Ms. Giannini also points to her desire to help underage prostitutes.  In her view, the legislation she proposed is necessary to prevent them from being victimized.  There's just one problem with this argument: There are already specific laws on the books that could be used to prosecute anyone involved with engaging or coercing a minor to take part in prostitution.  In addition to this law, statutory rape laws would also apply to those who engage in sexual activity with a minor.  Therefore, even if perpetrators couldn't be prosecuted for violating trafficking laws, they could most likely be punished using current laws.

     It seems that Joanne Giannini has moved from being an opponent of  illegal prostitution to being a supporter of victims of human trafficking.  Her personal reinvention is meant to show that she isn't out to victimize the victims, she's out there to help them.  She states her position here:

My bills are about helping these women, not hurting them. It’s important to note that my bill closing the prostitution loophole has an affirmative-defense clause establishing that being forced, coerced or threatened into prostitution is an allowable defense against charges. With that clause, women will cooperate with police because it will be clearer that identifying those who forced them into prostitution will not only free them from that life but will also clear their charges.


     She wants to help, not hurt these women.  She wants to go after those who "forced them into prostitution."  In the world according to Joanne Giannini, women have no free choice.  Every single woman who has ever engaged in prostitution has done so under the threat of physical harm.  Is it unfathomable to her that some have made this choice on their own, or is this just more twisting of the truth?  By the way, does anyone else see a problem with Ms. Giannini's logic?  Supposedly, the state can't prosecute human traffickers because prostitution is legal, so the women won't cooperate.  Ms. Giannini's bill will allow those who are victims to use force as a defense, so they will testify.  In the first scenario, prostitutes supposedly won't testify, yet in the second scenario, they will presumably testify if they were "forced."  Will prostitutes be threatened with a prison sentence if they don't tell the police what they want too hear?  It certainly seems like a possibility to me.

     Despite what opponents of legal prostitution say, this bill is not necessary to help the victims, and it isn't needed to go after those who victimize minors.  Both situations can be addressed by current laws.  What this bill is about is controlling behavior between consenting adults.  Every other state (except Nevada) criminalizes prostitution, and every other state continues to have prostitution.  The Rhode Island law keeps it off the streets, keeps it behind closed doors, and doesn't arrest adults for engaging in consensual behavior.  If this bill passes, it wouldn't improve the current law, it would just make Rhode Island as misguided as the other states.