More distortions in Rhode Island prostitution debate
For the life of me, I don't know how Donna Hughes, co-founder of Citizens Against Trafficking, is able to get her distortions published so frequently in newspapers. Her most recent article focuses on all the girls from Massachusetts who have been trafficked into Rhode Island. Ms. Hughes then goes on to make the link between one case of a girl dancing at a strip club, and seemingly appears to link it to the legalization of indoor prostitution.
Most sensible people would agree that no one under the age of 18 should be working in a strip club. With that said, the case of the 16 year old from Massachusetts appears to be an isolated incident. If this were a common incident, then where are the other victims? The outrage and media attention would have spurred local police to comb clubs for inappropriate activity. Unless, of course, there wasn't any. As for her suspicion that the young lady was engaging in prostitution, Ms. Hughes should read the laws more closely. It is illegal for minors to engage in prostitution in Rhode Island, whether it is indoors or outdoors. Therefore, having legalized indoor prostitution would not allow minors to engage in such activity. Here is an excerpt from the law:
(c) Every person who shall exhibit, use, employ or shall in any manner or under pretense so exhibit, use, or employ any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to any person for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act shall be imprisoned not exceeding twenty (20) years, or be fined not exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or both
So, for the record, it is not legal for minors to be employed in a brothel or engage in prostitution, just like there are state and federal laws against human trafficking. Ms. Hughes and her supporters know this and are distorting the truth and using scare tactics. If they are successful in having Rhode Island's prostitution law changed, it will still occur here as much as it does in every other state. Of course, we will have more differences. We will be arresting lots of individuals, push prostitution into the streets rather than keep it indoors, and put the people she supposedly wants to help in further danger. Remember this next time you read one of Donna Hughes' editorials.
Most sensible people would agree that no one under the age of 18 should be working in a strip club. With that said, the case of the 16 year old from Massachusetts appears to be an isolated incident. If this were a common incident, then where are the other victims? The outrage and media attention would have spurred local police to comb clubs for inappropriate activity. Unless, of course, there wasn't any. As for her suspicion that the young lady was engaging in prostitution, Ms. Hughes should read the laws more closely. It is illegal for minors to engage in prostitution in Rhode Island, whether it is indoors or outdoors. Therefore, having legalized indoor prostitution would not allow minors to engage in such activity. Here is an excerpt from the law:
(c) Every person who shall exhibit, use, employ or shall in any manner or under pretense so exhibit, use, or employ any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to any person for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act shall be imprisoned not exceeding twenty (20) years, or be fined not exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or both
So, for the record, it is not legal for minors to be employed in a brothel or engage in prostitution, just like there are state and federal laws against human trafficking. Ms. Hughes and her supporters know this and are distorting the truth and using scare tactics. If they are successful in having Rhode Island's prostitution law changed, it will still occur here as much as it does in every other state. Of course, we will have more differences. We will be arresting lots of individuals, push prostitution into the streets rather than keep it indoors, and put the people she supposedly wants to help in further danger. Remember this next time you read one of Donna Hughes' editorials.




Comments