In an attempt to make it look like he is doing something to improve the City of Providence, mayor David Cicilline has formed a group to explore drafting a city ordinance aimed at curtailing indoor prostitution, which is legal in Rhode Island.  Of course, the entire idea seems to be questionable.  City Councilman John Lomardi questions the ability of the city to address indoor prostitution by ordinance, stating that state laws supersede city ordinances.  I'm not a lawyer, but that fact seems rather basic and commonly accepted to me.  David Cicilline should also recognize this, but of course, why miss out on a chance to grab a headline?

     Make no mistake, David Cicilline is trying to grab publicity for the 2010 election, where he will likely face stiff competition.  If it were possible for the mayor to end indoor prostitution, it wouldn't end prostitution in general, it would merely force it into decentralized locations, such as the outdoors.  The mayor conveniently ignores the likely increase in outdoor prostitution this would cause, the safety risks faced by prostitutes, and that it would not reduce prostitution in the city.  48 other states ban prostitution, yet it occurs in each state.  This ordinance, if ever happens, will do little more than give the mayor a photo-op and some sound bytes at a press conference.

     If the mayor is concerned about questionable activity occurring indoors, perhaps he could reexamine granting tax breaks to campaign contributors, firing Robert Ceprano but no staff members in the handling of his brother's bad check, and spending $500,000 to investigate the actions of his staff.  Yes, there are lots of suspicious, worrisome things going on indoors in Providence, but none of them include brothels.

     While John Lombardi points out some problems with pursuing an ordinance, he also raises some rather odd options:


"He points to the possibility of police breaking up prostitution rings and brothels through the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) or state child labor laws (if the brothels are employing underage hookers)."


     It seems that many people like to focus on the idea of human trafficking or targeting minors, but Rhode Island currently has a law on the books which makes it illegal for minors to engage in prostitution.  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


     By the way, how would the RICO statute apply if we are talking about a legally protected act engaged in voluntarily by adults?  I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like just another haphazard idea without any legs.  If it is legal for indoor prostitution to exist, then how would owning three or four legal establishments violate the law?  Opponents are getting desperate, and they are trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the "problem."

     The interesting thing is that there doesn't seem to be a problem.  Most Rhode Islanders I talk to don't see anything wrong with legalized indoor prostitution.  Opponents have made dubious links to human trafficking which seem completely unsubstantiated.  The best argument opponents could make is to cite studies that show a decline in the quality of life in Rhode Island, and how it has declined in Rhode Island due to legalized prostitution.  I've never seen such numbers, and if they existed, I'm fairly certain we would have seen them by now.  What does that tell you?