Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed into law a bill that partially decriminalizes prostitution, with supporters saying the measure protects the most vulnerable while still targeting those who exploit them.
Not that it is particularly relevant but we legalised prostitution in New Zealand in 2003.
“The number of sex workers in Aotearoa New Zealand has not changed significantly since decriminalisation, and there is no evidence of trafficking; in fact, the legal recourse granted to sex workers in the country has improved their ability to combat exploitation, violence, and health risks without facing the threat of a soliciting offence.”
Although, there’s still problems around working conditions and other things that need addressing it has been seen by most as a positive change.
I really want to read more about this. The article doesn’t mention how this new law intends to target pimps and sex-buyers without punishing sex-sellers. We see time and again laws “intended” to target the worst perpetrators of a crime regularly being used to instead target the victims of it. How is this law phrased to protect against that possibility?
From my understanding, legalization makes it possible for the government to regularize. Since everyone attempts to hide their activities when it’s a crime, it’s more difficult for the police to locate victims of sex trafficking.
This isn’t legalization.
There is no government regulation of sex work being done here, this is partial decriminalization, which in the context of sex work means eliminating the crime.
So far, the research suggests that decriminalization is the best model for sex workers and for communities. New Zealand’s model is better than what you see in Amsterdam. Making it legal and regulated just drives sex work “into more covert forms where working routines are negatively impacted” (Vanwesenbeeck, 2017, p. 1634). It’s why when France implemented a Nordic Model, they found that “not only had it failed to reduce demand for sex work, it also failed to impact the incidence of trafficking into prostitution, and it put sex workers at greater risk by increasing the stigma against them” (Östergren, Dodillet, 2011).
I read through the text and its a bit confusing, but I think the gist is a person offering sex themselves to a patron is an exemption, while anyone playing middleman still violates sex trafficking laws.
heres the text https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0931&item=1&snum=131 and relevant bit from the summary "6. Allows as a defense to sex trafficking that the actor was soliciting a patron to engage
33 in sex only with the actor;
"
