Sting raises prostitution questions

By Bob Elliott

----

If prostitution is the oldest profession, then what to do about it must be the oldest controversy.

That controversy heated up again following a recent multi-jurisdictional prostitution sting in the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids corridor. That was mainly because the “johns” charged included a few area professional types whose careers are damaged by the publicity.

Corridor newspapers carried op-ed columns, letters to the editor, and online reactions, with some claiming prostitution laws should be eliminated and others wanting them more strictly enforced. Two of the controversy's legitimate questions are:

l Should news reports include names and photos of people charged?

l Should we continue to have and enforce laws against prostitution?

I've got an answer ready for the first question, but not so much on the second one.

News coverage: Legitimate news sources have a responsibility to report on law enforcement activities. For one thing, the fact that it's public record leaves the decision to editors, not judges. But more important, our liberties and freedoms depend on law enforcement and court results being open to public scrutiny. Our form of government couldn't exist with citizens being arrested, charged, tried or jailed in secrecy.

So, yes, identifying those caught in the sting is clearly justified.

Now, more difficult is the question of what to do about prostitution? That's because it involves issues of morality, law enforcement, ethics and philosophy, and even brings a definition of freedom into question.

Morality and ethics: There was a time when sexual intercourse, and other forms of sexual intimacy, for people not married to each other, was against the law. I think we're pretty much beyond that now in most places.

What about sex as a legal commercial service? Must we demand all commercial services have redeeming qualities? No marriage license, no promise of till death us do part, or no redeeming qualities; just pay for play. Legally, there's usually no problem with two consenting adults getting together for sex, unless one of them is paying for it. Is that OK?

Philosophical and legal: How much control should women and men have over their own bodies? That question is on the front burner now, especially with the ongoing political/religious debate about abortion and contraception. People have begun asking why a woman shouldn't have the right to use her body however she wants to. Perhaps even to make money. So if a woman wants to “sell her body” and a man wants to buy, why should the government interfere? Who gets hurt?

It's not that easy. In addition to traditional moral concerns and beliefs, prostitution involves a variety of serious health risks and peripheral law enforcement concerns. For instance, would organized crime and human trafficking be better or worse off if prostitution were legalized?

But then, compare the career paths of prostitution and boxing. Which involves greater personal dangers, and which provides greater redeeming qualities? Is that a fair question?

Historical perspective: We've learned if people are determined to drink booze, buy sex, or smoke weed, making it illegal doesn't eliminate it. Prohibition was the classic example.

After ratifying the 18th amendment in 1919, we learned enough to repeal it with the 21st amendment 14 years later. About the only thing prohibition did was give birth to organized crime.

Would we be better off legalizing so-called victimless crimes? Probably not. But what do you think?

Bob Elliott, longtime resident of Iowa City, served a term on the City Council and is retired after 30 years at ACT's national office. Comments: elliottb53@aol.com