Prostitution Appeal to Be Heard Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
just as she can testify today against the agency owner/operator - but it ain't really happening unless trafficking/underage issue triggers the investigation
that being said, should buying sex be outlawed, it would probably be a good idea each time you see a girl to begin with putting on the record that you only pay her for companionship and not for sex
Again about the only segment of the Hobby that would be effected would be the street.
I don't know, it'll depend on how good the police are at inducing changes of heart. Hold the girl as a witness to a crime and make her uncomfortable until she admits--without any penalty to her--what happened there. I guess the police are good at that sort of thing.
if the police is not doing it now to investigate living off the avails charges against agency owners, why on Earth would they be doing it to investigate poor johns
clearly by any standard living off the avails is more reprehensible than simply paying for sex
a) how are they going to know this "crime" occured?
b) You may run into a little habeas corpus problem (perhaps even false imprisonment) with just picking up "girls" and trying to induce them to testify by refusing to let them go.
c) further the Crown might run into a small problem at trial with the coerced nature of the testimony -such as credibility and recantation.
I disagree, the street would now compete one on one with the higher end escorts. There is good gals out on the street, don't kid yourself not. Maybe they don't show up on time, can't depend on them but if they were free to compete, LOL
What ?
Maybe she loves you and wants you to live better. Maybe you are a great thing in her life.
Maybe you help her get more business, earn more money.
Freaken Hugh Hefner sure made a nice respectable living using women
When people get very rich they also become more powerful, these drug and sex laws are used to prevent us common people from becoming rich.
you are a bit off, Aardvark
a) the cops routinely detain people walking out of bawdy houses to collect evidence of such nature and it's routinely being admitted; the cops are good at representing the questioning as fair and lawful and the resulting statement as voluntary; it's being done by them in all kinds of cases every day
b) habeas corpus has nothing to do with it
the actual issue is: why bother with johns when it makes much more sense to go after the owners
Yes, but again you are speaking of bawdy houses and the street rather than Independents and agencies (basically outcall).
My point is that a change in the law (save for the Cæsar's wife aspect of it) to a Swedish model would merely be a reverse of the present situation - the Police are not breaking down the doors of hotel rooms or condos. And they are not going to be detaining Independents from their Appartments attempting to coerce them to testify and they would not be able to use the present bawdy house detention argument.
Huh
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I still don't see street walkers being in the same market as independent escorts or agencies.
I wonder if anyone here recalls a Toronto outcall bust that occurred around 1995 or so. A female cop applied for a job in the agency and collected evidence against owner who interviewed her. Ended up being a pretty big bust.
Same way American cops know. Hey--depending on how the law is set up, they could set up sting incalls or outcalls where a female officer poses as a prostitute. We don't have stings in Canada but if buying sex is criminalized the police could do that.
Sure, if the prostitute was very well versed in her rights. It's the same as "voluntary" searches. Police often get away with searching a car or whatever because technically the person consented to it, but in reality the police had posed the question using a tone and demeanour that fooled the uninformed person into believing it was an order that had to be complied with.
The prostitute--who will not be charged with anything--has no real incentive to show up in court and say her testimony was coerced. She will probably want to have as little to do with the proceedings as she can get away with.
Almost all of U.S. police action regarding prostitution involves street walkers and their clients. Those actions involving escort agencies or independents are almost always stumbled upon in the course of an investigation into something else.
Perhaps they could, but, (and without even venturing into the tar pit of entrapment) that would last until the first client made bail and posted on TERB.
Further I don't believe any of this is going to occur.
I've seen these sting ops on TV and in theory it can be done here.
The first to go down would be the agencies though, not the johns.
A john should be sufficiently protected if he puts on the record that he is not paying for sex. There was a case where a street SP said to an undercover that they are not allowed to discuss sex on the street and the judge threw the case out saying "I believe she merely quoted the law to the officer".
If street hookers are smart enough to do that, so should be the johns.
