For the second time in a week, Huntington has garnered national attention over a new set of laws and conditions designed under the pretenses of reducing a percieved prostitution epidemic (and the drug problems associated with that particular form of crime). Although the motives may seem inarguable, the new law is gaining resistance due to the new actions and gestures that can land someone in custody.
According to the Charleston Daily Mail, the new law states that "suspects can be arrested for beckoning passers-by with conversation, attempting to stop traffic by waving their arms, circling an area in a vehicle or trying to stop pedestrians. An arrest can also be made if a suspect asks if a potential prostitute or patron is a police officer." [1]
Although care is taken to make the law more "fool-proof" by requiring the gesture or interaction to take place in an area known to be high-crime and for the suspect to have been arrested previously on a related offense, the implications of the law as well as the fairly liberal loopholes afforded in the constraints are concerning. Though the law is likely to be a source of revenue for the town, it largely fails to address the issues at hand (drugs and prostitution) as well as poses a unique threat towards personal rights.
The issue of rights, at least to me, is a large one. Though the law has held up to scrutiny in other areas that implement similar statutes, the idea of temporarily suspending such protections (even if for such a "nobel" cause as attempting to clean up street crime) is frightening. Enacting such legislation only sets precedent for other arrests to be made on similar basis. What would stop law enforcement from using the pretense of prostitution-related "gestures" as a means of circumventing search and seizure laws? If otherwise regular gestures can be used as a means for arrest, then surely they could be construed as probable cause for a search of private property (such as a vehicle).
Although not as immediately pressing as encroachment upon personal rights, the fact that the bill does little to address the true issues at hand is still troubling. Supporters of the new laws will claim that it does address the issues...prostitutes will be arrested and there will be less reason for drug dealers to populate the streets in question. However, outlawing prostitution certainly isn't new and stricter drug control laws rarely do more than increase prison overcrowding and necessitate the creation of stronger black-market setups. One would imagine that the US would have learned its lesson after the organized crime that sprouted out of prohibition, however, such measures are still taken against prostitution and drug use. Though I am not personally a supporter of either, I understand that there is more good to come from the legalization (and subsequent regulation and taxation) than such a blanket banning. Legalization would allow legal, safe means of distribution (for both industries), diminishing the need for dangerous drug dealers and pimps. This could lead to lower crime rates and safer cities, especially for those like myself (and ironically most supporters of the impending legislation) who may personally disapprove of the use of sex workers and drugs. This increase in public safety could be seen in an area such as Montreal, QC that has legalized certain forms of prostitution and decriminalized the drug marijuana (cannabis). Statistics show MUCH lower rates of violent crime (specifically attempted murder and murder) than the much smaller Huntington, WV. [2,3] Property crimes would also decrease, due to a lesser need for drug-peddaling gangs (and therefore less "turf" disputes) and a decrease in the number of addicts who need to turn to crime to satisfy habits made excessively expensive by a highly-persecuted, far too privately owned substance distribution network.
For those that do choose to partake in the products and services regulation could lead to cleaner, safer interactions. Surely, most of us have heard stories of addicts killed by a tainted batch of cocaine or heroin and unchecked sexual activity is likely to increase the spread of STDs. These are issues similar to those faced by the outlawing of alcohol during prohibition. Stories abound in West Virginia of moonshine gone bad or accidents at illegal distilleries that created public safety concerns. Alcohol production is now regulated in ways the increase the safety of the product, allowing those who choose to consume to do so with decreased worries of tainted product or poorly conducted sanitation and manufacturing procedures.
I believe that the city of Huntington is taking a step in the WRONG direction. Increased crackdown will do little to curb the issues of prostitution and drug abuse. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) under the watch of the government could lead to increased revenue, safer streets, and lower crime. If politicians are TRULY worried about the presence of drug addicts and sex workers they could reinvest some of the potential tax revenue to be gained through legal drug and sex transactions to set up social programs to help educate young, under-priviledged women (as well as provide job placement) and comprehensive substance treatment facilities.
Sources cited:
1. http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007101278/Now-gestures-can-send-people-to-jail-for-prostitution/
2. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060720/d060720b.htm
3. http://www.hellohuntington.com/crime.cfm
Monday, October 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)