To the delight of civil libertarians and libertarians alike, the Canadian courts have been leading the world in dealing with conflicts between privacy principles and morality legislation. I am serving as an expert in the review of Canadian polygamy laws in British Columbia. In the meantime, the Ontario Superior Court may allow three prostitution laws to die this Saturday.
In September, the Court struck down the laws. The federal government is charging that this is nothing short of a “social experiment unprecedented in this country.” However, it is also a frank acknowledgment that consenting adults came engage in sex for money as a consensual choice. Currently, an individual can have sex with any number of partners but can be arrested if they accept anything of value in exchange for sex. They can receive gifts as part of a “relationship” no matter how fleeting but not as payment.
The Court previously noted that criminal laws force prostitutes in the shadows where they are easy prey for abuse and even homicides. Once legal, protections and regulations can apply to the world’s oldest profession. With the demise of the laws, street walking will be legal.
Source: Star
Jonathan Turley
Two of the best reasons to legalize all vices, ALL vices, is that it would end a great deal of corruption in the justice system. The number of public officials on the take has to be astronomical from cops on the beat to judges, Attorneys’ General, politicians and entire government agencies. If you legalize prostitution and drugs you remove the profit motive for looking the other way or facilitating the traffic.
I believe that another poster in this thread already discussed the other reason (but I’m having a problem finding the posting) and that is it leaves more resources to prosecute the real but narrowed categories of criminal activity associated with those vices.
Well taken to its ultimate conclusion, it would mean that a non lawyer couldn’t give opinions about politics, even when openly acknowledging lack of law license.
That doesn’t work in a practical sense because it is pre selection of content.
Lawyers actually do give non lawyers a lot of sh–t.
So the people on the receiving end want relief.
They are prevented from getting that relief by a combination of classism, of people in the legal profession engaging in discriminatory access, of communication obstacles of all sorts. Like not being part of the old boys network from the law-schools. Like fear of the unknown.
The idea that someone could be punished for speaking about their interpretations of law is revolting.
kay,
Part of the reason it’s dangerous for non-lawyers to dispense legal advice is that when they research a narrow issue, they are prone to misinterpret what they read because they don’t have a sufficient background in other areas of the law. I don’t practice in Alabama, but in Florida and under the ABA guidelines, you don’t need to have a contract or payment to establish a lawyer/client relationship, either for purposes of privilege or the unauthorized practice of law. You just assumed that was what “client” meant, without doing additional research. Doing that will get you in trouble — you won’t ever persuade a judge that your personal reading of a phrase is more persuasive than the legal definition.
And, while legal opinion can mean the written decision of a judge, in this context it clearly means the other definition — a personal belief about the application of the law.
Dear BIL and Tony C
Sorry I don’t get your points re unauthorized practice of law
Alabama refers to giving advice to a client — meaning there is a contract or a payment
California refers to a court of law or at least legal counsel, again implying a relationship
Arizona refers to a legal opinion.
I googled on definition of legal opinion and got
opinion: the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; “opinions are usually written by a single judge”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
In law, an opinion (also consilia) is usually a written explanation by a judge or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case, laying out the rationale and legal principles for the ruling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion
Letter from a law firm concerning the validity of a municipal bond with respect to statutory authority, constitutionality, procedural conformity and usually the exemption of interest from federal income taxes. …
http://www.investinginbonds.com/learnmore.asp
A written opinion from bond counsel stating that a bond issue has been duly authorized and issued.
http://www.corbycapital.com/glossary.html
Russ Feingold, a lawyer on the senate judiciary committee, didn’t get reelected and I think that the reason is that his opponent criticized the number of lawyers in the Senate. The fact is that lawyers experience the law in a different way than the rest of us do — the police, other lawyers, courts etc defer to them. When was the last time your neighbor built extra buildings that weren’t allowed by the zoning for instance?
“175 Responses to “Prostitution May Become Legal This Saturday in Ontario”
Professor you hit a nerve.:=)
@James: Except chances are that none of Kay’s points are valid; she just twists facts and statements into falsehoods that agree with her preconceived opinions. For evidence, check out her “argument” that she has the right to dispense legal advice, which she supports by quoting (and misinterpreting) a part of the law that says she does not!
See Kay i was not that aware of the rulings and ways things are in Nevada, but after reading your points I do see now things in a different light, sad as it is i do see it..and thanks
kay,
What part of “giving legal advice” don’t you understand?
Apparently all of it.
As to South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co.? Guess what? Paralegals and real estate agents aren’t allowed to give legal advice either except as narrowly defined by their jobs – and both professions are licensed.
This is also the very last time I’m going to humor you by giving you three examples of where you are wrong: Alabama, California and Arizona.
Alabama – CODE OF ALABAMA TITLE 34. PROFESSIONS AND BUSINESSES. CHAPTER 3. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.
Rule 15. Grounds For Discipline.
. . .
(b) Unauthorized Practice of Law. (1) For purposes of the practice of law prohibition for disbarred and suspended attorneys in subparagraph (a)(6) of this rule, except for attorneys suspended solely for non-payment of bar fees, “practice of law” is defined as: (A) holding oneself out as an attorney or lawyer authorized to practice law; (B) rendering legal consultation or advice to a client;
California
People v. Merchants Protective Corp., 209 P.363, 365 (1922)
‘As the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing or performing services in a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity to the adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel,
Arizona (Adopted January 15, 2003, effective July 1, 2003)
RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA – RULE 31 – REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW
(a) Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over the Practice of Law
1.Jurisdiction. Any person or entity engaged in the practice of law or unauthorized practice of law in this state, as defined by these rules, is subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
2.Definition: Practice of Law. The “practice of law” means providing legal
advice or services to or for another by:
(A)Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity;
(B)Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
(C)Representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitrations and mediations;
(D)Preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court, administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or
(E)Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.
3.Definition: Unauthorized Practice of Law. “Unauthorized practice of law” includes but is not limited to:
(A)Engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specially admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d);
[emphasis added]
Every state has something similar on the books.
Here’s a link to the ABA abstract appendix that summarized what qualifies as practicing law in every state and most of the penalties for doing so without license.
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/model-def/model_def_statutes.pdf
Better yet, call your state bar association on Monday and ask if it’s okay for you to render legal advice without proper credentials or license. They’ll get a real kick out of that.
Lawyers may not own the law, but there are legal requirements to dispense legal advice whether you like it or not. It’s to protect clients from the kind of malpractice that, oh, I don’t know, gets them thrown in jail or something because their lawyer doesn’t know what the Hell they are doing.
Now? I’m going to set you back to /ignore.
I don’t have the proper training or license to address your actual problem.
I am for legalization of drugs and prostitution for pretty much the all same reasons outlined by supporters above, and most especially that it may hopefully mitigate damages.
The “system” has been woefully inadequate in the prosecution of the Drug War and has IMHO probably added much more misery in unintended consequences.
I see voluntary prostitution the same way. This a very simplistic example, but one can go for a “whole-body” massage but the “happy-ending” is going to far, why is massage of the genitals illegal? It is a law that is practically unenforceable and leads to corruption.
It seems to me the problems with the drug war and the eradication of prostitution are inextricably linked. I don’t remember where I read this, but the suggestion was that as the war on drugs escalated it made prostitution/sexual slavery more attractive to criminals as they did not have to worry so much about the resupplying of the product being sold. Pretty gross!
The extent of police corruption involved in the drug war is pretty rampant; similarly with prostitution.
In 1996, the city of New Haven, Connecticut infamously had a nationally lauded Police Chief Nick Pastore forced to resign when it was revealed that the married father of three grown children had fathered a child with a prostitute/drug informer.
More recently, the city of Madison, CT “a town of 18,000 with virtually no violent crime, 8 officers, so far, on a force of 24 have been accused of taking part in or turning a blind eye
to crimes including burglaries, electronic stalking of women, sex with prostitutes, and worker compensation fraud….One man involved in a drunken-driving death avoided possible prison time because a police officer who investigated the case had recently been fired in the wake of the prostitution investigation.”
IMHO drug use and prostitution are never going to be successfully policed/regulated with out significant decriminalization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/nyregion/20towns.html
@Swarthmore: Perhaps that is our disagreement, because I think human beings are **all** commoditized. My brain is my body, and the products of my brain (primarily analysis and sometimes invention) were for twenty years or so bought on the open market by the highest bidder. Nobody paid me to sit there, I did things for them that produced significant personal and professional gains for them, in some cases I saved their company. I am sure Buddha can say the same, except as an attorney some of his actions may have saved people’s lives. But if so he still accomplished that by using his “body” on their behalf rather than his own.
Refer to what I said before: As a teenager I endangered my health (I contracted hepatitis three times between the ages of 15 and 18), I endangered my life (I served as a two-striper in the military) and I performed some legal but personally repulsive acts (like cleaning 50 toilets a night) before completing my self-financed education.
I do not see **voluntary, un-coerced** prostitution as any more commoditized than many other choices of voluntary, un-coerced and dangerous work. Certainly less so than the military, in the military you are specifically paid to put life and limb on the line when ordered to do so. It is hard to be more commoditized than being cannon fodder infantry. Prostitution is more like coal mining in that it may be a dangerous profession, but it is not **inherently** an agreement to sacrifice one’s life upon demand.
If we are paid we are commoditized. Our time and work is worth something, but we don’t get the money if we don’t give up many hours of our lives to make something happen for somebody else. Sometimes the result is of very little practical value: Like entertainment. Brad Pitt has given many, many hours of his life to entertain us. For reward, but he doesn’t get the money if he doesn’t spend long hours in drudgery and memorization and waiting around and rehearsals and practice. That is my point, Brad is commoditized, I am commoditized, I assume Buddha sets a value on the use of his brain per hour, and is therefore commoditized too.
Here’s some weird news. I just today received the manual for operation of the USMS Prisoner Tracking System, a federal system. It includes the list of offenses. The list of offenses the federal system will accept include
7299 morals -decency
3799 obscenity
3611 peeping tom
4002 Procure for prostitution
4004 Prostitution
6102 sales tax
0105 Sedition
1403 submission abortional act
5499 traffic offense
3999 gambling
4813 Failing to move on
I just returned from lunch with several friends. I would like to note up front that most of my friends are now retired from their professions. At any rate, one of the women is a retired judge, family court, and one other retired from the Prosecutor’s office last year where her main responsibility was the prosecution of child abuse cases.
I hesitated to introduce the subject we have been discussing on this thread simply because I was afraid that they, my friends, would not be interested in talking shop at our annual Black Friday lunch. However, since one of the other attendees had retired from Family Services three years ago, I figured, “When am I going to get these people together again, all in the company of other women … why not? The worst they can do is throw dinner rolls at me and yell, NO!” So, with exactly that sentence … I introduced the subject.
No dinner rolls went whizzing through the air … in fact they were all eager to chime in and the luncheon went on far longer than planned.
I have put some of their thoughts down and want to go over them before posting so that I’m certain I have represented them properly with my words.
Suffice it to say that much of what they and the other women around the table had to say is very similar to the different opinions that have been posted on this thread.
Women are passionate about this subject.
Dear BIL
Be specific about the laws you think I have misunderstood since you claim to know that I am ignorant about law.
According to Wikipedia,”In its most general sense, the practice of law involves giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits”.
http://www.scbar.org/public_services/unauthorized_practice_of_law/
According to the S.Carolina Bar
What is considered the “practice of law”?
The practice of law is more than just appearing in court on behalf of a client. Though no concise definition of practice of law exists, certain characteristics make it more likely that the Court will view certain conduct as the practice of law. An early South Carolina case, cited by other jurisdictions as well, stated that the practice of law includes “the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law.” In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (S.C. 1909). The practice of law “extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge.” South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987).
Lawyers don’t own the law.
kay,
“I have the right to voluntarily for free go on websites and give legal advice but I don’t have the right to sell legal advice”
Actually, you don’t have the right to give legal advice – free or not. You aren’t being supervised by an attorney nor do you have a law degree. You have a right to your opinions – uninformed or otherwise, but the instant you start “giving advice” beyond “seek out an attorney”, you are breaking both the Cannons and the laws of most states. Just because you do so for free only means you’re likely to get a slap on the wrist rather than a fine and/or jail time if charged.
It’s this kind of legal ignorance that causes you trouble, kay. Law and being expert in it isn’t just reading and regurgitating words. It’s understanding based on context and history, both of which you’ve demonstrated time and again you lack.
@ BIL Laws about alcohol production did stop moon shiners. A few people make liquor illegally but not many. Organized crime is involved w prostitution in Nevada. Criminalizing prostitution does work to reduce prostitution even if it doesn’t eliminate it. The people who did or might work as prostitutes, including your daughter and your daughter in law, need jobs, not jobs as prostitutes.
Lindsay thank you for the evidence that legalization of prostitution back fired in Amsterdam.
Anon nurse An argument for staffing internal affairs and for mandatory prosecution of deprivation of rights under color of law.
TonyC A profession should be outlawed when it hurts people and produces no good. The other professions you mentioned produce goods and services of value and don’t hurt people. You and others argued that prostitution should be legal because it will produce happy hookers – safe and well off or middle class prostitutes, Well show us the proof. Where are the college graduates whose mothers were legal prostitutes in Nevada? There are probably a million women who worked legally as prostitutes in Nevada. If legalization of prostitution works in Nevada, there should be some verifiable evidence.
I have the right to voluntarily for free go on websites and give legal advice but I don’t have the right to sell legal advice, for the supposed reason that I might hurt someone, same as people are hurt by prostitution.
James: If Nevada can’t keep prostitution out of Las Vegas and can’t keep minors out of prostitution why do you think Ontario can keep prostitution away from children or from “decent folks”?
Everyone: Now that all of our words can be searched on-line and all of our email can be searched, perhaps we can crack down on on-line ads for prostitution. There is also new regulation of taking credit cards over the Internet, the way in which much prostitution is now paid for. Why can’t we require proof that vendors sell a legal good before allowing them a merchant services card? That would get to the key issue of expansion of prostitution without jailing the individual prostitute…..
Lots of common ground here (refer to Blouise’s last comment).
I also agree with the following, written by Swarthmore mom), though I’m still leaning towards legalization. Perhaps we could start by decriminalizing it for the victims…
“I don’t like commoditization of human beings. It isn’t always about the money. I think decrimininalization but not legalization could be the way to go. Prostitutes would then no longer be viewed as criminals but instead as victims who suffer significant violations of their human rights and suffer physical and mental health problems.” (Swarthmore mom)
kay,
When taking those statistics into account remember that prostitution was never legal in Las Vegas (the area with the highest demand).
If you think that slavery is illegal and should be banned,one just has to go to slave registry.com and see how this whole thing really works.
Tony C I don’t like commoditization of human beings. It isn’t always about the money. I think decrimininalization but not legalization could be the way to go. Prostitutes would then no longer be viewed as criminals but instead as victims who suffer significant violations of their human rights and suffer physical and mental health problems.
“Prostitution is a human rights issue to me not a religious issue.” (SwM) I am 100% in agreement with that statement.
“The second addresses the Swedish model which has made it “legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it.” (Has this already been discussed here? I may have missed it..)” (anon nurse) I find this to be an intriguing approach. (If it was previously discussed I missed it also.)
“That human trafficking is a multinational criminal activity beyond the scope of one country to fight on their own is without question. The question is how to provide a way out of that life for the victims that doesn’t punish them further. That would be to provide them with legal recourse for abuses.” (Buddha) Sums it up nicely.
I look forward to continued discussion on this subject. (Don’t miss Lindsay’s contribution at November 26, 2010 at 12:15 pm)
(I have to brave the crowds to meet a few friends for lunch)