I have a theoretical question I would like to pose to the members. (I am not a lawyer, so forgive my ignorance on legal matters.)
What would happen if someone were arrested (let's say caught right in the act) with a provider. And the guy, perhaps because he was single (and thus didn't have to worry about affecting his family), decided to fight the charge (all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary) by claiming that prostitution laws are unconstitutional.
Does a person have the right to argue that a law (any law) is unconstitutional as the basis for his innocence? (I said I was legally dumb at the beginning...)
It would seem to me that since sex can occur for free, thus proving that sex in itself is a harmless activity, then how can government argue that paying for sex can be a crime. I can understand how government can argue that drug use is a crime because they can claim that there is harmful physical result. But since sex has to be considered harmless (or else all sex should be illegal), then the government's real arguement for maintaining prostitution laws is the payment. It would then seem that the arguement is "can two consenting adults agree to a financial contract that allows physical pleasure?".
What would be the opposing arguement?
Moral, legal, bureaucratic???
Finally, does anyone know what the ACLU's views on prostitution are?
I would have thought that prostitution laws would have been one of those classic ACLU type cases - the ACLU would claim they don't like the reality of prostitution, but they would vehemently defend the civil liberties of those citizens who engage in the activity.
Wowie69
What would happen if someone were arrested (let's say caught right in the act) with a provider. And the guy, perhaps because he was single (and thus didn't have to worry about affecting his family), decided to fight the charge (all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary) by claiming that prostitution laws are unconstitutional.
Does a person have the right to argue that a law (any law) is unconstitutional as the basis for his innocence? (I said I was legally dumb at the beginning...)
It would seem to me that since sex can occur for free, thus proving that sex in itself is a harmless activity, then how can government argue that paying for sex can be a crime. I can understand how government can argue that drug use is a crime because they can claim that there is harmful physical result. But since sex has to be considered harmless (or else all sex should be illegal), then the government's real arguement for maintaining prostitution laws is the payment. It would then seem that the arguement is "can two consenting adults agree to a financial contract that allows physical pleasure?".
What would be the opposing arguement?
Moral, legal, bureaucratic???
Finally, does anyone know what the ACLU's views on prostitution are?
I would have thought that prostitution laws would have been one of those classic ACLU type cases - the ACLU would claim they don't like the reality of prostitution, but they would vehemently defend the civil liberties of those citizens who engage in the activity.
Wowie69