Swedish PM wants tougher sentences for those who buy sex from prostitutes

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Independent

Swedish PM wants tougher sentences for those who buy sex from prostitutes
Monday 16 December 2013

The Swedish Prime Minister says he wants to increase the sentences under the country’s pioneering law on prostitution, which criminalises the buyer and protects the prostitute.

Fredrik Reinfeldt said he wants a mandatory prison sentence for buying sex from minors, and tougher sentences for those knowingly buying sex from trafficking victims.

Currently, people buying sex can be fined or jailed for up to a year, but Mr Reinfeldt said no one has been sentenced to prison in 4,782 cases so far.


Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swedish-pm-wants-tougher-sentences-for-those-who-buy-sex-from-prostitutes-9008838.html

---

(Short article, no more at link.)

[Kurska]

1. How is throwing people in prison for sex anything but puritanism?

Legalize and regulate, that is how you push out trafficking and child exploitation.

Some people just gotta control the bodies of others though. Apparently the damage being done to the prostitutes was too much, so lets shift the damage to someone else doing nothing that shouldn't be legal.

[geek tragedy]

2. Buying sex from minors and trafficking victims is rape, and opposing rape is not prudishness.

Fredrik Reinfeldt said he wants a mandatory prison sentence for buying sex from minors, and tougher sentences for those knowingly buying sex from trafficking victims.

Currently, people buying sex can be fined or jailed for up to a year, but Mr Reinfeldt said no one has been sentenced to prison in 4,782 cases so far.

But, go ahead and tell us how your concern for these women/men/boys/girls means that you think it should be legal to participate in their rape if you pay for it.

[Kurska]

3. Yup, that part was clearly what I was talking about.

I don't know about the distinction between jail and prison over there, but throwing someone in jail for "up to a year" sounds a lot like prison to me. Obviously paid sex with anyone underage should be illegal, they can't consent.

I'm very curious how you'd "prove" that a man knowing had sex with a trafficking victim though, do they advertise that (I can see it now, "hot girls all trafficking victims&quot ? You know maybe there wouldn't be so many trafficking victims if they actually allowed the profession to be regulated and properly enforced the regulation.

But yeah, it is great sexual control freaks on the left and right found a mutual target they can beat up on in favor of a sexually pure society. Bring a tear to my eyes to see two sworn enemies working together to curtail the freedoms of other people.

Ahhh, but here you go again conflating rape with consensual sex for money cause you don't like it. Everyone keeps trying to justify that, but you know what I hear "No one could possibly consent to something I would find repugnant, so it must be rape all the time everytime.". If this was just about underage sex or ending trafficking not one would be opposed to it, what I'm opposed to is people trying to rule the bodies of private individuals.

[geek tragedy]

4. Boo hoo that men don't have the freedom to buy the opportunity to rape a kid or trafficking victim.

If someone pays a pimp and the woman is from a foreign country, that person is probably paying for the right to rape a trafficking victim.

So tragic that the ugly reality of sex trafficking is such a boner killer. My sympathies.


Yep, I belong to that puritanical strain that says if you pay a third party, or if the person is below the age of consent, rape is still rape.

[Kurska]

5. It is amazing, do you even read my posts?

I support legal and regulated prostitution involving only consenting adults. I support regulation to ensure that only that is happening. I'm strongly opposed to the new swedish law on prositition, because it curtails the sexual freedoms of men AND women. Men to purchase sex and women to not have their clients harassed (or is the right to earn a living not a right that a prostitutes deserves?). If you're going to keep arguing against something that isn't that, then you might as well go find a corn field and yell at a strawman.

Like legit curious, do you actually read my posts, because there is no way you could think I support what you think I do if you actually read them. I'm not using big hard words here buddy. I'm laying out my position very clearly and plainly. If you'd like to engage it feel free, but I'm not going to be told that I support things I don't because that is apparently the only you know how to debate.

[geek tragedy]

6. the new law targets those who (a) buy sex with minors and (b) knowingly

buy sex with trafficking victims.

So, to the extent you're arguing against that, you're arguing for the right for men to rape kids and trafficking victims so long as they pay upfront.

Simple, indisputable logic.


Given your "how would they know she's a trafficking victim line of nonsense" pretty clear your priority here is not protecting the women.

[Kurska]

7. Psstt, buddy

I'm talking about the other law

"Currently, people buying sex can be fined or jailed for up to a year, but Mr Reinfeldt said no one has been sentenced to prison in 4,782 cases so far. "

Again I mentioned prison, but I'm not sure what the distinction over there is. A year sounds like hard enough time to me to be considered prison.

"you're arguing for the right for men to rape kids and trafficking victims so long as they pay upfront. "

No... I'm not.


I don't think having legitimate concerns about how a law would actually be implemented (in regard to someone "knowing" it is a trafficking victim) means I don't support the law in principle, but that might be a distinction a bit to fine to throw into a strawman.

The funny thing is they don't even enforce their dumb law, less than 100 charged out of around 1500 cases in 2006 and their supreme court barred anyone from actually being thrown in jail using the optional jail term. So the thing you're defending barely even exists. Of course some sexual fascists in parliament over there want to make it a mandatory minimum of 1 year now instead, because their societal control isn't working. People aren't being thrown in prison because of the sexual activities of consenting adults, we must purify our society!

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Don't waste your time.

[geek tragedy]

10. You've really outderped yourself.

I'm strongly opposed to the new swedish law on prositition, because it curtails the sexual freedoms of men AND women.

The new law being discussed is the one with a minimum one year sentence for those who pay to rape children or trafficking victims. When you are objecting to the 'new law' you are objecting to a one-year sentence for those who pay to rape children and trafficking victims.

The only minimum sentence of 1 year being contemplated is for those who pay to rape children and trafficking victims. So, the punishment for rapists is exactly what you are objecting to.

The Swedish model of punishing buyers but not sellers is not a new law, it passed when Bill Clinton was President. So when you talk about objecting to the 'new law' that is not what you're objecting to.

The fact that you're describing Swedes as 'sexual fascists' is hilarious.

Yes, your concern about a law punishing men for buying the right to rape a trafficking victim was to make excuses for the men, so spare us the pious "I'm just concerned about protecting the workers" nonsense when you oppose efforts to put those who pay for raping trafficking victims in jail.

[Kurska]

11. I meant the 1999 law woops, you're horrible wrong too though.

"The only minimum sentence of 1 year being contemplated is for those who pay to rape children and trafficking victims. So, the punishment for rapists is exactly what you are objecting to. "

Wrong, people have been advocating it for awhile. That it what I was talking about.

http://www.thelocal.se/20080408/10968

"But with Justice Minister Beatrice Ask preparing to review the law, Borgström has called for the crime to be punished by "at least one year" in jail."

I can find more recent advocacy for that position, if you want. It is sexual fascism.

"your concern about a law punishing men for buying the right to rape a trafficking victim was to make excuses for the men, "

I am so glad there are brave men and women on DU willing to tell me what beliefs I actually hold. You know, you think I would be the expert on that, but I'm glad you can valiantly point out what my actual world view is. I mean who am I to think I know the actual position I am advocating. Clearly I don't think that sex with children for money should be illegal despite saying about 4 times now that I do. I mean if I didn't that would be really inconvenient for your argument.



This literally has to be a parody no one actually thinks this is way to convince someone of something right?

When you want to actually discuss what I am saying, I'd be happy to do it, but otherwise you should probably go find a mirror to yell at.

[geek tragedy]

13. The proposal UNDER DISCUSSION HERE

is to have mandatory penalties for (1) those who pay to rape children and (2) those who pay to rape trafficking victims.

Fredrik Reinfeldt said he wants a mandatory prison sentence for buying sex from minors, and tougher sentences for those knowingly buying sex from trafficking victims.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/2/0/89293/World/0/Sweden-PM-wants-to-see-prostitutes-clients-in-pris.aspx

His Moderate Party, he said, would campaign to incarcerate clients who knew the prostitute they used was a minor or a victim of human trafficking.

This being the year 2013, with Reinfeldt, not Borgstrom, being prime minister.

Even that modest reform is apparently a bridge too far for you, given your response, though you have not provided an intelligible rationale for opposing the common sense notion that those who pay to rape trafficking victims and children should be put in jail.

[brett_jv]

15. That's really just an abhorrent style of 'debate' on your part ...

I'll let your opponent fend for themself though ... not my fight, and I can't stand such blatant trolling ...

[Kurska]

16. Four legal options have been presented three in the OP. Let me break it down for you.

Ones that already exist

1. Heavily fine and possibly throw men who buy sex into jail.

I oppose this one strongly, prostitution should be legal and regulated.

Ones that have been proposed

2. Mandatory prison for people who have sex with underage prostitutes

I support this one.

3. Stiffer fines for people who knowingly have sex with trafficking victims.

I have no idea how you could possibly prove the person knew the victim was a trafficking victim, so I'm not sure how this would work. It is a decent sentiment though.

4. Throwing men who buy sex in jail for a year

This is sexual fascism, the worst kind of jack booted control of people's bodies. Throwing people in jail for consensual sexual activities, how on earth can anyone support this?

Now, do you want to tell me what I support or don't again?

[geek tragedy]

19. "sexual fascism" gimme a break.

And we're talking about a 0/5000 incarceration rate--just a slap on the wrist akin to a parking ticket. Jesus.

As far as #3 is concerned, if you're paying a pimp and the person is obviously from another country, that's prima facie notice that they're very possibly a trafficking victim.

And, quite honestly, anyone who would buy sex knowing that the person MIGHT be a trafficking victim is a shitty fucking human being, a sexual predator, and belongs in prison anyways.

[Kurska]

20. How on earth is throwing people in jail for consensual sex anything but sexual fascism?

"if you're paying a pimp and the person is obviously from another country, that's prima facie notice that they're very possibly a trafficking victim. "

So, if the prostitute has an accent they gotta be a trafficking victim right? I mean no woman has ever legally immigrated to another country and become a prostitute.

Oh wait, that happens all the time.

"anyone who would buy sex knowing that the person MIGHT be a trafficking victim belongs in prison anyways."

And you know what would fix that my dear dear dear friend.

If we legalized prostitution, allowed prostitutes to be licensed and then allowed them to present that license to their Johns. That way everyone knows everything is on the level and legal.

But nah, lets just throw guys in jail for a year. I mean, that probably isn't going to actually change anything and just drive the business further underground, but hey this isn't about being effective it is about feeling self-righteous.

[geek tragedy]

22. As far as I can tell, your concern is protecting the ability of men

to pay for sex.

"if you're paying a pimp and the person is obviously from another country, that's prima facie notice that they're very possibly a trafficking victim. "

So, if the prostitute has an accent they gotta be a trafficking victim right. I mean no woman has ever legally immigrated to another country and become a prostitute.

Oh wait, that happens all the god damn time.

That's some titanium-strength denialism you got going on there. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

Cute how you skipped the part about paying a pimp.

[Kurska]

23. Men and women should be allowed to buy and sell sex, yes.

And a pimp can be everything from someone keeping a woman in sexual slavery to just a middleman who connects clients with prostitutes. So their presence doesn't indicate sexual slavery, not every pimp is a guy with a big hat and a cane. Some just act as a middleman between John and prostitute, some are far more sinister. Female pimps are called madames, maybe that explains the situation to you better.

But you know how you get rid of pimps (which I do want to do), you legalize and regulate. That way there is no need for pimps. Prostitutes are free to advertise their services and they don't need pimps to work as middle men.

Again though, what seems like the best solution to all of these problems appears to hold no interest with you. Why are you replying to me if you refuse to address the merits of the argument I've been presenting this entire time?

[geek tragedy]

24. That you're defending pimps says it all. Last word is yours. nt

[Kurska]

25. "But you know how you get rid of pimps (which I do want to do)"- Me.

To the the very end you willfully mischaracterize what I am saying.

Adios.

[brett_jv]

28. You just received a trolling of the very worst sort ...

My condolences ...

[Kurska]

30. Man, I hope so.

Otherwise they were serious and that is legitimately frightening.

[Katashi_itto]

39. That's that person's constant Modus Operendi.

Don't bother

[brett_jv]

26. Exactly ... and further underground means ...

More shadiness, more drugs, more disease, more profits, more weapons, more DEATH ...

You know, pretty much EXACTLY what's happened w/the War on Drugs. Same EXACT situation.

Apparently, someone here believes that every time someone solicits a prostitute, they meet her pimp, too, and pay him directly. I have no experience with paying for sex but I'm PRETTY sure ... that really isn't 'how it works'.

Furthermore, in a manner of speaking, EVERY Prostitute, male or female, who shares their proceeds w/someone else as part of their 'business model'... be it the kind, elderly Madam with The Heart of Gold down at the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, to the Corporate 'Escort Service', to the dastardly Ukrainian Mobster who completely tricked the beautiful but desperately poor 18 year old orphan with the offer of a 'Free College Education' if she'd just come to Sweden and 'work in his watch factory' ... One could argue in EVERY case ... that they are being 'trafficked'.

IOW, not only is it rare that you would 'know' as a John because you'd rarely see 'behind the curtain', but also the definition of 'trafficked' is nebulous (at best) to begin with.

[Kurska]

29. Good post, the war on drugs analogy is very apt. n/t

[FrodosPet]

32. Regulating Legal Prostitution

Would the money to enforce the regulations come from a tax on the prostitutes, or on the general treasury?

Would people acting outside of the regulations still go to jail?

Can we put in a requirement that all prostitutes receive regular STD testing - perhaps every two weeks for a professional, and must have had STD testing within the last two weeks for customers? And condoms must be used - 5 year sentence for customers attempting penetration without a condom.

If prostitution can be nationalized and heavily taxed, with the proceeds going towards ending child prostitution and human trafficking, along with economic rehabilitation programs for anyone who wants to get out, and any pimps jailed for extremely long periods, I could support it.

But laizze faire buying and selling of human bodies is never acceptable.

[Kurska]

33. Well if you want me to break down my vision of it.

Weekly testing would be the gold standard, but I'd like to hear from experts on what they think is needed. Both prostitutes and the facilities they utilize would need to be licensed. The facilities would need to meet stringent health and safety standards (like working panic buttons, fire alarms and an armed guard required at all times the prostitutes are active to manage any unruly or aggressive johns). These facilities would be taxed and the money would go into a general fund meant to deal with any expenses incurred by the program. Part of the proceeds should be set aside to improve the well being of prostitutes. Condoms would be mandatory and anyone attempting to not use a condom would be ejected and given a life ban. Johns should need to get an STD test, afterwards they would be good for a month. I imagine these places would offer in-house testing (test today, come back in a week when we have your results on file).

The taxes need to be enough to provide for the program, but they can't be too heavy or you'll encourage a black market.

Unlicensed prostitutes and the Johns who buy from them should be warned, fined and after several violations they might get misdemeanor charges. Anyone caught involved with human trafficking should of course go to prison.

That is what I would like to see. Stringent regulation is of course required, because of the nature of the product. Regulations are good for everyone though, including Johns. Who on earth would go to a prostitute where you could be robbed by her pimp, when you could go to safe affordable option? Legal and safe options destroy the roles of the pimp and they discourage human trafficking.

So yeah, bring on Madame's house of pleasure. Keep it safe, keep it clean and it'll be better for everyone involved. Or we can keep throwing men and women in jail for engaging in the world's oldest profession.

Would this completely eliminate the black market? Realistically, not entirely. However, it would rip the floor out from under it. This would be a superior product acquired in safety. How does an illegal business compete with that?

[FrodosPet]

34. Because naughty is more fun?

Because you might be more physically attracted to the illegal prostitute? Or because you are a cheapskate and don't want to pay extra?

[Kurska]

35. It won't eliminate the entire black market, nothing in history can eliminate the entire black market

However it would rip the floor out from under it. This would be a superior product that could be acquired safely, you seriously think that wouldn't take a massive bite out of the illegal business?

The only people still dealing dirty in this kind of system would probably be the real bad guys involved in this business. This would let police better focus their vice resources on the worst kind.

I think it would work, do I know it will work? I can't tell you exactly. I do know that our current system isn't working. All the police resources in the world haven't made the slightest dent in prostitution and human trafficking is rampant. This might actually work. We can keep reinforcing failure or we can try something new.

[FrodosPet]

36. Cigarettes and alcohol would be a good simile

Both are legal, but heavily taxed and regulated.

So, between cheapskates who don't want to pay taxes, to anti-government militia types who want to poke a finger in the eye of the government, to people who would rather steal a dime than earn a thousand dollars, cigarette and booze bootlegging is still alive and well and earning criminals billions of dollars a year.

So yes, legalizing and regulating it will not make the illegal market go away. But hopefully it curtails it.

[Kurska]

37. And if there are problems with the system, they can be solved.

Nothing is going to be perfect the first time around. But if rational people get together and look at the problems that do exist, solutions for whatever unforeseen circumstances can be found.

[brett_jv]

12. How do you NOT understand ...

Look at the headline, and then this blurb from the excerpt: "Currently, people buying sex can be fined or jailed for up to a year,".

A valid implication to be derived here is that the Swedes are cracking down on ALL sex-purchasing, even between consenting (i.e. non-minor/non-trafficked) adults. So that understanding is CLEARLY what the person you're responding to is referring to.

You are interpreting this article 'one way' (i.e. the ONLY thing in question w/the new laws are obvious types of rape), but your debate opponent is reading it a DIFFERENT way (that ALL "johns" are being cracked down on, regardless of consenting adults). There's really no way of telling which of you is 'right' from what's posted in the OP. Both interpretations are 'valid'. However, you seem to be the only one who is INSISTING that your understanding MUST be the 'correct' one ... and worse, using your MAYBE correct interpretation (but clearly NOT the one your opponent is arguing) to basically call him a supporter of child molestation and rape. That is really lame, IMHO.

Of COURSE nobody would argue that it's unreasonable to impose a 1 year minimum (the vast majority of people would say that's a little short, actually) on someone who *knowingly* pays for sex w/someone who's being trafficked, or who is below the legal age of consent, whatever that may be in Sweden.

[geek tragedy]

14. Except I actually read the article

Fredrik Reinfeldt said he wants a mandatory prison sentence for buying sex from minors, and tougher sentences for those knowingly buying sex from trafficking victims.

More:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/2/0/89293/World/0/Sweden-PM-wants-to-see-prostitutes-clients-in-pris.aspx

His Moderate Party, he said, would campaign to incarcerate clients who knew the prostitute they used was a minor or a victim of human trafficking.

[brett_jv]

17. Maybe so .. but the 'honest' thing to do is help the other person understand their mistake

Instead of accusing them of basically Supporting Child Rape when the two of you are OBVIOUSLY not 'on the same page' in terms of your understanding of the story.

Edit: Meant as response to #14.

[Kurska]

21. There are two different laws here.

I feel like my opposition to one is being willfully misconstrued to mean opposition to the other.

[Kurska]

18. Jesus Mary and Joesph, I am talking about the other law.

There are two laws in the OP, one proposed that adds stiffer penalties for some prostitution and one on the books that makes it illegal to buy sex form consenting adults.

How are you still not getting this?

[jessie04]

9. Reinfeldt is a idiot.

he thinks THAT is Sweden's problem. jerk.

[seabeyond]

27. he is a jerk for a stronger sentence raping a child and raping a sex slave? wow. progressive much?

[davidn3600]

38. That's already illegal

The issue isn't about sex slavery or child rape. That's already illegal in every single western nation.

The debate is about CONSENTING ADULTS exchanging money for sex.

[seabeyond]

40. it is illegal and he is wanting to increase the punishment.

Fredrik Reinfeldt said he wants a mandatory prison sentence for buying sex from minors, and tougher sentences for those knowingly buying sex from trafficking victims.

[Niceguy1]

31. why not arrest them both they're adults?

that in both share the same sentence seems fair

[nomorenomore08]

42. I don't think selling sex should carry any criminal penalties. Especially considering how many

turn to it out of desperation. And in general, I don't necessarily think it should be illegal to buy, unless it can be proven that the "john" knew they were having sex with a minor or trafficking victim. But since those clearly illegal cases are the focus of the proposed laws in the OP, I don't really have an issue.

[nomorenomore08]

41. "Mandatory prison sentence for buying sex from minors." That I have no problem with.

"Knowingly buying sex from trafficking victims" should certainly be illegal as well, it just seems more difficult to prove.