Table of contentsIntroductionAnalysis of the subjectConclusionBibliography IntroductionProstitution is known as the oldest profession in the world. This usually involves performing sexual acts for money. Debates over its morality are heated, and the extent to which the law is justified in impeding individual autonomy is often unclear. I will therefore put into context different moral views, their critiques and the contributions of some eminent moral philosophers. Furthermore, the UK legal framework is inconsistent and has paradoxically served to compound the harms arising from the objectification of women's bodies in prostitution. This is why I will support law reform by illustrating the Nordic model which has proven effective in reducing associated harm. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayTopic AnalysisDifferent opinions struggle for moral authority in attempts to craft legislation on the morally controversial issue of prostitution. It is crucial to appreciate what they stand for, how they influence the law and the mentality of society as a whole. A conservative view is that a person's body is special and, for this purpose, its commodification is inherently morally wrong. So, legislation is rightly put in place to curb this for the greater good of society, as the rules are meant to uphold morality and prohibit such degrading activities. However, some criticism of this position has been made to counter this. In reference to the teachings of Immanuel Kant, treating someone as a mere means is a problem since people should be treated as an end in themselves, so in the case where there is consent between the prostitute and her client, this is morally justifiable. Furthermore, legislation should not be passed on the assumption that prostitution makes people uncomfortable, without it being inherently harmful or illegal in itself. This is consistent with John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" which states that "the only purpose for which power can be lawfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm from being done to others.” , radical feminists consider prostitution as an aspect of the sexual slavery of women, therefore harmful “in itself”, therefore morally bad. They perceive it as a form of violence against women in a paternalistic society that degrades and objectifies the female body, thus harming female sexuality. In an article, MacKinnon states that: “At the same time, men's freedom is often interpreted in sexual terms and includes liberal access to women, including prostitutes. So, while for men, freedom means that women engage in prostitution, for women, prostitution involves the loss of everything that freedom means. » I will not dispute the idea that some women are forced into prostitution, hence the extent to which they actually “consent”. to a sexual act is questionable, or the fact that the harms arising from the sex industry are cautious due to the social constructionism of the sexual objectification of women and gender inequality. However, what some feminists fail to take into account is the fact that for some women in this controversial industry, it is a legitimate lifestyle choice and they find it empowering and rewarding. In an interview with popular magazine Marie Claire, a sex worker was quoted as saying: “prostitutiongave me a growing awareness of my sexuality and a lot of personal strength.” Furthermore, it becomes problematic when the advocacy of some of these feminists for legislation banning prostitution focuses primarily on the fact that it builds tolerance for a deeply ingrained paternalistic attitude in society. It distracts from the fight for gender equality by implying that the female body is inherently problematic and therefore, contradictorily, ends up spoiling female sexuality. In this male-dominated society, paternalism has always existed since time immemorial and remedying it should not involve the criminalization of prostitution. Furthermore, generalizing all acts of prostitution as payment for sexual services is a mistake, since some clients only pay for companionship. It could be argued that in light of autonomy, which is a predominant moral and political value championed by both Kant and Mill, individuals should be autonomous without being imposed by external characteristics, leaving it up to each individual to distinguish their obligations and moral principles. We must therefore let women make their own choices. Even so, these feminist views are not representative of all feminists. The liberal position on prostitution, in relation to Mill's principles, is that people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they do not harm anyone. Since it is not problematic in itself, and therefore morally wrong, the law should focus on the harms that result from it, such as violence or sexual exploitation. Libertarians gravitate towards the fact that the law criminalizing prostitution as a whole only makes the situation worse by reinforcing stigma and pushing the “profession” underground, further exacerbating the harms. However, as with any approach, there are setbacks. In general, it does not seriously consider the issue of consent, while neglecting the fact that many prostituted women do not participate willingly. Some are forced into the industry due to financial desperation, coercion and abuse. Moreover, the mere fact that it regards all forms of commerce as entirely morally acceptable on the basis of individual autonomy is dubious. This harm principle, associated with autonomy, which is a predominant element in the arguments of libertarians in their attempt to rationalize their point of view. on prostitution and the law, does not come out unscathed. A renowned legal philosopher, the late Joel Feinberg, wrote a four-volume book criticizing Mill's principle; calling him “extremely liberal.” In his view, Mill broadened the scope of individual autonomy too widely. Feinberg, with his offense principle, countered the harm principle which justifies intervention in a person's liberty only if it causes harm to others. The first attempts to determine the extent to which the criminal law is morally justified in interfering with individual freedoms. But he did not completely ignore the latter. According to him, evil focuses more on the physical aspect, so his principle takes into account the mental state, such as anger, resentment and disgust towards offensive acts. He clearly supported a kind of paternalistic legislation aimed at "drawing boundaries between people's different private domains and between a person's private domains and the public world." “mental aversion”. His problem with the harm principle was that it has no limits when it comes to individual autonomy. Thus, Feinberg's principle couldbe used to counter libertarians' specific approach to prostitution, which does not take as much account of the need to regulate prostitution in the interest of preventing harm from it. Some libertarians choose from Mill's teachings what best suits their argument, ignoring the rest. Mill did not always share libertarian views, which was noticeable when he explicitly addressed prostitution. His pleasure principle sought to define true human happiness as the pursuit of character development, calling him an "ethical liberalist" and a "moral perfectionist." He categorically made a distinction between “higher pleasures” and “lower pleasures.” The pursuit of "higher pleasures" is that which results in true happiness because it leads to the development of moral virtue and intellect, while "lower pleasures" such as sex were an "immediate desire" which was not in no satisfactory case and did not contribute to achieving real happiness. According to Mill, individual freedom should be based on the pursuit of personal development. Regarding prostitution, Mill's views echoed those of modern radical feminists, perceiving it as a form of violence against women. He considered it a "social evil", describing: "there is no greater evil that this propensity [male sexuality] can produce than prostitution...not only because of the miserable women whose very existence it sacrifices , but because nothing else is like any other. as if corrupting to men. » Mill was a very vocal voice behind the rebellion of the Contagious Diseases Acts in Britain whose ostensible "aim" was to prevent the spread of venereal diseases, but which was more theoretical than practical and sexist. It targeted women suspected of being “ordinary prostitutes” and required them to undergo fortnightly medical examinations. If they were sick, they were imprisoned for nine months. However, the men were never examined. Mill argued that the legislation "encouraged" prostitution which he considered immoral, and that if the legislation was truly intended to prevent disease, police should also investigate men who resort to the services of women in addition to examining them as such. the disease can only be transmitted by those who “look for it”; adding even harsher consequences for those who transmitted the disease to a “modest woman”. In short, he was troubled by the solicitation, exploitation and other harms arising from prostitution and favored paternalistic legislative intervention in the matter. But since he wasn't specific about types of regulation, he probably disagreed on the extent to which prostitution as a whole should be a matter of "individual choice." In the UK, prostitution itself is not illegal, but related activities are. Following the 1957 Wolfenden Report on Public Morals, the Street Crimes Act 1959 was enacted to combat the increase in street prostitution. The law provided for prison sentences for loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. In 2008 it was revised by the Home Office on Tackling the demand for prostitution: a review and was amended by sections 16 and 17 of the Police and Crime Act 2009, which reduced sanctions of imprisonment for summary offenses or an alternative commitment and support order. , sections 52 and 53 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 criminalizecausing, inciting and controlling prostitution for profit, punishable by imprisonment. The aim is to protect sex workers from force and exploitation by pimps. Section 59A of the same Act provides protection against trafficking for sexual exploitation while section 53A, which is an insertion by section 14 of the Police and Crime Act 2009, requires a “strict liability offence” for those who provide sexual services to a person subject to coercion. . Additionally, Anti-Social Behavior Orders (ASBOs), which are not necessarily limited to prostitution activities, prohibit entry into certain areas or cause "harassment" and "distress". The legal framework in England and Wales is more theoretical than practical. This is self-contradictory in that it permits the buying and selling of sexual services but criminalizes activities associated with it; a rather impractical approach. Thus, its lack of a clear position results in inconsistency in the law, to the detriment of vulnerable sex workers. Therefore, the harms arising from prostitution due to gender imbalance are exacerbated as the legal system fails to adequately address the problem. However, it is their responsibility to ensure the protection of everyone without discrimination. The imposition of criminal sanctions on sex workers reinforces the societal stigma against them, which in itself constitutes harm which in turn leads to psychological harm. Law enforcement is biased because it prefers to target sex workers because they are more visible when soliciting. By criminalizing the prostitute and not the purchaser of sexual services, the law only promotes gender inequality while portraying her as an outlier, but in most cases the woman is the vulnerable person in need of protection . Social stigma coupled with discriminatory law enforcement only compounds the violence these women face and what's worse is that they are afraid to report to the police as it turns into a criminal investigation against them. Cases such as rape are therefore ignored and the vicious cycle continues. The people who object to these women and subject them to violence know that most of the time the law will not work against them in practice due to the stigma surrounding prostitutes. So there is no legislative measure that really deters them, so they take advantage of it. For example, the practicality of section 14 of the Police and Crime Act 2009 is questionable as it does not reflect the different circumstances and complexities in which coercion occurs, and therefore does not target the perpetrators, which leading to the rise of human trafficking in the UK and a low number of prosecutions. rate. Additionally, police departments do not have centralized strategic prostitution operations and prefer to enforce legislation against sex workers because it requires less intensive resources. ASBOs serve to further accelerate the marginalization of vulnerable people. The prostitution inquiry suggested that the use of these orders against sex workers should stop due to the risks of travel. In order to avoid getting caught by law enforcement, some sex workers will not take precautions before accepting offers from their clients. As they are supposed to have the upper hand, ASBOs would diminish their negotiating power and, moreover, endanger their security. The ordinances serve. (2011)