Rhode Island Bans Indoor Prostitution
On November 3, 2009, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri signed into law a bill that end the legalized indoor prostitution in Rhode Island.
The Ocean State never intended to legalize indoor prostitution. Until May 1980, Section 11-34-5 of the R.I.G.L. included broad restrictions against prostitution:
|
Transportation for indecent purposes Streetwalking Harboring prostitution. It shall be unlawful for any person to secure, direct or transport, or offer to secure, direct or transport another for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other lewd or indecent act; or to loiter in or near any thoroughfare or public or private place for the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting, or procuring another to commit lewdness, fornication, unlawful sexual intercourse or any other indecent act; or to commit or in any manner induce, entice, or solicit, or procure a person in any thoroughfare, or public or private place or conveyance to commit any such act; or to receive or offer or agree to receive any person into any place, structure, house, building, room, or conveyance for the purpose of committing any such acts, or knowingly permit any person to remain therein for any such purposes, or to, in any way, aid or abet or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated herein. |
Unusual circumstances led to the decriminalization of indoor prostitution in Rhode Island. In 1976, COYOTE ("Call Off Your Old, Tired Ethics") a sex worker right organization and two anonymous prostitutes challenged the constitutionality of the statute in light of its alleged overbreadth purported to outlaw all extramarital sexual intercourse. COYOTE also argued that the state enforced the law to arrest more women than men. In response to this action and growing rate of prostitution, conservative forces in Rhode Island successfully campaigned to the amendment of the law that in May 1980 was changed to provide:
|
§11-34-5: TRANSPORTATION FOR INDECENT PURPOSES—HARBORING PROSTITUTION.—It shall be unlawful for any person for pecuniary gain, to secure, direct or transport, or offer to secure, direct or transport another for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other lewd or indecent act; or to receive or offer to agree to receive any person into any place, structure, house, building, room, or conveyance for the purpose of committing any such acts, or knowingly permit any person to remain herein for any such purposes, or to, in any way, aid or abet or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated herein. |
In COYOTE v. Roberts, 502 F.Supp. 1342 (1980), the court examined the amendment and concluded that "it seems evident that the statute is now directed at suppressing specifically that type of sexual activity commonly regarded as “prostitution”. More significant for present purposes, the amendments appear to have decriminalized the sexual act itself, even when undertaken for remuneration. Thus, it appears to the Court that Section 11-34-5 now outlaws only certain preliminary or preparatory activities (securing, transporting, receiving into a house or conveyance, etc.), and then only when pecuniary gain is somehow involved." The court therefore ruled that the amended law does not outlaw "consenting adults from engaging in purely private sexual activity, irrespective of whether the motivation of one of the participants was economic." This is how the Rhode Island Indoor Prostitution Loophole was born.
It took Rhode Island almost 30 years to close its indoor prostitution loophole.
Categories: Morality, Interest Groups, Regulatory Failure, Bans and Prohibitions, Theories of Regulation
Tags: Loopholes Prostitution
Comments