Law: Understanding the difference between what the law is and what it should be

[Berkut]

Prostitution is illegal in Vegas.

[DontSayBanana]

Prostitution is illegal in Vegas.

You're right. Clark is actually one of the 5 counties in Nevada without designated areas where a licensed brothel can be operated. Washoe County (Reno) has also criminalized it.

What I'm wondering about is when it was criminalized. I understand that Reno and Vegas have been making big pushes to attract more family tourism, but I remember hearing not so long ago that services in Vegas were pretty sympathetic towards prostitution; is that clandestine and just another obstacle in criminalization, though?

[DGuller]

Torture.

[Caliga]

You're right. Clark is actually one of the 5 counties in Nevada without designated areas where a licensed brothel can be operated. Washoe County (Reno) has also criminalized it.

Oh, right.  It's legal outside of Clark Co., on the outskirts of Vegas. 

[Barrister]

In Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal.

However solicitation for the purposes of prostitution living on the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, are all against the law.

[Agelastus]

In Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal.

However solicitation for the purposes of prostitution living on the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, are all against the law.

Does that apply only to third parties (ie. pimps) or to the prostitutes themselves?

Does this mean that it's alright to be a prostitute as long as it is a second job, with your main income (that which you "live on") coming from being a secretary, for example?

Hey, Languish is the place for "stupid questions", right?

[Barrister]

In Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal.

However solicitation for the purposes of prostitution living on the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, are all against the law.

Does that apply only to third parties (ie. pimps) or to the prostitutes themselves?

Does this mean that it's alright to be a prostitute as long as it is a second job, with your main income (that which you "live on") coming from being a secretary, for example?

Hey, Languish is the place for "stupid questions", right?

It means to live on the avails of a 3rd party.

However keeping a common bawdy house could apply to the prostitute themselves.

Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.

[Admiral Yi]

Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.

Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?

[Barrister]

Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.

Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?

Are they allowed to?  No.

Do they do so anyways using various euphemisms?  Yes.

[Ed Anger]

Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.

Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?

Are they allowed to?  No.

Do they do so anyways using various euphemisms?  Yes.

1 hr/300 flowers.

Yeah.

[Tonitrus]

What about the Asian, deep-tissue massage places...they're legit, right? 

[dps]

In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics".

Yes--of course the areas where there is no or little consensus make up a substantial part of political discourse and debate.

[Ideologue]

What M. said, Grumbler.

We don't agree, simple as that, and the differences between Western countries (and inside each of them) are deep and broad. To quote M. "Age of consent, drug use, prostitution, incest (to the extent it does not involve child abuse or coercion), gambling, abortion, euthanasia, hate speech and hate crimes are all criminal law issues that are differently approached in different parts of the West, and hotly debated throughout... In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics".

None of those issues are issues that involve "what acts criminal law should hold as crimes."  I had thought this so obvious I never even responded to it, thinking no one would be fooled by this list. 

The West generally agrees that sex with children below the age of consent should be criminalized.

The West generally agrees that some forms of drug use should be criminalized.

The West generally agrees that some activities associated with prostitution should be criminalized, but that prostitution itself should not.

The West generally agrees that some forms of incest should be criminalized.

The West generally agrees that some forms of gambling should be criminalized.

The West generally agrees that some types of abortion should be criminalized.

The West generally agrees that some types of hate speech should be criminalized.

The West generally agrees that some types of hate crimes  should be criminalized.

Do you wish to dispute this?

The distinction isn't on what the laws should say/do, but how they are implemented (and they define the specific offense that most agree in principal should be criminalized) which is what dps was talking about.

I personally understood that we were referring to the West as in a collection of people, not a collection of states.  As a collection of states, I think you're closer to the mark.  As a collection of people--all of whom live in states that are somewhat similar in their application of this idealized of "Western criminal law," but who in the aggregate are, imo, markedly divided in what acts or omissions they think should be criminal.

At any rate, I think that list is not as narrowly focused as it would need to be to determine whether there is marked disagreement amongst either states or people.  Indeed, you could take that same list, and Saudi Arabia would pass as part of that "western consensus."  The adjective "some" in each example contains great multitudes of real and substantial differences of application of law by the government and opinion about the law held by the governed .

[grumbler]

Minor technical point - the United States does not criminalize prostitution, except indirectly through statutes like the Mann Act or RICO.  Most but not all of the 50 states do criminalize prostitution, and in some of those, enforcement can be spotty.

Any prosecution, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense qualification.

[grumbler]

I personally understood that we were referring to the West as in a collection of people, not a collection of states.  As a collection of states, I think you're closer to the mark.  As a collection of people--all of whom live in states that are somewhat similar in their application of this idealized of "Western criminal law," but who in the aggregate are, imo, markedly divided in what acts or omissions they think should be criminal.

Really?  You think that, if you took a poll, there would be more than 10% of the people of "the West" who disagreed about more than 10% of the proposed acts to be made illegal (not the specifics, but the acts)?  We cannot know, of course, but I would be astonished.  Think about all the acts that are illegal in your state.  What percentage of them are legal (or does there exist a substantial population wanting to make them legal) anywhere in "the West?"

At any rate, I think that list is not as narrowly focused as it would need to be to determine whether there is marked disagreement amongst either states or people.  Indeed, you could take that same list, and Saudi Arabia would pass as part of that "western consensus."  The adjective "some" in each example contains great multitudes of real and substantial differences of application of law by the government and opinion about the law held by the governed.

I agree, but it isn't my list, it is Marti's.  It is, in fact, such an obviously useless list that I didn't even respond to it initially, assuming that everyone could see how unpersuasive it was... until Alariste alerted me that my assumption was wrong.