[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Seems to me that that law would mean that exploited people - however that is defined - are severely discouraged from forming a number of social relationships.

[crazy canuck]

Seems to me that that law would mean that exploited people - however that is defined - are severely discouraged from forming a number of social relationships.

Its one of the arguments for decriminalization.  It goes something like this - if prostitutes can operate like a regulated business then we can rely on general contract and employment laws to protect their health and safety.  But so long as it forced into the shadows we have to think about how to distinguish the exploitive pimp from the loving boyfriend.

[Malthus]

Seems to me that that law would mean that exploited people - however that is defined - are severely discouraged from forming a number of social relationships.

Well - it creates a rebuttable presumption, which makes prosecuting someone living with an "exploited person" easier, as being an exploiter. However, that possibility already existed under the existing legislation.

What changes, is that now a person living with an "exploited person" has the onus of providing evidence they aren't an exploiter.

In reality, I suspect that if someone was being "exploited" (for example, being forced into prostitution), there would already prior to this legislation have been a pretty strong presumption in the trier of fact's mind(s) that their 'live-in boyfriend' or whatever was in on it - that is, if there was no evidence either way. This legislation just formalizes this.   

[Admiral Yi]

Because it's not a blanket presumption, but allows for "except for evidence to the contrary", it should be fine constitutionally IMO.  Once the Accused takes the stand to rebut the presumption it still falls on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised such control.

A presumption and a need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt seem inconsistent in my mind.

[Jacob]

In reality, I suspect that if someone was being "exploited" (for example, being forced into prostitution), there would already prior to this legislation have been a pretty strong presumption in the trier of fact's mind(s) that their 'live-in boyfriend' or whatever was in on it - that is, if there was no evidence either way. This legislation just formalizes this.

Maybe I misunderstand something, but because a strong presumption exists in the trier of facts mind does it naturally follow that that should be formally legislated?

[viper37]

Seems to me that that law would mean that exploited people - however that is defined - are severely discouraged from forming a number of social relationships.

Its one of the arguments for decriminalization.  It goes something like this - if prostitutes can operate like a regulated business then we can rely on general contract and employment laws to protect their health and safety.  But so long as it forced into the shadows we have to think about how to distinguish the exploitive pimp from the loving boyfriend.

Not that I disagree with the legalization of prostitution, but it will not change much on this.

Stripping clubs are legal businesses.  Yet, many are employing underage girls, either willingly or with willful blindness.  Prostitution in such bars is forbidden, yet, it happens.  Girls being forced or more likely, coerced to strip themselves in such clubs does exists.

If we legalize prostitution, just like drugs, there will be a certain framework: what is allowed, where it is allowed, whom is allowed to prostitute themselve, and there will always be grey areas and totally dark areas where people will want to go.
Just as alcohol and tobacco contraband does exists, there will be a cheaper black market for prostitution for forbidden stuff.

[Admiral Yi]

Fun fact: in DC a 16 year old can work in a nudie bar with parental consent.

[Barrister]

Because it's not a blanket presumption, but allows for "except for evidence to the contrary", it should be fine constitutionally IMO.  Once the Accused takes the stand to rebut the presumption it still falls on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised such control.

A presumption and a need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt seem inconsistent in my mind.

We make it work.

Let's take the doctrine of recent possession - if someone is found with stolen property shortly after it was stolen, there is a presumption that the person stole that property.

So, in the absence of any other evidence, recent possession = proof of theft.

However, if the Accused takes the stand to say that they didn't steal those items, then unless the Accused is completely disbelieved then the presumption has been rebutted.  Now the Crown must still prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the theft.

Practically speaking, a presumption will often compel the Accused to call evidence in order to rebut the presumption, and that's about the only effect.

[Razgovory]

Seems to me that that law would mean that exploited people - however that is defined - are severely discouraged from forming a number of social relationships.

Its one of the arguments for decriminalization.  It goes something like this - if prostitutes can operate like a regulated business then we can rely on general contract and employment laws to protect their health and safety.  But so long as it forced into the shadows we have to think about how to distinguish the exploitive pimp from the loving boyfriend.

Sadly, the argument is not borne out by evidence.  The Netherlands seen a sharp increase in sexual slavery since the legalization of the sex trade.

[Admiral Yi]

<snip>

Got it.

[Malthus]

In reality, I suspect that if someone was being "exploited" (for example, being forced into prostitution), there would already prior to this legislation have been a pretty strong presumption in the trier of fact's mind(s) that their 'live-in boyfriend' or whatever was in on it - that is, if there was no evidence either way. This legislation just formalizes this.

Maybe I misunderstand something, but because a strong presumption exists in the trier of facts mind does it naturally follow that that should be formally legislated?

Not sure I understand the question.

To my mind, the formal legislation in this case avoids a situation where an accused person refuses to take the stand (for fear of being cross-examined), and the charge, in theory, is put in peril because there is otherwise no evidence (assuming the victim is terrified into 'knowing nothing').

For example, say a Biker Gang has imported some young women (let's say from Quebec, just to make Viper happy  ) to work as prostitutes, with threats of beatings or worse if they don't cooperate, and promises of drugs if they do. One of the bikers is found living with one of the women. She's convinced that if she has anything to do with expressly fingering a biker, they will hunt her down and kill her later, so she 'knows nothing' and refuses to testify at all. The biker also refuses to testify; his lawyer says that, aside from living in the same place, and being a biker, there is no evidence whatsoever he specifically has had anything to do with importing the women from Quebec and forcing her to be a prostitute.

Assume there is no doubt that the woman was forced to work as a prostitute.

Under the old legislation, he may or may not have been convicted - the evidence is pretty "thin", so he may well have gotten off. Under the new legislation, he'd be convicted - unless he took the stand in his own defense. That would subject him to cross-examination.

[viper37]

For example, say a Biker Gang has imported some young women (let's say from Quebec, just to make Viper happy  ) to work as prostitutes,

apparently, we're champion exporters of that.  Don't know if it's because lots of young girls don't speak english so are easier to manipulate once transferred or simply a question of price.

[Barrister]

For example, say a Biker Gang has imported some young women (let's say from Quebec, just to make Viper happy  ) to work as prostitutes,

apparently, we're champion exporters of that.  Don't know if it's because lots of young girls don't speak english so are easier to manipulate once transferred or simply a question of price.

Or it could just be that women from Quebec are just a bunch of sluts.

[Jacob]

Or it could just be that women from Quebec are just a bunch of sluts.

Alright there legbiter.

[Barrister]

Or it could just be that women from Quebec are just a bunch of sluts.

Alright there legbiter.

Dammit - I got a bite, but you're not the fish I was looking for.