Latest News - Page 119 of 121 - Shared Hope International

April 5, 2010 by SHI Staff

The Swedish Approach to Prostitution, Part II

The Swedish Approach to Prostitution: Could it work in the U.S.?

Since 1999, Sweden has taken a unique approach to prostitution. In Sweden, it’s a crime to pay for sex. Prostitutes (mostly women and children) are referred to government funded programs aimed at getting them out of prostitution while customers (mostly men) who are paying for sex are charged and prosecuted.

Would that approach work here in the United States? What if we made it a crime to buy sex, and focused our attention on stopping the demand? What if instead of charging prostituted women and children with soliciting, we copied Sweden: investing in support services to help them leave prostitution, and charging the person who is paying for sex?

Obviously, the US and Sweden are different countries. So what are our differences in approaching prostitution?

The 1999 law makes it clear that Sweden sees prostitution as a women’s issue, and as a form of violence against women and children. This is very different from our current view in the U.S.

While both countries recognize women’s rights, Sweden has often led the U.S. in terms of timing. Women in Sweden were given the right to vote in all municipal elections in 1909; in the United States, women gained the right to vote in 1920. Sweden outlawed rape in marriage in 1965; in the U.S., marital rape was finally outlawed in all fifty states in 1994, when Texas enacted a law. Sweden also has more women in government than the U.S. For several years, Sweden led the world with the highest female representation in government (close to 50%). And the female politicians were vocal supporters of Sweden’s legislation. To contrast Sweden and the U.S., at the end of 2009, Sweden had 46.4% women in government (second highest in the world); the U.S. had only 16.8% in the House of Reps; and 15.3% in the Senate.[i]

Perhaps the biggest difference between our two countries is our view of prostitution. Here in the United States, prostitution is not seen as violence against women or children; and we do not view or treat prostituted persons as victims, even when the prostituted person is a child well under the age of consent. As for the customers or “johns” who pay for sex, here in the US they remain largely faceless and outside the law.

Sweden is taking a fundamentally different view. By looking at the whole situation, Sweden sees a larger picture where the customer who is paying for sex is the criminal and the prostituted woman or child is the victim. Here in the U.S., we’re not seeing that bigger picture. Our focus is solely on the prostitute, whether woman, man or child. The nature of the exploitation isn’t named; and the person who is paying for sex (“customer”,“john”) remains largely outside our view.

There is no reason we couldn’t borrow from Sweden’s law and introduce legislation in the U.S. that shifts the crime from the prostituted child or woman to the person paying for sex. But to change our legislation, we need to change the hearts and minds of our legislators. Changing our view to the bigger picture is a good way to start.

[i] Source: Women in National Parliaments. Info compiled by the Inter Parliamentary Union, based on information provided by National Parliaments as of Dec. 31, 2009 available at http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

March 31, 2010 by SHI Staff

The Swedish Approach to Prostitution, Part I

For the past eleven years, Sweden has taken a unique approach to prostitution. In 1999, the Swedish government passed a law making it a crime to pay for sex. The selling of sex remains legal but people who pay for sex are charged with a crime.

The Swedish perception of prostitution as an aspect of male violence against women and children led to this unique approach to the issue. The Swedish government “officially acknowledged [prostitution] as a form of exploitation of women and children and…a significant social problem,” saying that gender equality would remain “unattainable as long as men buy, sell and exploit women and children by prostituting them.” By making it illegal to pay for sex, Sweden targeted the demand side of the commercial sex industry.

How is it working in Sweden?

Initially, there were very few arrests because police officers were reluctant to arrest people. Once the officers received in-depth training, however, things quickly changed. A study conducted in 2004, just five years after the legislation came into force, found that Swedish brothels and massage parlors had disappeared, and street prostitution had been reduced by two thirds. An article published in Sweden’s The Local newspaper in 2008 noted that Stockholm no longer has a red light district, and law enforcement officials now express strong support for the law because it has allowed them to tackle organized crime, which is often associated with prostitution.

Some supporters don’t feel the law goes far enough. The law allows for men to be fined and serve up to six months in jail but as of 2008, no man had gone to jail and only 500 men (50 per year) had been convicted and fined. Several legislators want tougher penalties and are calling for “more teeth” in the law. This is concerning for anti-trafficking advocates who see victims of sex trafficking mixed with the victims of prostitution in practice. Men who buy sex from a trafficking victim should be subject to much steeper penalties and the victim rescued and provided restorative services.

Some opponents criticize the law for failing to take into account sex workers’ opinions on this issue. Some sex workers’ organizations believe women have a right to choose prostitution as a life and work choice, and they resent the government’s interference in this business of prostitution. Other opponents say that Sweden’s law hasn’t really reduced demand but has simply pushed prostitution underground – onto the Internet and into women’s homes- making it more dangerous for prostitutes.

Regardless of the debate, a recent study showed that support remains high among the Swedish people, with 80% continuing to support the legislation. Other countries, including Finland, Norway, Scotland and Britain have been influenced by Sweden’s approach, considering or passing legislation that makes it illegal to pay for sex.

March 25, 2010 by SHI Staff

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. House of Representatives

Linda Smith submits testimony to the US Helsinki Commission.

Human Rights Commission of the U.S. House of Representatives

March 23, 2010 by SHI Staff

Senate proposes legislation to address sex trafficking of American youth

In our own backyard, children are prostituted on main streets across America. Instead of shying away from the uncomfortable reality that over 100,000 U.S. children are prostituted every year within U.S. borders, the Senate has instead proposed legislation to address this troubling reality.

On February 24, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee invited experts in the field of child sex trafficking to weigh in on recent legislation introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and co-sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Al Franken (D-Min.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009 aims to provide large block grants to provide shelter and services to survivors of child sex trafficking and to provide funding to implement improvements on tracking missing and exploited children.

As the key senator behind the bill, Senator Wyden explained that child sex trafficking in the United States is a multi-billion dollar business and once a child is involved, it’s very difficult for the child to get out. “We need to be clear that we are not going to sacrifice our children to pimps.”

Senator Durbin (D-Ill.) drew attention to how young children are when they are recruited into sex trafficking, often in their early teens (13 is the average age). “….The scourge of human trafficking continues to plague our nation and our world,” said the Senator. “There is no more heartbreaking part of this problem than the sexual exploitation of children.”

On a well-balanced panel representing many aspect of the field, each panelist highlighted the importance of treating the child as a victim, providing appropriate services for the survivor and setting effective deterrence against buying sex with children.

What was most welcomed, however, was the voice of a survivor of child sex trafficking. Shaqwanna is a survivor of domestic minor sex trafficking and currently an outreach volunteer at GEMS (Girls Educational and Mentoring Services, founded by Rachel Lloyd, also on the panel). Shaqwanna spoke of the need to provide safe shelter for this vulnerable population.

“Girls need support, not jail,” emphasized Shaqwanna. “We need a safe place and people who will be patient and non-judgmental so we can start our lives over.”

Currently, there are very few safe places for a child to go – less than 60 beds in the entire United States. Without a safe place for a child to go, it’s easier to return to the pimp who provides basic needs like shelter and food. Anita Alvarez, a prosecutor in Cook County, Ill., told of a child with a mother addicted to drugs. The pimp provided the child with food and clothing, and the child was reluctant to report him. “He gives me a Subway sandwich whenever I ask,” the child said.

However, it was Senator Franken who highlighted the role of the male who is supporting the demand for commercial exploitation of children. “What about the men, the American men who are paying for sex with children?” asked Franken. “The ‘johns,’ the adult males who visit prostitutes, are the ones who should be prosecuted. They are the ones who should be in prison.”

In response, speakers called for tougher state laws to prosecute men who pay for sex with children, language that currently isn’t strong enough in the proposed legislation. Studies have shown that men who buy sex don’t care what age the woman/girl is, but they do care about being stigmatized and embarrassed.

The Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009 is not only important for the safety of America’s children, but also to set a benchmark for other countries to replicate. Ambassador Luis Cdebaca, Ambassador at Large to Combat Human Trafficking, plans to assess the United States in the 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report. “We in the U.S. need to do an honest self-assessment. NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that work in this area serve as the ‘conscience of the community.’”

However, until legislation is passed to strengthen our response to domestic minor sex trafficking, the Ambassador highlighted the importance of helping all victims of child sexual exploitation. “It doesn’t matter if the victim once consented or returned to the pimp; it doesn’t matter if the chains were psychological or physical and whether the acts taken by the pimps inspired feelings of love or fear in the victim. This is still a victim.”

Please visit our website (sharedhope.org) to read more about the Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009, watch the Senate Hearing and read President Linda Smith’s Testimony.

February 19, 2010 by SHI Staff

Why does the exchange of money for sex with a child convert a child rapist into a “john”?

A sex offender is a person convicted of a sexual offense, such as rape, sexual assault, or lewdness. Our society treats sex offenders as criminals. We try them in court, and if convicted, sex offenders serve prison time. Once released, they are required to register with the authorities as a sex offender. Megan’s Law, passed in 1996, requires each state to have a way of notifying the public so most states maintain registries, easily available online. It’s easy to find out where sex offenders live, what they look like, and what sex crime they committed. We do this because sex offenders present a threat to children and we want parents to be aware of any threats to their child.

However, there is a group of people you won’t find listed in registries of sex offenders — the buyers (generally men) of sex with prostituted children. These “johns” are rarely listed in sex offender registries because they are rarely arrested or charged when caught having sex with a prostituted child and, if arrested for soliciting prostitution, law enforcement do not identify the victim as a minor.

Sex offenders face hefty fines and/or prison time, but buyers of prostituted children are rarely charged. The few that are arrested often escape punishment; the few who are arrested get off with misdemeanors, light fines and suspended sentences. A large majority of the men arrested in a sting operation in Chesterfield, Virgina last year were given $100 fines and 30-day suspended jail sentences. Some states also allow charges to be dropped if first-time offenders attend “johns’ school”, where law enforcement officials and prostituted women seek to “educate” them as way to change their behavior. “Johns’ schools” are never appropriate for the buyer of sex with a child – this is child rape and should be prosecuted as a serious felony.

Even more disturbing – law enforcement are more likely to arrest a minor on prostitution charges and let the buyer go free. One situation highlighted in the National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking is particularly revealing. Police in Las Vegas approached a parked truck after observing it pick up a girl. The police report reflects that the 50-year-old man was observed with $45 in cash hanging from his pocket and lotion on his hands. The 12-year-old girl stated that he was paying her for a sex act. The police arrested the girl for prostitution and sent the man on his way.

We have full databases of names, faces and addresses for sexual predators in our neighborhoods, but we turn a blind eye to the people who walk among us who are paying to have sex with children. Why the difference?

As a society, we’ve placed a priority on protecting children from sex offenders and predators in our neighborhoods. Yet we haven’t placed the same priority on protecting or helping prostituted children who are being coerced, recruited and forced into the sex trade. We need to start arresting the buyer and treating him as a sex offender and start rescuing the prostituted child and treating her as the victim. Without proper law enforcement, demand for prostituted children will continue to exist.

Protecting our children is a high priority for every state – adding the names of those who buy sex from a child is an important step in protecting all children from exploitation.