The Indian Supreme court raises question about legalizing prostitution. Last night, we had an animated debate on this topic with the men in the group arguing for legalization and the women against it. Seems like an obvious alignment of views, but, interestingly, neither side was arguing on moral grounds, but rather on the practical implications of such a law.
My main issue is with the reasons given for legalization. Judges say that if you legalize prostitution "you can then monitor the trade, rehabilitate and provide medical aid to those involved."
Why isn't the rehabilitation and medical provision happening right now? When providing treatment do clinics ask how you contracted a disease and then deny treatment depending on the reason?
Given how policies are implemented in India, I don't see any clear benefits of legalization. Do you agree or disagree?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think the idea is that legalization would lead to licensing, and making a clean bill of health a requirement for a license would provide a currently-absent incentive to get tested. So public health and safety would be improved by getting more prostitutes through the clinic door, not necessarily by what happens once they're at the clinic.
Your second point is a good one though. The incentive only works if the punishment and the chance of getting caught are both high enough to make the expected cost of violation greater than the cost of compliance. So it does all come down to the question of enforcement.
Point noted.
Shouldn't you be studying for finals?
Post a Comment