Ways to Control Sex Trafficking

Defined by the Oxford dictionary, prostitution is “the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.” As of 2016, there is an approximation of one million to two million prostitutes in the United States, but since prostitution was widely deemed as being immoral or non-consensual, the Mann Act was passed as a way to address the situation. The Mann Act forbids the transportation of prostitutes across state lines for “immoral” purposes. Until recently, revisions on current prostitution mandates had not been considered due to its negative stigma, but as the modern world becomes more accepting of prostitution, new legislative proposals have emerged. Social Science Research Center studied that in 1995, 81% of people opposed prostitution; in 2016, Marist Institute for Public Opinion found only 44% had opposed prostitution. This change in opposition is explained due to prostitution being viewed as a form of employment. Legal Prostitution has the potential for an economically stronger nation while also establishing an organized prostitution industry. Decriminalized prostitution is justified by, but not limited too, monetary benefits on the economy.

If prostitution is legalized. Then businesses such as brothels, escort services, and other sex-focused entities would pay taxes to the government. Thus there would be substantial tax revenue. The federal government would stop funding millions of dollars to prosecute prostitution activities. And there would be a rise in sex tourism, which encourages foreign exchange. Prostitution should be legalized to the extent of it being consensual. Behind closed doors, and befitting on the current age of consent laws. Erin Fuchs, senior reporter and previous bureau chief for the Chattanooga Times Free Press. states “Illegal prostitution businesses in America, of course, pay no taxes. If those brothels were legalized. Then state and county governments could gain significant revenue.” Fuchs claims that if brothels are legalized then the government will be able to gain the tax revenue from those businesses. Fuchs mentions a Nevadan plan to imply the missed opportunities which can be gained from legal brothels. Fuchs states Nevada Republicans blocked legislation using these sources of tax revenue. For other government-funded operations. Saying “they didn’t want schools and other state services funded by sex work.”

In conjunction with Fuchs, Tracey Sonntag wrote the “Case for Prostitution,” hosted by Eastern Michigan University, and found an estimation on projected income from government tax revenue on legalized prostitution. “Considering that current estimations show over one million prostituted women in America, the tax revenue generated by this industry becomes a staggering $20 billion per year.” Sonntag analyzes the potential benefit from including prostitutes in federal taxes while projecting these earnings to the US economy. Fuchs and Sonntag support each other because Fuchs advocates that criminalized prostitution means that the U.S. is missing out on potential income, while Sonntag is confirming these financial benefits. Sonntag specifically talks about Tax Revenue. Sonntags’ estimations are used to predict potential economic benefits on licensed sex working. This is effective on both authors claim for legalizing prostitution. Because it provides data gathered from Sonntags article, the “Case for Prostitution”.

Fuchs also includes reported data from 2007 to help establish his claim. Together Fuchs provides a sensible call for legalizing prostitution. While Sonntag presents a more in-depth analysis on the “why.” Sonntag and Fuchs’s article both support my thesis since. Their position on that prostitution gives tax benefits to the government only when it is legal. The student research is giving data on estimated income gathered from taxes, which help give background to my thesis and evidence to Fuchs. Fuchs effectively shows how beneficial it can be and that it is profitable for the country’s economics. Dave Anderson, a journalist and a recipient of the Pulitzer award, wrote in favor of legalizing prostitution. Anderson mentions the economics involved on criminalizing prostitutes, stating that “In the U.S., law enforcement agencies spend at least $2,000 for each arrest of a sex worker…” Anderson says that these are including the arrest, court, and imprisonment costs. Anderson posits his claim on that “…the government will no longer have to spend cost for hiring additional law officials to hunt down sex workers, enforcing laws against prostitution, and caring for sex workers in jail,” as long as “it is legalized and properly implemented.” Anderson discusses the money involved on prosecuting prostitutes and uses this information to deduce that prostitution control costs the government over $120 million annually. Anderson talks about the punishments prostitutes receive to connect the ideas that “…these sex workers will just pay fines or stay in jail for a couple of days, and then get released to go back to their business.” Anderson establishes the amount of money required to keep criminalizing prostitutes is a “never-ending cycle.”

Anderson creates an effective argument since he provides data on the costs for criminalizing prostitution. Providing the punishments put on said prostitutes. And concluded that it does not effectively end prostitution. It only increases government expenses. Anderson’s use of the monetary statistics solidifies his main claim on decriminalizing prostitution. Anderson, Fuchs, and Sonntag corroborate each other’s claims in that the legalization on prostitution would benefit the nation economically. Anderson attests to the financial losses the U.S. faces due to criminalizing prostitutes, while Fuchs and Sonntag present financial gains from legalizing prostitution. Anderson directly supports my thesis because he posits that making prostitution legal will eliminate the expense of criminalizing it. Kristin Stjernrup, Bachelor of Political Science from Lund University, claims that “sex tourism can generate income, both for the country and for the individuals working in the field.” Stjernrup states that women can earn a better living for them and their children. Because earnings from prostitution are often providing more than other alternative employment. Opportunities for lower class women. Stjernrup says sex tourism is a lucrative industry. A growing part of tourism in general. And contributes to the national economy by boosting domestic profits. Stjernrup effectively supports there claim regarding sex tourism with the use of examples on an international scale. Stjernrup does this by bringing up how countries spend millions to increase foreign interest in sex tourism. Stjernrup inclusion on how sex tourism. When properly implemented. Benefits underclass women and their families; while showing how it is a part of their daily lives.

This all is effective since it shows how sex tourism is inclusive on society. Stjernrup and Sonntag both convey that sex tourism is an effective source of income since. Sonntag advocates that prostitution provides tax revenue. Stjernrup also supports Sonntag’s claim as it would bring in foreign currency into another country’s economy. Stjernrup directly supports my thesis since sex tourism brings foreign buyers into another country which not only increasing foreign exchange but also benefits businesses holistically due to foreigners visiting another country. Donna M. Hughes, professor of Women’s Studies at Rhode Island University, argues against the legalization of prostitution. In Hughes’ article “Don’t Legalize.” She states that there have been few countries. That experienced monetary gains due to prostitution, more specifically Germany. Hughes claims that German lawmakers were expecting to make millions off of legalized prostitution. But when Germany had legalized it, they had not experienced nearly the amounts they were hoping for. However, Hughes failed to consider that legalized prostitution benefits over time. Released several years after Hughes article. The German Federal Government released a report on prostitution legalization. This report shows the financial gains sourced from prostitution. Even though the German Government had not received immediate results. They recorded a steady increase after its implementation. Thus, this refutes Hughes claim due to her omission on the benefits that legalized prostitution can provide over time.

Cite this page