Your elaboration is appreciated. (Though I would appreciate a further elaboration about the "translation" you mention. Every Senate or Assembly bill I have reviewed [and it has not been that many] has specifically stated that it was amending [or replacing] a specific section or sections of a California Code. Once it becomes law, I wonder what further translation it needs at that point.)
I would suggest a starting point for the topic is to look at how in the past 40 years some measure of civil rights has been achieved for blacks (and women) and in the last 20 years for gays/lesbians. To be specific, the plight of blacks was brought into the homes of Americans by coverage on the evening TV news in the 1960's. The willingness of many gays/lesbians to "come out" has personalized the issue for many families. Do you think VP Cheney would be so "understanding" if he did not have a daughter who publicized herself?
The reasons I doubt any progress will be made soon: 1) Regarding the ladies: most do not want to publicize their work--they may be raising children, some are collecting disability and cannot admit to another source of income, many may not be paying taxes (and if they are, they have to "fudge" on the source of the income); 2) Regarding the guys: probably about 1/2 are married and many more have an SO; many of those who have neither would still be concerned about admitting they utilize the services of providers due to possible impact on their occupations. (The fact that both of us are using an alias for these posts indicates the concern that most participants in the "hobby" have.)
A possible way of having people in power think about the issue: if a university professor does extensive research interviewing providers and clients, gets it published, and appears on Oprah and other shows. Then the public might become aware of the number of women who are raising children and are not on the welfare rolls because they are using their talents to provide what is really a psychological/medical service. Whoever came up with the idea to use "provider" in this context deserves an award.
However, when you have a guy in the White House who avoids critical thinking by saying he has reached a decision because of his "values", the likelihood of progress in this area is further reduced. In today's press conference he said this election has given him "political capital". Reminds me of the snotty kid down the block who says, with a smirk, it's his football and he gets to decide the rules of the game.
Anyone willing to start a campaign to write letters to Gov. Arnold asking him to promote some decriminalization, as apparently exists in his home country of Austria? Anyone want to bet that with a wife and a political career that he wants to forget his past in Austria and the charges of groping women here?
Proposition 169 is a proposition to amend §647(b) Disorderly Conduct (Prostitution) to identify and remove specific elements that are not written into the section but are expressed by not identifying the specific elements. The following elements and specific elements shall be identified and removed as elements constituting an act of prostitution.
a. The act of prostitution as a violation of the law so identified in §647 (b) shall be amended as follows: Anytime two or more consenting adults engage in any act of sex for money or other consideration when the agreement of the act and the act itself is conducted in the privacy of a residence whether permanent or temporary, where the public does not have access, such as a private residence or place of abode, the said act shall not be a violation of the act of prostitution as described in §647 (b). This revision and amendment shall in no way affect the other elements that constitute an act of prostitution as identified and described in §647. All other conditions, acts and activities whether express or implied shall remain a violation of §647. The amendment shall not legalize the specific elements, but shall decriminalize said identified specific elements written into the amendment.
§647. Disorderly Conduct as it presently reads
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct. a misdemeanor.
(b)Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution. No agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that act. As used in the subdivision, “prostitution” includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.
Amendment added by the passage of Proposition 169:
The act of prostitution as a violation of the law so identified in §647(b) shall be amended as follows: Anytime two or more consenting adults engage in any act of sex for money or other consideration, when the agreement of the act and the act itself is conducted in the privacy of a residence whether permanent or temporary, where the public does not have access, such as a private residence or place of abode, the said act shall not be a violation of the act of prostitution as described in §647 (b). This revision and amendment shall in no way affect the other elements that constitute an act of prostitution as identified and described in §647. All other conditions, acts and activities whether express or implied shall remain a violation of §647. Place of privacy shall include telephone conversations and internet transmissions, and any other electronic device so long as the general public does not have access to hear the conversation. The amendment shall not legalize the specific elements, but shall decriminalize said identified specific elements written into the amendment.
Fiscal impact on the state:
It is estimated that the above amendment would save expenditures of state revenue as follows:
• Costs to local police departments by not enforcing the act prior to the amendment, $10,000,000.00 of local revenue annually;
• Costs to Superior Courts within local county jurisdictions; $25,000,000.00 of local revenue annually;
• Costs to the local municipal jails and county jails, $35,000,000.00 of local revenue annually;
• Cost to the state for the incarceration of violators in the pre-amended section and not included in the amended section: $25,000,000.00 annually;
• The elimination of the human cost of the trauma brought on by committing defined criminal acts by non criminals; the freedom of choice of adults to engage in a non criminal act; and the legitimizing of women who are not criminals by nature, only by definition of the pre-amended section, so that those individuals who engage in prostitution as a profession will be viewed as productive members of society rather than criminals: Total Cost: PRICELESS
It was just a thought with all the propositions on the ballet this year.
Since your post refers to section 647(b), this obviously is drafted to affect the California Penal Code. However, your post does NOT make it clear that this is NOT on the current ballot. (Though some wag might suggest that with your use of the word "ballet", you were "dancing" around that fact.)
Anyone in this community in California have the power and influence to get a legislator to introduce such a bill?
If you read the last line in my post you would see it was just a thought. Ballet was obviously a typo since the misspelling only appeard once in my post. A proposition is not introduced in the state legislature, it is voted on directly by voters. If someone were to mistake this “pipe dream” for a proposition on the November ballot he/she would soon realize shortly after they were handed their ballot at their polling place that the proposition did not appear on the ballot. Therefore, if someone were to mistake this “pipe dream” for a real proposition it would be a non-issue.
My first job out of law school was with the California State Attorney General’s Office. I worked in a unit that translated bills that had been passed by the legislature, into statue form to be entered in anyone of the many California Codes, including the Penal Code. I have a pretty good understanding of how the process works from the time a bill is introduced in committee to when it is written for inclusion in a state code. I feel that a bill introduced in the legislature on this subject would have a better chance than a proposition. I am sure you are aware that bills pass and are defeated, not on the merits, or the positive effect it would have on the people, but on who lines up against and who lines up in support. Unfortunately there are very few people at this point who would “benefit” by such an amendment. There would have to be riders in the bill that would benefit enough groups that they would support the bill, or at least not take a position against it. There a saying that the two things you don’t want see being made is sausage and laws.
I am not overly optimistic, nor am I a pessimist, but I feel there is a glimmer of hope for the Penal Code section on prostitution to be amended to identify independent escorts and remove them as violators. This would not legalize independent escorts, it would decriminalize their behavior. I cannot see any possibility that the entire Penal Code section 647(b) will be removed.
I am sorry you read the entire post and were only able to come up with a typo and misunderstanding the last sentence. I was really hoping for some meaningful debate. I welcome you thoughts on the approach, and any ideas you might have to further the cause.
-- Modified on 10/30/2004 9:51:24 PM
Your elaboration is appreciated. (Though I would appreciate a further elaboration about the "translation" you mention. Every Senate or Assembly bill I have reviewed [and it has not been that many] has specifically stated that it was amending [or replacing] a specific section or sections of a California Code. Once it becomes law, I wonder what further translation it needs at that point.)
I would suggest a starting point for the topic is to look at how in the past 40 years some measure of civil rights has been achieved for blacks (and women) and in the last 20 years for gays/lesbians. To be specific, the plight of blacks was brought into the homes of Americans by coverage on the evening TV news in the 1960's. The willingness of many gays/lesbians to "come out" has personalized the issue for many families. Do you think VP Cheney would be so "understanding" if he did not have a daughter who publicized herself?
The reasons I doubt any progress will be made soon: 1) Regarding the ladies: most do not want to publicize their work--they may be raising children, some are collecting disability and cannot admit to another source of income, many may not be paying taxes (and if they are, they have to "fudge" on the source of the income); 2) Regarding the guys: probably about 1/2 are married and many more have an SO; many of those who have neither would still be concerned about admitting they utilize the services of providers due to possible impact on their occupations. (The fact that both of us are using an alias for these posts indicates the concern that most participants in the "hobby" have.)
A possible way of having people in power think about the issue: if a university professor does extensive research interviewing providers and clients, gets it published, and appears on Oprah and other shows. Then the public might become aware of the number of women who are raising children and are not on the welfare rolls because they are using their talents to provide what is really a psychological/medical service. Whoever came up with the idea to use "provider" in this context deserves an award.
However, when you have a guy in the White House who avoids critical thinking by saying he has reached a decision because of his "values", the likelihood of progress in this area is further reduced. In today's press conference he said this election has given him "political capital". Reminds me of the snotty kid down the block who says, with a smirk, it's his football and he gets to decide the rules of the game.
Anyone willing to start a campaign to write letters to Gov. Arnold asking him to promote some decriminalization, as apparently exists in his home country of Austria? Anyone want to bet that with a wife and a political career that he wants to forget his past in Austria and the charges of groping women here?