Post by Carl Ballard
I have no problem with the general thrust of this Times editorial. Crackdown on street prostitution in areas where there’s a lot of prostitution. As someone who’s been propositioned by more than one of Belltown’s crack whores, I can get behind police cracking down on street walking where it’s prevalent. Sure, a better editorial would have a discussion about harm reduction. And it might include mention of this newly passed law in New York. Still, it’s a short editorial, and I understand the narrow focus.
But toward the end, after a discussion of how most prostitutes come from homes where they are “physically, sexually or psychologically abused” we get this paragraph:
Police cannot prevent domestic abuse that prompts vulnerable young females to choose this profession, but it is appropriate, as Pugel said, to hold accountable those who make money off their misery.
Yes, there will still be domestic abuse, but the police can do things to prevent many instances of it. In fact, I’d argue that ought to be pretty high on the list of things police can do.
Now, that may be a clunky construction, saying something to the effect of no matter how hard police try to prevent it, there will always be some domestic abuse. But if that’s the case, then it sort undermines the rest of the editorial unless they think police efforts will eradicate prostitution.
When your only tool is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.
Their only tool is the police. Therefore, if the solution does not involve police work, it does not exist, and we should not waste money trying to solve the insoluable. The end.
Their only tool is the police.
Or when the problem lies outside of our borders, the military.