It doesn’t matter if you’re a political figure, businessman or blue-collar worker. If you’re paying someone in exchange for sex, it’s illegal, and you should face a criminal charge. Prostitution cases throughout Maine, in addition to the one under way in Kennebunk, are a reminder, in case anyone needed one, that some are selling sex in Maine, and others are buying it.
So it seems unfair that johns, who are paying for sex with women, are rarely charged. The National Institute of Justice reports that only 10 percent of arrests associated with prostitution are of men who purchase sex. If a woman is convicted of prostitution, you know she wasn’t the only one involved. Justice requires everyone implicated to face consequences.
Of course proving someone had sex with someone, and money was exchanged, may be challenging. But to prevent the crime, police should target all involved and make an effort to go after alleged johns — as police are currently doing in the Kennebunk case where, so far, 21 of potentially more than 100 customers have been charged.
Many police departments in Maine know the importance of stemming demand. Some are taking or have taken specific action, such as organizing undercover reverse stings — where a female police officer poses as a prostitute in order to lure johns. There are other possible ways to address demand, too.
The National Institute of Justice supports a website outlining ways states can prevent prostitution. The following are tactics used across the United States, with varying success, to punish or catch johns:
1. Automobile seizure. Police seize the vehicle in which someone tries to solicit sex. The vehicles may be retrievable after paying a fee; otherwise police may keep the profits of selling the car to further their prostitution-prevention work. In some cases the seizures have been contested in court as imposing a penalty that exceeds the maximum allowed for misdemeanors.
2. Cameras. Cities and towns install surveillance cameras at “hot spots” to both discourage sex buying and provide evidence of it.
3. Community service. In addition to other sanctions, convicted johns are forced to do community service — such as cleaning the streets on which the illegal activity is known to occur.
4. John school. Convicted johns must participate in a counseling and treatment program. The courses may include testimony from those who have been prostituted or trafficked; there is discussion about victimization, anger management and sex addiction, among other things.
5. Letters. If police see a vehicle in an area known for prostitution — or believe someone is a john — they may send a letter to the registered car owner or suspect. The letters may cite health risks associated with prostitution and warn the person about the harm prostitution has on communities. Sometimes the license plate number is recorded not by police but by local residents, who then inform police.
One of the most common deterrents, though, and one that clearly happens in Maine, is shaming. Though names of suspected johns are usually publicized through the normal release of a police blotter — and not through a systematic effort to deter johns — making the names public is a simple way to combat demand.
Not all possible deterrents will or should be implemented in Maine, as they must fit the situation and resources at hand. But they show there are specific ways to target people who buy sex, not just those who sell it.
Pinpointing ways to stem the number of johns is important, too, because it shifts the discussion in an important direction: toward cultural attitudes. Has there historically been less effort applied to prosecuting johns because people believe buying sex is a natural part of male sexuality? Studies show more than 16 percent of men have bought sex. Attempts to prosecute johns will likely encounter the perception that it’s normal for men to want to engage with prostitutes.
But it’s illegal. And it’s clear that women have been criminalized for prostitution-related activities to a degree men have not. If it’s clear police policy to arrest those selling sex, it should be clear police policy to arrest the men buying it.
It takes two to tango and both should be charged with the same offense whenever the evidence is there to support it. Whether you think prostitution should be legalized, or you think it’s the root of all evil, the legal system should treat both “co-conspirators” the same way. It shouldn’t be a crime that’s regularly prosecuted for the women involved, but winked at for the men.
Yes — in fact, the women and girls are often coerced into prostitution, but the johns are not. I’d be glad if the police targeted the johns.
And yes, I’m a straight guy.
I can’t believe that I actually have to say I agree with you ,I did not think that was ever going to happen .Spot on mate.
It’s nice to know that we can agree sometimes!
:-)
Hopefully it will go to trial and the jury will nullify.
Make prostitution legal. It worked in Nevada.
Just be sure the Gov. gets his cut!
Yes! Job creation!
I agree, yet I was under the impression it was legal, they call themselves escorts. Just as dangerous, a young woman from lewiston was murdered and I recall the “craigslist killer” targeted escorts. Why not list both johns and prostitutes on the sex offenders registry and if the prostitute has been forced or enslaved, successful prosecution of the “pimp” could free the prostitute from the sex offenders registry….just my 2 cents.
Given the number of women victimized by their clients, I’d consider a greater penalty for the men. Our imaginations lead us to believe the prostitute enters into the relationship willingly, but in reality, many prostitutes are instead victims of slavery.
and where in THIS instance did you get that little gem from? I have not heard about a single woman who feels “victimized” in this case.
Sure, women, or men for that matter who are led to any act against their will should be protected by law. That would be far easier if this “oldest profession” were legalized and inspected.
I think aguest23 is not talking about the case in Kennebunk specifically, but more generally about the incidence of prostitution nationally. I have read many news stories about women coerced into prostitution around the country. It’s also widely reported that prostitution is the most dangerous of all jobs — the women get robbed, assaulted, even murdered. I would be glad to see the police get tough on the johns.
so legalize it. Let women who choose to do this to make money have protection under the law. This kennebunk case is just a big political circle jerk and there is no slavery or coercion on part of the zumba gym just a bunch of adults consenting to adult activities.
if prostitution was legalized it would no longer be a dangerous job as women wouldn’t have to rely on abusive and exploitative pimps. Yes not all women want to be hookers, but if you take the power away from the pimps who are recruiting these women (and men) into the business through force and coercion than the people who wish to do it will be free to conduct business as responsible adults.
Legalization is another issue, and I can see arguments both pro and con.
But as long as it is illegal, then both the men and women should be treated equally. If the women are prosecuted, the men should be, too.
agreed.
too bad these are misdemeanor crimes and probably won’t be tried with a jury, it would be a good opportunity for some jury nullification.
troll
Me a troll? this from a gargoyle who lives under a bridge? Pot/kettle?
If you read more about Ms Wright, you may discover that she may be acting irrationally and while she is apparently consenting to sex, she is herself a victim. She was taken advantage of. What she did was wrong and she should suffer the consequences, but she has her own set of issues. This is not a simple case of a friendly woman offering a service to lonely or macho men.
You should see her on-line videos, several of her “partners” are not macho men, but women.
So does her behavior suggest that she is a healthy woman acting willfully or a sex addict who is out of control? If this story was about a man, it wouldn’t be such a “fun” issue. If she were an out of control alcoholic, what would you think of the person who took her out for a night on the town, bar hopping? Would it be ok to take a compulsive gambler to Hollywood Slots?
Let’s talk about women.
Link to video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODbn5GTkOQ
If you vote for O-bla-bla-ma you will get free sex for the next 4 years.
Whats wrong with you…and them? Vote Gary Johnson
I’m disappointed that the media is not reporting on the Johnson campaign. Most people don’t even know he is running.
Well I guess we’ll just have to get his name out there.
I see Johnson or Seaman as the change we need. I see Obama and Romney as the people the government chose, which isn’t much of a choice. “They” know if Johnson or Seaman gets in office “they” will lose control and the country will get back on track.
Romneys running partner is not right. I’d like to see him get raped and pregant and tell us how much of Gods work that was and how joyous it is.
I assume you are referring to Paul Ryan’s position on abortion, that he would allow it only when the woman’s life was in danger, and not even in the case of incest or rape — like Indiana’s Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock who said it is God’s will that a woman gets pregnant when she is raped. I thought Mourdock’s statement was outrageous, and it is the same as Ryan’s position.
Mourdock is also the only Senate candidate Romney has taped an ad for. The Romney folks won’t pull the ad. Shows you what Romney-Ryan think of government telling women what to do with their bodies.
For one because if it’s Gods will to get raped and pregrant then apparently he’s never been raped and impregnated nor anyone close to him (them) . There’s to many things he’s done that’s creepy.
Johnson 2012!!
And that is because there is a black market for it. Legalize it, get it off the streets into controlled controlled circumstances. The women will be safer. Do you agree with that or do you want to continue to put women’s lives at risk?
yep agreed
Thanks for a great editorial!
Your editorials would mean more if someone had the ba…, uh fortitude to sign his or her name to them.
The editorial page in the print newspaper lists the names of the editors. On line see the contact page: http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/contact/?ref=tophat
Michael J. Dowd is the editor-in chief of the BDN, and Susan Young is the managing editor, etc.
Unsigned editorials are an old print newspaper tradition, and reflect the opinions of the editors (that is, it is the opinion of the newspaper).
In contrast to the official editorials, the signed opinion pieces on the op-ed page reflect only the views of the person who signs the op-ed piece.
Why don’t the editorial writers sign their editorials? The reason is that individual editorials are supposed to reflect the collective judgment of the entire editorial board. Though editorials are sometimes written by different people, the editors supposedly speak with one voice, and are supposedly philosophically consistent. In practice, of course, editorial boards don’t really agree on every issue.
I’m nearly 65 — I’ve been reading newspapers since I was a teenager. Official editorials have never been signed in any newspaper I’ve ever read, but you can always find out who the editors are if you are interested. This is an old tradition.
Duh. As Richard ( as in Dick) Thornburg said in one of the Die Hard moves: “The people have a right to know everything about everyone all the time.” Put your damn name on it. Otherwise you are hiding & your life should be on display as well. It’s only “fair” right?
Sure, you’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t feel strongly about this one way or the other. I was only explaining the practice — I’m not defending it or criticizing it.
As I pointed out, however, the names are there, if you are interested. You probably know how to navigate a web site. I found the names easily on this site.
The names are also on the editorial page of the print newspaper. Erin Rhoda is the Editorial Page Editor. The name is right above the editorial in the newspaper.
On page 3 of the print edition you’ll see that Michael J. Dowd is the Editor-in-Chief of the BDN, and Susan Young is the Managing Editor — all three of them also have their office phone numbers listed on page 3 of section A, along with other people in other departments at the newspaper.
So you want to know who is responsible for the editorials? I’ve just told you. Editorials are written by the editors. The information is easily available both on the web site and in the print edition.
William Loeb former editor/owner of the Manchester (N.H.)Union Leader signed his editorials. He also printed every letter sent to his newspaper.
As I said to RJ, I have no strong opinion about this one way or the other. I only know that of the many newspapers I read in the past 50 or so years, none of them had signed editorials, but all of them, just like the Bangor Daily News, gave the names of the editors right above the editorials (in the print editions).
The official Editorials reflect the opinion of “the newspaper,” specifically the Editorial Board.
Here on line the names of the editors are very easy to find. Erin Rhoda is the Editorial Page Editor. Its here on the web site. Rhoda’s name also appears above the Editorials on the print edition Editorial Page. All of the editors are listed daily either on page 2 or 3 of Section A, and are listed under “contact” on this web site.
Yes, William Loeb III was unusual. He is best known for his role in forging the famous “Canuck letter” that slandered Maine Senator Edmund Muskie, helping to derail Muskie’s presidential bid. He is not someone I would hold up as an example of good ethics.
Of course if there was any proof of that scurrilous lie, it would have been reported in reputable press long long ago. It was a rumor just gossip.
Muskie derailed his own presidential bid he didn’t need any help from Bill.
I’m sure the ethics you describe were present with other editors such as William Randolph Hearst, József Pulitzer, and more recently Rupert Murdoch & son.
It is illegal to pay for your date’s dinner.Having sex on a first date with a consenting adult is considered prostitution. An investigation may be appropriate.
Uh, no, not really. Do I detect sarcasm?
thus another reason to make chicks pay for their own crap.
“Stemming the demand” That’s gonna happen at the end of human’s reign over earth.
Your headline is also a hoot. John’s no less guilty? What about John’s no more guilty.
This paper has continually touted the “woman’s right to choose” line, saying a woman shouyld have the right to govern what happens to her own body… Well, is that just in the area of abortion, or do you really mean that a woman should be allowed to decide what she will do with her own body?
The key in a free society is to allow people to make choices. we don’t have to agree with those choices, but hey tht is what makes life interesting.
Legalize+inspect for health issues+tax+license.
and protection under the law for parties involved.
The insurance companies would make a ton. Workers comp, liability, and all the insurances that go along with having a building… Wonder where an STD would fall, under the health care coverage or the workers comp?
they would make a law that they would half to use proctecsion
well they would probably require proof of insurance for licensing and insurance companies would probably require drug and STI testing as well as stipulating the use of protection and birth control. though once in private chambers that would be difficult to enforce so there would probably be some waivers as well im sure.
They all ready do that in NV.
it’s ‘already’
and sweet.
No disagreement from me. I’m Union and proud of it!
As Clint Eastwood would say, “Hang em high.” Only this time hang em from “you know what.”
What is “unfair” is the moralistically backwardness of criminalization of the oldest profession. Prostitution will always exist, legalizing it will make it safer, women who are willing to sell their bodies for men or women in need are, under the current system, in danger plus it would bring revenue to the state in licensing fees. Legalized prostitution has been in place in Europe for years but our increasingly religiosity is getting in the way of our brains.
Theft will also always exist. Making theft legal will make it safer and clear up our courts for violent crimes. Additionally, if theft was legalized, all stolen property could be taxed and think of all the revenue that could be generated for the state by having a graduated licensing fee schedule for simple theft, basic and advanced burglary, and grand theft. So, is yours a rationale for legalizing theft too?
I think it’s important that all humans maintain a minimum level of dignity and personal privacy by sharing certain intimate things about themselves only with those whom they have developed at least a certain degree of trust with, or at least that way of thinking should be encouraged. Some things just shouldn’t be for sale for any amount of dollars. It’s true that prostitution will always exist at some low level, but that doesn’t mean society benefits from it or should embrace it by making it legal. Young girls should grow up knowing that, just like young boys, selling their intimate selves is NOT an acceptable way to make a living. They should develop some other skill or aptitude to support themselves and share their sexual intimacy only with those individuals whom they choose to. Men should understand that some things are just not for sale, no matter how much money or power they may have.
In my travels, I have known a couple of guys who sought out European prostitutes, and even before I was aware they did that, they seemed a little “off” and it was obvious to me that they had some sort of relationship “issues.” Prostitution is just not a healthy thing to have in our society and it should be discouraged whenever possible by using the law AND the public humiliation that goes along with your neighbors/friends/family being aware of you breaking this law.
The difference is if you steal my property I am a victim. If I engage in consensual sex with another adult there is no victim.
That is correct and makes sense to me. The editorial made no sense and was written by some nutcake.
The editorial doesn’t say prostitution is immoral. It says it is illegal, and if the women are to be prosecuted, it’s only fair that the men should be, too. It takes two to tango.
You say that treating men and women equally makes “no sense.” Maybe you didn’t understand the editorial.
I agree in a technical legal sense, in a black and white world yes its illegal, therefore the criminal justice system has a duty to pursue prosecution and conviction of all implicated parties. However, in an idealistic sense its utter cow patties and we need to change things.
So the same should thing should happen to people that take drugs ?
The same thing? That women and men should be treated equally?
Sure, but what does that have to do with drugs?
Do they arrest the person taking the drugs no only the one selling the drugs .
um yes… our jails our stuffed with addicts, pushers, and potheads.
True,, but its not because they use drugs it’s because they committed a crime
If you have 20 lbs. of marijuana you get arrested on “possession with intent to sell” based on the quantity you have. That’s different from having half an ounce. So yes, the penalty is different based on the different amounts you possess.
That said, I favor the legalization — and taxation and regulation — of marijuana for recreational purposes.
Unless the other adult give you a sexually transmitted disease and you spread it along to someone else. In that case you are both a victim and a victimizer.
Oh my goodness what a goody two shoes.
theft is not an act between two consenting parties and there is no sale or service happening in theft so your argument is completely non sequitur.
Not every “john” is a crazy sexual deviant. Some people just need an intimate connection but are too busy or not interested in maintaining a long term relationship. That doesn’t make them evil or even immoral it makes them a human being.
As far as what young girls and boys should grow up knowing, completely up to the parents. I want my children to grow up knowing that they are free and should do what makes them happy and feel connected to the world and complete.
Legal prostitution though, would obviously be between consenting adults only. I also would support a minimum age of legal prostitutes of 21.
Of course I realize that theft is not a victimless crime, but the argument I was responding to didn’t include prostitution being victimless as one of the reasons to justify legalizing prostitution. My response was only to the argument as presented, not to other considerations that were not mentioned.
“I want my children to grow up knowing that they are free and should
do what makes them happy and feel connected to the world and complete.
Legal prostitution though, would obviously be between consenting
adults only. I also would support a minimum age of legal prostitutes of
21.”
The fact that you would write the above 3 sentences, one after the other, tells me you haven’t really thought this through. You say you want your children to grow up free and should do what makes them happy. What if your son decides that visiting your local discount rate prostitute would make him happy and connected to the world and complete? You can’t be so naive as to think that he hasn’t engaged in sex before age 21, so why shouldn’t he be allowed to do it with a prostitute? Let’s not open that bucket of worms and just keep it illegal for everyone.
if my son is 18 or 21 (whatever we decide the legal age will be)and the local discount rate hooker is employed through a regulated health inspector certified brothel… sure why not.
yes just like we shouldn’t have opened that bucket of worms of universal suffrage or civil rights either. We actually should just stop social progression right now because it would be much easier for everyone.
I am 26 now and it is going to be awhile before I have a sexual active child but I will be proactive on the subject like my parents were and teach that it should be something special and meaningful. I don’t have the need or want to visit a prostitute even if it was legal. However, it isn’t mine or yours, or anyone else business concerning what adults want to do.
I don’t agree with prostitution, but in Las Vegas I believe it’s legal
and safe and effective.
No its not in Vegas . Do a search an you will see .
Legal in several parts of Nevada, but correct, in in the Vegas valley area.
How about we repeal victimless crimes and stop worrying about what our neighbors are doing.
Exactly! A huge problem is that there are entirely too many busy bodies out there.
Don’t be crazy, this is Maine. If it wasn’t for other people’s business, most Mainers wouldn’t have any business to mind at all.
that is true. There is no victims as they are both agreeing to sex.
We are about to vote on same sex marriage yet we are still prosecuting prostitution.Why what’s the sense.
are you equating homosexuals to prostitutes? or both are sexual deviant activities and if one is legal both should be?
The time for the double standard to end is yesterday. Johns should be charged and held accountable for their participation in prostitution. If they didn’t provide the demand, there would be no need for a supply.
So people taking drugs should be charged to than ?
Yes.
I can see it now arresting thousands an thousands of people an they all lose there job an the state or town or city would half to support them
It seems unfair that the police are charging the person providing the sex, but not the ones seeking & paying for it, seeing as they will arrest both the drug dealer & the person seeking to buy the drugs. Why don’t they just arrest the dealer & let the buyer go? Why is it any different than with the Johns? Where is the equal justice under the law?
Well sometimes people who would never go looking for such a thing will have a HARD time saying no it the right circumstances found them.
Wow,
A lot of big words for victimless misdemeanor, the penalty for which is a $200 fine. Legalize, tax, monthly med checks. Works all over the world
That is correct.
Is the second list of names ready?
Women use men all the time for personal gain . I know being Naive in my younger days . Where do you draw the line ? Meet a women you fall for her then she cries oh I need help with my rent . When you run out of money she is gone . I never knowing paid money for sex but I bought a few . I with they just would have told me what they charged might have saved me a lot of heart break when you see them months latter with a low life.
By the same token, drug users are no less criminal than drug dealers. Supply and demand, no?
Where are the rest of the names.
Without Johns there is no illegal sex trade. Women sold into the sex business is because of the Johns wasnting it. So yeas they are guilty
Legalize it and the black market will disappear.
Your reading too many silly fiction books. Prostitutes do it for the money and the johns just do not care. Most of the time it is the only sex they can get.
I shall not comment.. I’m sure everyone knows how I feel about Prostitution and “Johns”. I pissed some men off for my genitalia based attack In return, I was told I was insane, immature and could not debate. Although, I have read far worse comments througout this scandal. Whatever…….Have a good nite.
NO ONE CARES.
That is why the BDN is such a rag newspaper. The editors have some real issues about life and sex. In case you don’t know it is normal and healthy to have sex, whether or not their is money involved as long as no one is harmed and it between consenting adults.
What is the Libertarian position on prostitution?
It is legal in Nevada as well as many other countries. It is between consenting adults, leave it alone. No one is forcing anyone to do something they do not want to do. Its a complete waste of taxpayers money to enforce.
You are right it is legal but not in all places . Do a search you will see that .
The 21 johns who have had their names released should sue the police for discrimination. It is awful that they posted 21 names and let 130 others off the hook so far. The entire list should have been published at once regardless of who is on it.
Hello all, I am a cast off from the PPH. I’ve got some time to kill, so thought I would see what’s going on up here with BDN.
Let’s talk about pornography. How many who believe prostitution should be illegal, also believe pornography should be illegal? Maybe some in the far religious right, though not many, am I right?
So why is that? Pornography might be presented as “actors” and “actresses” acting, though let’s be honest, it is sex for money. While not all porn is geared solely towards men and demeaning towards women, most of it is. Women (and men) sell their bodies and dignity, just the same as a prostitute. Yet, for some reason, society views it differently. Some porn stars are even seen as “mainstream” these days. Why?
The truth is, many of the same people who promote overly harsh punishments for sex between consenting adults, are at home, indulging in porn – exploiting the same type of people, enabling the same behaviors, albeit second hand. Blatant hypocrites, in my opinion.
As to the standard that is currently applied – looking at it as one would drugs makes sense. The dealer is a bigger fish than is the client, just as the prostitute is the bigger fish than is the client. It makes no sense to put their punishment on the same level – unless the prostitute is for instance, known to be underage, a sex slave or otherwise non-consenting.
Do you know that there are sites were you can go an ask for sex with another person weather its a man, women, couples ect an you don’t pay for it either .
The johns should be paraded in front of the media just like Ms. wright was ,then maybe these scumbags who prey on women would think twice.
What about the scumbags that are lying about gay marriage ?
What about them?
They are lying scumbags
Ok?
Ms Wright seemed to be well compensated for her work. Her filming and record keeping indicated a foundation for future extortion. While some prostitutes are indeed victims, it is not the case here. If there is a predator in this story, it is not the Johns, it is Ms Wright.
Kudos to Ms.Wright for turning the tables on these scumbags, and I bet some will think twice before they go on the prowl.All that being said at heart I am a libertarian and I say let consenting adults do as they please ,just don’t make a spectacle out of one and not the other.
Interesting soup of contradictions you got there. Tasty…
thank you
Oldest profession in the world people. Do you think that now that we’re in the technological world that it’s suddenly going to go away? I don’t think so. If it doesn’t affect you then why bother or complain. Worry about your own and you’ll have less stress.
This is a morally disgusting article. This is the backwoods Maine we live in. Yes, there should be no distinction between men and women. But, why is it illegal? The girl needs to make a living and put bread on the table, and the man bargains for some affection he can’t find elsewhere. Live in your own Puritanical world Bangor Daily News. Goodnight, this is simpleminded sensational writing, placating to the majority opinion. Let it go. Go live your life, and stop judging others.
And it’s a silly law…
After January 14th you will be charged a fine for having your Christmas decorations still up.Dog leashes may not be over eight feet in length.Shoelaces must tied while walking down the streetYou many not step out of a plane in flight. Maine laws that should be enforced….
Maybe sex between consenting adults should be legalized and regulated. This nation is 20 years behind the rest of the civilized world.
Its all ready legal for two consenting adults to have sex