Maybe I'm missing something, but that never should have been a conviction in the first place. He drove two people to a location at their request, which is his job. He has no control over what they do when they get there.

Regardless of whether prostitution is legal, I don't see how the taxi driver is any way responsible for what two of his clients choose to do, especially when they're no longer in his cab when they do it.

Patrick, I agree, but it's maybe something like "supporting prostitution" -- not awake enough yet to go find the legal term.

Also, this is precisely the kind of guy cops can go after to jigger up their arrest stats -- brand new immigrant, maybe not great at English, not sure of how things work here, not the greatest social support system (friends, etc.).

But how could that (his arrest) happen in Oregon? That's a very liberal State. Right? Democrats running it. Looking out for the common man. You know. Oregon. (sarcasm)

When in doubt, if you need to understand why a government does or doesn't do a given thing, contemplate the opportunities for graft and corruption.

Easy arrest & "conviction". Checked off multiple boxes for multiple organizations. Made the state some money.

Patrick: Regardless of whether prostitution is legal, I don't see how the taxi driver is any way responsible for what two of his clients choose to do, especially when they're no longer in his cab when they do it.

The key is the phrase "promoting prostitution." I just did a search using that phrase and, here for example, is Montana's law:

45-5-602. Promoting prostitution. (1) A person commits the offense of promoting prostitution if the person purposely or knowingly commits any of the following acts: (f) transports an individual into or within this state with the purpose to promote that individual's engaging in prostitution or procures or pays for transportation with that purpose;

I assume Oregon's law is (or was) similar.

The prostitute and her customer may have testified that the taxi driver knew he was taking them to motel room for sex and, in turn, he may have admitted that. Then they could nail him under that "promoting" provision.

I don't agree with this, of course. It shouldn't be illegal because prostitution itself shouldn't be illegal. Unfortunately, unlike same-sex marriage and cannabis, I don't see states ever legalizing prostitution because, in addition to the usual conservatives (especially religious conservatives) opposed to it, you've got got a bloc of progressives opposed to it as well. Those combined forces are too much for libertarian-conservatives and libertarian-progressives to overcome.

Why Is It The Govt's Business If Adult Citizens In A Free Society Want To Patronize Prostitutes?

It's the "government's" business because most Americans want it to be.

The question should be: Why do most Americans insist that their fellow citizens be treated as criminals if they consent to have sex for money?

Here's one answer, from this 2014 Slate article:

Whom is it safe to hate? One of the reasons the cause of same-sex civil marriage has gained so much ground in recent years is that it is no longer socially acceptable to hold gay couples in contempt. Many if not most opponents of same-sex marriage harbor no ill will toward lesbians and gays, yet opposition to the expansion of civil rights for gay people has long profited from deep-seated prejudice against them. As this prejudice has grown less common and less intense, it isn’t terribly surprising that proponents of same-sex marriage have gained the upper hand. Similarly, opposition to cannabis legalization has long rested on the belief that stoners are losers who can and should be kept on the margins of society. Now that marijuana use is associated in the public mind with cancer-stricken grandmothers and foxy celebrities, there is no going back. The stigma against marijuana use is dying, and support for keeping marijuana illegal has been slowly dying with it.

Sex work is a different story. The stigma associated with selling sex remains strong, as is the stigma against buying it. This is despite the growing evidence that decriminalizing the buying and selling of sex has significant public health benefits.

Thanks for the information, JD. I understand, but I still don't think it should apply. It's not like he was a pimp dropping off his hooker for a dalliance. It was a cab driver bring his client to wear he was told to. That's his job.

He must have said too much in court; that's all I can say. Proving that he knew what his clients were going to do when they arrived at a hotel should be a difficult legal hurdle.

He can't be held responsible for his clients' actions if he doesn't know their intent.

He can't be held responsible for his clients' actions if he doesn't know their intent.

I agree Patrick, but I'm sure it was demonstrated, somehow, that he did know their intent.

"Hi, I'll be your driver today, but first you'll need to complete this affidavit as to your intended activities after I deliver you to your destination. Incidentally, anything you say or write can and will be held against you in a court of law or behind the police station if the police feel like pressing charges or blackmailing you."

Yeah, that should fix it.

This certificate of authenticity -- is that truly necessary for something costing $5.25? -- has to be kept by the seller for SEVEN YEARS???

I once was the treasurer for an insurgent school board candidate in Montgomery County, MD back in 2006, but I was only required by law to keep the paperwork and receipts for 2 years afterward.

One of the best things about this big ol' country of ours is its intolerance of prostitution.

Legalizing prostitution will not solve all the problems surrounding prostitution. It will lead to another set of problems, problems that were once cured by making it illegal. Vicious cycle.

People who imagine that legalizing that which is illegal will solve all the problems associated with it are naive. Legalization will bring a new set of problems, perhaps lesser and perhaps greater.

Legalizing prostitution will legalize pimping. There are very few jobs at which unwilling people are regularly forced to work. So, this is potentially new territory for lawmakers and police.

How about underage prostitutes? If the work is legal, what will be the penalty for hiring someone below the age of consent? Is it the same as employing an underage cashier? After all, both jobs would be legal.

Will statutory rapists try to wiggle out of jail by claiming the girl was a prostitute and this was a legal exchange?

Should prostitution be legal? Sure, why not. None of us mind if our sisters, mothers, daughters, or girlfriends see selling themselves as a viable career option. After all, it's legal. Or is that just for the poor to sell themselves?

Nevada has legalized prostitution and it seems to have worked out for them, mostly. There are still some ills associated with it that have not gone away with legalization. And yet four Nevada counties decided to keep prostitution illegal. Gotta ask yourself why, if legalization is so beneficial. Keep in mind that Nevada's legalizataion applies only to counties with a population below 700,000 and is, for many rural counties, their only source of tax revenue. No problem with the county or courts siding with the brothel owners there, eh.

Check out Alexa Albert's Brothel for a description of the life of legal prostitutes. Many work a days- or weeks-long shift and cannot leave the brothel during their shift. Some by brothel policy, others by county law.

As Albert points out in an interview, not all prostitutes will be able to work within a regimented brothel system, under the watchful eye of management. There will still be streetwalkers seeking money for their next fix.

Personally, I favor legalizing many things that are currently illegal, but I don't delude myself into thinking that legalization and taxation will magically cure all ills and balance the books.

No one said legalizing it will cure all the ills.

But we made it legal for people to drink booze, and the ills of legal consumption are far better than the ills of prohibition which gave rise to organized crime on a level never seen before.

No one said legalizing it will cure all the ills. ~ lujlp at December 27, 2016 9:57 AM

That's the way the argument is too often presented.

But we made it legal for people to drink booze, and the ills of legal consumption are far better than the ills of prohibition which gave rise to organized crime on a level never seen before. ~ lujlp at December 27, 2016 9:57 AM

That was my point when I said "...perhaps lesser, perhaps greater" problems would come with legalization.

And I wouldn't say "better." I'd say "less expensive to society."

The irony is that making prostitution illegal solved the problems society had with it before that, but introduced new problems. You're not going to stamp it out. It's "the world's oldest profession" for a reason. The trick is finding an accommodation that minimizes the problems. That solution may not be legalization.

According to a UN study, legalizing prostitution increases human sex trafficking.

A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution.

The study’s findings include:

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.

Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.

The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.

Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.

While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers).

According to a UN study, legalizing prostitution increases human sex trafficking.

And according to most countries in the EU a child born premature who lives, whether it be for minutes or months, but dies within a month AFTER it projected original due date is categorized as still born when they compile statistics for life expectancy.

My point?

According to the UN a voluntary, self employed (no pimp, no one coercing them) prostitute is counted as being 'trafficked' every time they move. So one woman who moves about the EU is counted many different time as a victim of trafficking.

Legal prostitutes (who are easily tracked as they admit to being hookers on their tax forms) are counted as trafficked every time they cross a border for a vacation or to visit family regardless of whether they engage in prostitution on the other side of what ever border they cross.

Legal prostitutes (who are easily tracked as they admit to being hookers on their tax forms) are counted as trafficked every time they cross a border for a vacation or to visit family regardless of whether they engage in prostitution on the other side of what ever border they cross. ~ lujlp at December 27, 2016 12:27 PM

And your cite for that is....

Of course, those vacationing or relocating non-coerced prostitutes make up the entirety of the increase in human trafficking in countries where prostitution is legal. Because three university professors were too stupid to account for this in their study.

PolicyMic: In 2001, Germany passed a law that mandated sex workers be treated like workers in any other industry, which allows them to sue for better wages and have full access to health insurance, pensions and other benefits. But today, abuse and sex trafficking remain serious problems in Germany. The flood of sex workers has driven down wages and decreased working standards. Brothels in the country are booming. In 2013, German magazine Der Spiegel deemed the well-intentioned law a troubling "subsidy program for pimps."

I guess all those prostitutes vacationing in Germany have caused all sorts of issues.

Here's a cite for you luj.

Tim Worstall writes in Fortune about issues with the study I mentioned.

He cites issue with the volumes of trafficked victims in relation to the populations and cites a UK research study which found no prostitutes forced into sex work, despite hundreds of raids on brothels and arrests.

However, the conclusions the professors drew from their research (whether flawed) does make sense. Legalizing prostitution feeds a demand for more labor. That, in turn, leads to acquiring that labor from whatever source can be found, including, but not limited to, human trafficking.

Conan: Legalizing prostitution will not solve all the problems surrounding prostitution.

lujlp: No one said legalizing it will cure all the ills.

Conan: That's the way the argument is too often presented.

I don't know where you've read and/or heard pro-legalization arguments, Conan, but I've never seen it presented as something that will "solve all the problems" surrounding prostitution. I'm not saying that no one has ever claimed this, because I'm sure some people have, but I highly doubt that it's "too often" presented this way.

First, here's one to bolster my argument.

Excerpts:

In New Zealand, where prostitution and activities surrounding it were decriminalized in 2003, Prime Minister John Key has said this has not resulted in significant reductions in street and underage prostitution.

In a government report, women in prostitution also said that the deregulation of prostitution did not reduce violence in the sex industry and that “abuse and harassment of street-based sex workers by drunken members of the public is common.” Meanwhile, a service provider in Victoria, Australia, where prostitution was legalized in the 1980s, said, “Women constantly tell us that their status as having done prostitution is used against them.” Germany is the latest country to openly discuss the failure of legalization in its national media.

Neither legalization nor decriminalization cures the inherent gender inequality that arises when a buyer purchases the body of a woman or girl. Stella Marr, a survivor of prostitution and founder of Sex Trafficking Survivors United, emphasizes that stigma originates on the demand side “from the buyers who use their political and financial power to buy the younger, poorer, disadvantaged and more vulnerable. The secrecy demanded by these buyers to conceal the harm they cause creates an especially devastating form of stigma: a suffocating silence enforced by fear and shame.”

When governments fail to tackle the demand side of the commercial sex industry, they not only fail to protect people in prostitution, they also financially benefit through the increased tax income generated from the exploitation of people.

But they are not the only ones to benefit. By bringing the commercial sex industry “above ground,” traffickers, pimps, brothel owners and sex buyers all profit in this billion-dollar business.

AND

After courageously exiting the commercial sex industry, Rachel Moran explains what is fundamentally wrong about government attempts to legalize prostitution rather than focus on demand: “To be prostituted is humiliating enough; to legalize prostitution is to condone that humiliation, and to absolve those who inflict it. It is an agonizing insult.”

==============================

I've never seen it presented as something that will "solve all the problems" surrounding prostitution. ~ JD at December 27, 2016 7:51 PM

JD, I'll give you a couple of examples of advocates of legalized prostitution not admitting that there will be problems with it even when legal.

Here's one argument from something called Clutch magazine.

Excerpt:

However, leading scholars and legal experts, including law professors and sociologists, claim legalizing prostitution will cut costs for law enforcement, lower the rates of transmitted diseases and keep sex workers safe from violent pimps and rapists.

Prostitution is a victimless crime, according to Sherry F. Colb, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Law. Colb argues prostitution is a one-to-one transaction that doesn’t cause greater societal harm.

No societal harm? And, I suppose, Colb wouldn't mind her daughter pursuing a career as a prostitute? No societal harm, after all.

Here's another: Amy herself glosses over any potential problems with legalized prostitution by always emphasizing the "consenting adults" and "not the government's business" themes when discussing the topic. No societal harm, after all.

How about another: Allison Bass, author of Getting Screwed writes on her blog, "A growing body of research also shows that anti-prostitution laws in the United States and other countries only make it more difficult for sex workers to protect themselves – from physical harm and from sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Indeed, countries such as the Netherlands and New Zealand that have decriminalized sex work and regulate it to some extent have among the lowest rates of HIV in the world. Decriminalization in those countries has also led to safer working conditions for sex workers and less violence against all women."

She emphasizes the positive effects and gives no acknowledgement at all of any negative effects.

"If one consenting adult pays another consenting adult for sex, “it’s not the government’s business,” said Barbara Keshen, an attorney for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union." Again, the "no societal harm" viewpoint.

The Honest Courtesan blogger asks to be saved from her allies in the legalization fight, citing Barbara Keshen as "...nothing more than an exceptional parrot with a law degree; it is patently obvious that she has a neofeminist view of sex work...."

The legalization fight is full of people with a preconceived notion of prostitutes and prostitution, on both sides. It's a complex social issue with good arguments both pro and con, and some degree of societal harm whichever argument wins.

And the Nordic Model (criminalize the purchase of sex, not the sale) has its share of issues as well.

"But we made it legal for people to drink booze, and the ills of legal consumption are far better than the ills of prohibition which gave rise to organized crime on a level never seen before."

Are sure sign of schizophrenia is the claim or implication that legalization made {pick anything} "safe".

Did we have the level of death (per capita) that we have today?

All that happened was that people decided that being able to drug themselves with alcohol was worth the deaths that occur today. It's just not mobsters, so those people are less dead.

There is no other place in society where the claim is made that if the supply of something is raised, the usage and the abuse goes down. Drug fans make that claim constantly.

The puclic rushes to make excuses for its addiction as it hurries to make it legal.

You know Rad, we could cut down heart disease if we made eating beef illegal

WE could cut down AIDS if we outlawed all sex outside of marriage

We could cut down on unemployment if we made it illegal not to have a job

At what point do you draw the line on telling someone else what they are allowed to do with their body?

Odd that you would mention a law against sex outside of marriage. Want to go look at what ignoring adultery laws has done for us all?

"At what point do you draw the line on telling someone else what they are allowed to do with their body?"

This is easy: the point at which the activity has been demonstrated to harm another. You don't seem to have problems with traffic laws, laws about discharging a firearm, etc. (even as they have been heavily modified due to actions under the influence of alcohol).

Alcohol is a drug. It is simply a drug that Americans want more than they want lower fatalities or addiction and its related woes.

That's some other guy. Screw him, he can look out for himself.

The next time you get pulled at a roadblock, thank legal alcohol - and then realize that's just one of hundreds of hoops you must leap through daily because it is everywhere.

This is easy: the point at which the activity has been demonstrated to harm another

Ok then, who is physically harmed by a sober cab driver driving two adults to a hotel?