|
被禁止的性行為與性暴力
|
|
賣淫: 有關的法律方面
7
|
|
只要賣淫沒有影響到他人和法律上有允諾能力的參與者之間保持私密自願交換，那麼，它就符合無受害人的犯罪的定義。因此，就賣淫的爭論通常就集中在這兩個議題：
-
①
在許多場合，賣淫可以是自願的；但是，有時候它就不是自願的。賣淫可能由人口販子、皮條客所強制，或者由當事者的毒癮所迫使，或者由於貧窮而出賣她們的性服務。所以，她們的允諾就值得懷疑了[1]。另一方面，賣淫者的允諾有多大的效力？即：她們的貧窮迫使她們接受自己知道對健康有害的低薪“正規”工作，這難道算是一種允諾嗎？
-
②
賣淫作為一項兩人或多人之間的個人事務，它可能不總是會影響到他人，但是有時候卻不儘然。例如，來自國外的妓女作為人口販賣的受害人，她們通常會違反有關簽證的法律和居留法律條款，並且也逃避了自己的所得稅。這是不公平的，而且會破壞公共秩序。歸根結底，這種情況下的賣淫會損害每一個守法公民的利益。
正如這些舉例所顯示的那樣，“無受害人的犯罪”的概念並不總是適合賣淫的案例。有的時候，賣淫可能確實沒有受害人，但是，在另外的時候，賣淫會使妓女受到傷害，或者使社會受到普遍的傷害，或者使兩者都受到傷害。可是，根據定義和在所有的情形之下把每一個妓女都稱為受害者，這同樣是誇大其辭。這並不符合客觀實際，因為一些妓女是不受他人束縛的經營者，她們滿足於自己的選擇。這對於那些通過電子媒介自己經營的婦女來說尤其如此，她們在各種各樣的電子媒體上經營著自己的營生，而且實際上決不會與任何一位主顧照面。在這種案例裏，如果認為起訴她們的國際“線上用戶”是可行的或會達到某種有益的目的，則同樣讓人更加地質疑了。的確，普通大眾不可能支持世界範圍內如此嚴厲的強制性政策。另一方面，如果這種強制性的政策沒有嚴格地普遍實施，卻是武斷的，並因此在本質上是不公平的。
|
|
Prohibited Sexual Behavior and Sexual Violence
|
|
Prostitution: Legal Aspects 7
|
|
Prostitution meets the definition of a victimless crime as long as it does not affect others and remains a private voluntary exchange between participants who are legally capable of consent. The debate about prostitution therefore usually
focuses on these two issues:
-
Prostitution may be voluntary in many instances, but sometimes it is not. Prostitutes may be forced by their traffickers or pimps or simply by their drug addiction or their poverty to sell her services. Their consent is therefore questionable. On the other hand, how valid is the consent of people whose poverty forces them to take low-paying “regular” jobs that they know to be hazardous to their health?
-
Prostitution as a personal transaction between two or more people may not always affect others, but sometimes it does. For example, as victims of trafficking, foreign prostitutes are usually in violation of visa and residence requirements and also evade taxes on their income. In fact, tax evasion may also be practiced by native legal prostitutes with valid working permits. This is unjust and undermines the public order. In the final analysis, it harms every law-abiding citizen.
As these examples show, the concept of “victimless crime” does not always fit the case of prostitution. Sometimes it may indeed have no victims, but at other times it victimizes the prostitute, or society at large, or both. However, calling every prostitute a victim by definition and under all circumstances also overstretches the case. It denies the reality that some prostitutes are independent operators who are content with the choice they have made. This is especially true of self-employed women who work in the various electronic media and never actually meet a client in person. In this case, it is also more than doubtful that the prosecution of their many international “online clients” would be feasible or serve any useful purpose. Indeed, the general public may not support the world-wide strict enforcement of such a policy. On the other hand, if it is not strictly carried out everywhere, it is arbitrary and therefore inherently unjust.
|
