Executive Summary
As a group we were handed a debate of prostitution. We had to enter the
debate with an unbiased attitude and a completely open mind. Sure, some of us were
immediately far on one end of the spectrum, some of us in the middle, and some not
necessarily sure. However, being mature about the situation, we entered the debate
and our research thinking of nothing but how we will examine both sides of the
debate. Sienna Baskin and Melissa Farley represented the two sides and gave their
evidence to support the claims they each made. Though the debate itself gave us
proper knowledge about prostitution and its effects, we also had to dig further to
understand a bit more. This is where the 100 facts come into play (appendix A).
Being able to research these facts allowed us to become aware of different state’s views
on prostitution, as well as other cases and thoughts about it.
As a group we met weekly accomplishing assigned tasks so we were able to fully
develop an analysis of the debate. Overall, we got along as a group rather well, with a
few sets of conflict. As learned in previous courses, conflict is good in a group, and I
think the conflict we had helped every member understand just a little bit more about
each side of the debate. Please enjoy learning the facts and thoughts about
prostitution, just as we did!
1
Case Problem
A proper debate features strong central arguments, relevant warrants to
support any presented evidence to claims, and a logical, concise presentation of facts
supporting one’s case. Our goal is to dissect a debate between two very worthy
contenders – Sienna Baskin, co-director of the Sex Workers Project at the Urban
Justice Center, and Melissa Farley – executive director of the group Prostitution
Research and Education. The topic at hand is that of the criminalization of
prostitution.
Our debate focuses on the legalization of the practice of prostitution. Through
this paper we will move forward by illustrating the structure of the affirmative and
negative side’s arguments. We will also evaluate their effectiveness in terms of how
they were adapted to the audience, if there was sufficient evidence to back up the
stated claims, and whether or not the warrants were pertinent to the argument.
Sienna Baskin has the burden of proof. In order to prove that there was a general
need for prostitution Baskin must formulate evidence to support her claim in order to
convince the majority that change must happen. Melissa Farley is in support of
maintaining the status quo. In order to prove that the status quo must stay as is,
Farley must formulate evidence to convince the majority that change would not benefit
the whole.
2
Assumptions
Prostitution is not an issue that is taken lightly in today’s society. While
conducting a thorough analysis of the debate between Sienna Baskin and Melissa
Farley it became apparent that our group needed to create a list of assumptions to
fairly asses the arguments of both the affirmative and negative cases. The list that we
came up with is as follows…
1. It is possible to willingly choose to be a prostitute.
2. It is possible to live a happy abuse free life as a prostitute.
3. Women doing one or both of the above are the minority.
4. You cannot indict an institution without dehumanizing its participants.
5. We live in a patriarchal society.
6. Prostitution reinforces negative patriarchal stereotypes.
7. Those stereotypes harm women in a general sense.
8. A healthy sex industry can only exist in a world without stereotypes created by
a patriarchal society.
With these assumptions, and further ones specific to each audience, we were able
to understand a little bit more why this debate would appeal to parts of the country as
opposed to others.
3
Audience Analysis
Audience Analysis is a key element in the art of persuading. To use this tool
properly, the debater needs to know how to adapt their message to their audience to
increase its efficiency and enhance its influence. In order for our group to analyze our
debate regarding prostitution effectively, we had to decipher who our audience was
with the help of our Professor. We were informed to use two different states as our
main audience. After much consideration, we selected Wisconsin and California.
We chose these two states based upon the reasoning that the general audience
for this argument varied on a state-by-state and county-by-county basis in result of
prostitution not being regulated by federal law. This being said, we split our audience
into two according relevant units, which in this case would be states. Then we chose a
representative unit that would be more inclined to lean one way or the other regarding
this particular debate, based on our assumptions of that group (appendix D and E)).
Because of the states differences and their mutual representative nature, our group
chose Wisconsin and California as our general audience for the rating of the debate.
Our next step in our analysis of the audience was to create assumptions about
the states in order to represent and understand them effectively. For example, some
assumptions we selected about the state of Wisconsin include being conservative,
morally concerned, focused on benefits to the agricultural industry, and relatively low
levels of exposure to prostitution. Our assumptions about the state of California
include being liberal, human rights activists, focuses on benefits to the entertainment
industry, and have relatively high levels of exposure to prostitution. As our group
established the assumptions, we began to develop possible concerns and objectives of
each state as well (appendix D and E).
4
By determining the audiences, their assumptions, concerns, and objectives for
this debate, our group was able to analyze it more effectively. Much of our reasoning
for the critics of the debaters is based upon who their target audience is and whom
they are actually reaching. This tool also helped the group select who won and lost the
debate therefore overall audience analysis played a highly significant role in our
decision making.
5
Affirmative
The affirmative side (Sienna Baskin) claims there is a sufficient need to be
remedied: To grant basic human rights to all people, regardless of their affiliation with
the sale and exploitation of sex. The affirmative side argues that a serious problem
exists here. Through the development of our brief, we pinpointed the series of proofs
which the affirmative side presented to substantiate their claims.
In order to prove there is a sufficient enough need that warrants a change in
the status quo, the affirmative sought to prove that the present policy is to blame for
the alleged problem. Baskin argues that if the goal is to end prostitution, it is clear
why it fails. Many sex workers are unable to do any other work because of their
criminal records. In particular, living-wage jobs in health care, education, or finance
require a criminal background check. Convictions for prostitution can affect
applications for public housing and lead to an eviction from private housing. Baskin
calls this the reality of criminalization, and it hinges on a question of value.
The affirmative also sought to prove that these problems result in enough harm
to require a policy change. She argues that criminalization actually promotes violence
against sex worker and contributes to the loss of protection and other basic human
rights for sex workers and victims of human trafficking.
Once the need was clearing established, the affirmative side went on to present
a feasible remedy: to eliminate the criminalization of prostitution for sex workers and
victims of human trafficking. This is a question of policy. The affirmative side argues
that the current status quo must change. One proof that the affirmative side brings to
the table is that the remedy will create a workable system to replace the allegedly
6
unworkable one – through the use of parallel cases and alternative models, Baskin
illustrates how similar remedies have been successful in alternative situations.
We will move forward with illustrating the structure of the Affirmative side’s
argument through the usage of Toulmin models [appendix F]. We will then evaluate
its effectiveness in terms of how it was adapted to the audience, if there was sufficient
evidence to back up the stated claims, and if the warrants were pertinent to the
argument.
Sienna Baskin, as we stated previously, has the burden of proof. In order to
prove that there was a general need and a proposed remedy whose advantages
outweighed its disadvantages, she brought about a total of three claims building
evidences on top of one another to support her burden of proof.
The first claim Baskin brings to the table is that criminalization creates a
culture which traps sex workers into that profession and bars them from seeking safer
employment opportunities [appendix F]. The evidence she presents to support this is
that sex workers are not being saved by being arrested. Going through the justice
system puts an irreversible tarnish on the woman’s record, with the warrant being
that since overburdened criminal courts encourage sex workers to plead guilty without
explaining the consequences of the aforementioned criminal records. The support for
this warrant is that the brand of ‘untouchable’ once a woman is criminalized for
selling herself is something which follows her and prevents her from moving on to
other professions, limiting her future and offering no other options than continuing
with prostitution.
The second claim in question is that criminalizing sex workers fails to reduce
the levels of violence for sex workers and victims of human trafficking [appendix F].
7
This, of course, takes into account the assumption that prostitution will be a relevant
issue in our society whether or not it is legal [appendix F]. The evidence that is used
to support this claim is that sex workers are afraid to report crimes against them
because in America, sex workers experience high levels of police brutality, extortion,
and abuse. Victims of sex trafficking are also discouraged from going to police out of
fear of being treated like criminals themselves. The proposed warrant brought about
by the affirmative side is that trafficked women reported being arrested for prostitution
up to ten times before they escaped from their captors.
Baskin also cites the claim that the criminalization of prostitution promotes
high levels of police brutality against sex workers and victims of human trafficking
[appendix F]. The evidence here is a substantive one: the ‘Revolving Door’ study
claims that 27% of its respondents who were prostitutes had suffered physical violence
at the hands of police. Police get away with mistreating sex workers who are afraid of
retaliation and unlikely to report misconduct.
These three claims, which were backed by the aforementioned warrants, now
become proven pieces of evidence for the final claim. This final claim is that
prostitution should be legalized.
The evidence for this next level of claim is that the criminalization of
prostitution produces a loss or protection and other basic human rights for sex
workers and victims of human trafficking [appendix F]. The warrant is the case of the
Green River Killer, a man who got away with killing 60 prostitutes before he was
apprehended. The support for the aforementioned warrant is that the police failed to
put a high enough priority on cases involving sex workers – prostitutes therefore lost
the right to justice simply because of the line of work they were involved with.
8
The next piece of evidence is that the criminalization of prostitution promotes
high levels of police brutality against sex workers and victims of human trafficking
[appendix F]. The warrant here is, again, the substantive case of the ‘Revolving Door’
study, where that 27% of its respondents who were prostitutes had suffered physical
violence at the hands of police.
The final piece of evidence presented on this second level of argumentation
supporting the claim that prostitution should be legalized is that the criminalization
encourages violence against sex workers [appendix F]. The affirmative side then
continues to use a statistical, parallel case to support this piece of evidence. In 2003,
New Zealand passed a law effectively decriminalizing prostitution. The reform’s stated
goals were to ensure safer working conditions, protect human rights, promote public
health, and protect against sexual exploitation(very similar to the goals of the
affirmative side in this case). After 5 years, the number of sex workers had not
measurable increased and coercion into the sex industry was extremely rare. Sex
workers reported feeling more able to work during the day and in safer places, and
police took their reports of violence more seriously.
9
Negative
Before we decided whether to legalize prostitution it is important to know what
it is and what it is not. It is not a job like any other. Whether or not it is legal,
prostitution is extremely harmful for women.
Before these arguments are explained there is one thing that is important to
note, this being the stance of the negative side and its correlation to the definition of
prostitution as a crime. When we as a group looked at this argument we came in with
the mindset of trying to remove all of the “emotional” thought and be as unbiased as
possible. This meant leaving many taught norms at the door in order to have an open
and objective mindset. This was the right decision, but it became apparent that the
people arguing this issue would appeal to our moral opinions throughout this debate
which made things much more confusing. Fortunately we dug a little deeper into this
law and what its basis was and from that we were able to form a much better
understanding of why the both sides were arguing in the ways they were.
In our research we found that the legality of prostitution was an issue that was
decided at the state level which led us to more specifically look at the law where one
very important bit of information was. When we looked to see how this law was
“justified” or what gave it reason for being law we found that the legality of prostitution
was dependent on a very interesting stance by government. Prostitution is under a
section of law called a Public Order Crime. This type of crime is defined as “a crime
that interferes with the operations of society and the ability of people to function
efficiently.” Upon further investigation the reason that this is criminal is because it is
“contrary to social norms, values, and customs.” With this information we could see a
lot more clearly why this would be a sticky issue to debate and why it would use a lot
10
of appeal to ethics. It is because the entire law is based on the ethical majority, which
right now is that prostitution is wrong, so the fact that the negative side uses a lot of
appeal to values made much more sense.
Toulmin Model: Arguments one, two, and three
Argument #1
In the first Toulmin model we examined the claim that prostitution is ethically
wrong. We decided that this was a claim of value. This claim is tied into section one of
the debate where the mediator explains the basis of the debate itself. Mr. John Parker
says “Prostitution raises both moral and legal questions. Our debate focuses on the
legal question: should prostitution be legalized? But the moral one-is it wrong to buy
and sell sex?-cannot be easily avoided.” With the basis for our claim explored we turn
to the evidence for the claim, which is that prostitution is like renting an organ or using
any other amenity. The basis for this is found in section 21 where Melissa Farley
mentions a quote that is, in essence, our evidence. The quote reads “I use them like I
might any other amenity, a restaurant, or a public convenience.” In concluding this
Toulmin we bring in our warrant and its support. The warrant for evidence is that
since in prostitution men remove women’s humanity with the support being because
buying sex gives men the power to turn women into a living masturbation fantasy. We
found the basis for both the warrant and the support in section 22 where we also
found one of the largest areas of loaded language throughout the Melissa Farley’s
statements.
Argument #2
11
In the second Toulmin model we examined the claim that no amount of legal
reform will remove the damage that prostitution does. We decided that this was a claim
of fact, because it was stating that something is, was, or will be so. The basis for this
claim came for section two, which talks of how prostitution is not just like any other
job and that “Johns” don’t just become nice because prostitution is legal. The evidence
for the claim, which is in the form of a quote is “it’s internally damaging. You become
in your own mind what these people do and say with you. You wonder how could you
let yourself do this and why do these people want to do this to you?” This evidence was
found in section 23 where Farley is showing the true thoughts of the “Johns” and in
turn the actual feelings of the prostitutes. Finally, we found the warrant and support
for this argument in section 24. The warrant was that Since women who have done it
for some time feel they are something for him to empty himself into and the support for
the warrant was because the John’s payment does not erase what we know about the
violence and trauma it causes.
Argument # 3
In the Third Toulmin model we examined the claim in section three that
legislation will surely do nothing to reduce its violence. We found it was a claim of fact,
with the evidence for this fact being that the mayor of Amsterdam admitted he was
wrong about legalization (section 32). The warrant and support for this evidence are
from sections 26 and 31 respectively. In section 26 Farley is hitting on a statement she
makes that ,even in legalized prostitution, violence is still the norm. We found our
warrant right after these comments when Farley used the stat 60% of women in a
Dutch study were physically assaulted and 70% were physically threatened.
12
Broad Toulmin Model:
The Broad Toulmin model was developed because we wanted to connect the
smaller arguments throughout the negative side of the debate with the broader stance
of the negative debate which was that Prostitution should remain illegal. In order to
connect our more specific Toulmin models with the larger scale of this one we decided
the most effective way to do so was to use the claims of the smaller Toulimn models as
the evidences for the broader one. The resulting Toulmin model in turn has three
evidences all flowing to one claim, with every evidence having its own unique support.
In looking at the evidences for the negative’s claim of prostitution needing to
remain illegal we have put in the evidences of prostitution is ethically wrong, no amount
of legal reform will remove the damage that prostitution does, and legislation will surely
do nothing to reduce its violence. We have already delved into where those statements
have been drawn from so we can look directly at the supports for the evidences now.
Evidence #1 prostitution is ethically wrong
In evidence number one we found that the support for this would be Since in
prostitution men remove women’s humanity. This is because the negative side is
arguing that women lose all control of themselves when they sell themselves to a man
thus removing their humanity, which the negative side then uses to show that
because a woman is losing her humanity this is an ethically wrong thing.
Evidence #2 no amount of legal reform will remove the damage that prostitution does
In evidence number two we found a great support would be since pimps and Johns do
not become nice guys. This was a very clear connection because in section two, where
13
this statement is drawn from, Farley is clearly stating that this job is wrong no matter
what and that its participants are not going to change based on the legality of it.
Evidence #3 legislation will surely do nothing to reduce its violence
In the third and final evidence we found a good support to be since sexual violence and
physical abuse are the norm for women in legal prostitution. We found this evidence in
section 26, and it was a great support because it coincided with Farley showing one of
her stronger stats on the violence in prostitution.
14
Evaluation
After our analysis of the debate, one would think it would be easy to choose a
winner, however for us it was difficult. The reason this was difficult is because each
side of the debate won based on the different audiences it was presented to. For
example, based on our assumptions stated earlier, the affirmative side used more
factual statements and related topics to human rights which appeals to the liberal
mindset of the California audience. On the other hand, the negative side based the
majority of their evidence on values and beliefs that are seemingly rooted in Midwest
society; which in turn gave them the win when appealing to the Wisconsin audience.
However, we feel as a group overall both sides of the debate lose. Sure, each side
appealed to a specific audience, but they each should have appealed to the audience
overall, which would be the entire country. In order for them to appeal to everyone
they have to take the styles they used and presented to each side and combine them
all together.
15
Coaching
So in order to become the ‘winner’ of the debate, like previously stated, the
representative of each side should have combined the tactics used for both California’s
and Wisconsin’s audiences. On the affirmative side, Sienna Baskin’s claim is broken
up throughout her entire debate. She fails to fully attack the argument for legalization
and goes down other paths, which in turn confuses the audience and limits the
effectiveness of the argument as a whole. She should have used more value based
information to appeal to other audiences throughout the United States. One
possibility might be that she could address the dehumanization situation that was
properly executed on the negative side of the debate. She also stated facts and
statistics that at times seemed more like opinions because she rarely cited or
explained where that information came from. For example, one quote is ‘he and other
violent criminals prey on sex workers, knowing that missing or murdered prostitutes
are not a police priority.” This is more of an assumption as opposed to a factual
statement which is a very broad generalization. Another example is the fact that she
mentioned that 27% of police abuse prostitutes. This is very weak evidence because
she fails to mention who these police are or where they are from. Is it 27% of all police
officers in the whole country? Or just in a certain state? It is a very weak statistic
and could have been more effective if presented properly.
As for the negative side of the argument, it is presented in a very pathos based
manner. This side not only needs to continue to use beliefs and values as evidence to
appeal to states like Wisconsin, but also needs to use more factual statements. Also
while continuing with the value based evidence, like Baskin, Farley could have made
the evidence seem less like opinions and assumptions and used names or places she
16
received her information. Claim number one for this side was that prostitution is
ethically wrong and the warrant for this claim was that men remove women’s
humanity by using and abusing prostitution. One thing Farley could have done was
switched the claim and the warrant around. Had she claimed that men remove
women’s humanity since prostitution is ethically wrong, there could have been a
greater success in presenting her case.
The most essential need for this debate and any debate is to appeal to every
single audience that your debate is reaching. In order to do that, you must conduct a
proper audience analysis (appendix D) and then relate your evidence and style you
present it to those audiences. Using ethos based arguments are also very effective,
and both sides of this debate could have used those to make their debate sound more
professional and serious. Along with this, using stronger facts and statistics would be
very beneficial to them. Again, stating where their information came from and using
credible sources. Another way to appeal to any audience is the way the representative
organizes their flow of information. Lastly, both Baskin and Farley used a large
amount of loaded language attempting to grab and appeal their audiences; however
they did just the opposite and confused us more than anything. Had Baskin and
Farley made some of these minor yet important changes when presenting their
debates, it is possible that a winner could have been decided and announced.
17
So What?
Upon analysis of this debate, we concluded that understanding your audience
plays one of the more significant roles in the debate because it helps to narrow down
the flow of information in an effective manner.
Information that is presented as ‘facts’ may be misleading. When we dissect
debates in the future, we will keep in mind that a critical eye is needed to differentiate
facts from opinions. We also realize that there are different levels of debates that need
to be taken into consideration which include a societal level and one viewed through
the lens of an unbiased audience. It’s also more than what evidence you present to
back up your claims; it’s also how you organize it that makes all the difference.
So when reading future arguments or articles, we will be able to understand the
reasoning behind the structure of the arguments based on the targeted audience in
question. One must always be aware that you may not be a part of the audience that
is being persuaded at that time and you can use that knowledge to understand what
is really being said in the debate.
18
Conclusion
Upon analysis of this debate, we concluded that understanding your
audience plays a significant role in debating because it helps to narrow down
the flow of information in an effective manner.
Information presented as facts can be misleading. When we dissect
debates in the future, we will keep in mind that a critical eye is needed to
differentiate facts from opinions. Our group will recognize that there are
different levels of debates that need to be taken into consideration – both a
societal level and one viewed through the lens of an unbiased audience. A
debate is more than what evidence you present to back up your claims – it’s
also how you present your evidence that makes a difference.
When analyzing arguments in the future, we will be able to understand
the reasoning behind the structure of the arguments based on the audience in
question. One must always be aware that you may not be a part of the
audience that is being persuaded at that time – and you can use that
knowledge to understand what is really being said in a debate.
19
Appendix
20
Appendix A
100 Facts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 years (M.H. Silbert and A.M.
Pines, 1982, "Victimization of street prostitutes, Victimology: An International
Journal, 7: 122-133) or 14 years (D.Kelly Weisberg, 1985, Children of the Night:
A Study of Adolescent Prostitution, Lexington, Mass, Toronto).
Most of these 13 or 14 year old girls were recruited or coerced into prostitution.
Estimates of the prevalence of incest among prostitutes range from 65% to 90%.
The Council for Prostitution Alternatives, Portland, Oregon Annual Report in
1991 stated that: 85% of prostitute/clients reported history of sexual abuse in
childhood; 70% reported incest.
80% of prostitution survivors at the WHISPER Oral History Project reported that
their customers showed them pornography to illustrate the kinds of sexual
activities in which they wanted to engage.
52% of the women stated that pornography played a significant role in teaching
them what was expected of them as prostitutes.
30% reported that their pimps regularly exposed them to pornography in order
to indoctrinate them into an acceptance of the practices depicted. (A facilitator's
guide to Prostitution: a matter of violence against women, 1990, WHISPER Women Hurt in Systems of Prostitution Engaged in Revolt Minneapolis, MN)
80% of prostituted women interviewed by WHISPER had pimps while in
prostitution (Evelina Giobbe, 1987, WHISPER Oral History Project, Minneapolis,
Minnesota).
About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape.
78% of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution
Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by
pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns. (Susan Kay Hunter, Council
for Prostitution Alternatives Annual Report, 1991, Portland, Oregon)
85% of prostitutes are raped by pimps.
Define Prostitution: The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.
The act or an instance of offering or devoting one's talent to an unworthy use or
cause.
At this given moment there are 40 million prostitutes at work.
It is completely legal and regulated within 22 countries
$1 is the median price for many prostitutes in South Africa.
Studies reveal 1 in 10 men in the world have purchased a prostitute.
The sex industry is huge in Japan and Thailand.
In America, 80,000 citizens are arrested a year for soliciting sex.
The murder rate for an American prostitute is 204 for every 100,000.
Men between the ages 35-44 are the most common demographic of customer.
The top 3 reasons men paid for sex are to satisfy an immediate urge for sex,
experience a specific physical, racial or sexual fetish, and unsatisfied in their
current relationship.
This demand unfortunately spurs the $58 billion industry of sex trafficking.
2.5 million victims are currently being trafficked.
21
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
2 out of 3 victims are taken from Eastern Europe.
Prostitution is referred to as the world's oldest profession
Male and female sex workers can be found in every city
70% of female inmates in American prisons were initially arrested for
prostitution
Prostitutes report being "horribly beaten" by their pimps an average of 58 times
a year
Prostitutes account for 90% of the arrests, their clients for only 10%
Only 3-5% of STDs are prostitution-related
97% of house-prostitutes like themselves more after than before becoming
prostitutes
59% of prostitutes have thought of committing suicide, compared to 61% of
non-prostitutes
All arrests of prostitutes involve entrapment, invasion of privacy, and/or the
use of discriminatory laws/tactics
Over 1 million people in the US have worked as prostitutes
85-90% of those arrested are street prostitutes, who account for 20% of
prostitutes
80% of prostitutes have been sexually assaulted, some raped as many as 8-10
time annually
77.8% of arrests are women, 22.2% men
The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 years
All of the respondents in the New York study listed finances as their reason for
getting into sex work
A Canadian Report on Prostitution and Pornography concluded that girls and
women in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national
average
Street prostitution accounts for between 10 to 20% of the prostitution in larger
cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York
Male prostitutes sometimes report that their clients include married men who
identify as heterosexual
In a study in London, England 50% of clients were married, or cohabiting
The average length of time that a prostitute in America spends prostituting is 4
years.
At least 300,000 male prostitutes under the age of 16 exist in the U.S.
2/3 of prostitutes begin working when they are 16 years old or younger.
The United Nations proposed a resolution in favor of the decriminalization of
prostitutes in 1949. The resolution has been ratified by 50 countries (excluding
the U.S.).
Melissa Farley is the author and Manager of website
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/
Melissa Farley is the founder of the Prostitution Research and Education, a non
profit
Dr. Farley has a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology
Dr. Farley has a M.S. in Clinical psychology
Dr. Farley received her Ph.D. from Iowa University
Dr. Farley received her Master’s of Science from San Francisco State University
Dr. Farley has practiced as a clinical psychologist for over 40yrs
Dr. Farley has been categorized as an expert in her field (sexual violence against
women and children…prostitution and trafficking)
22
57. Dr. Farley has worked as a consultant for the medical examining board of the
State of California (2002)
58. Dr. Farley wrote Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the
Connections
59. Dr. Farley has collaborated on many other books pertaining to Sex trafficking
and prostitution
60. Dr. Farley has presented on the “Economics of the Sex industry” to the United
Nations (2008)
61. Dr. Farley has presented too many universities and other groups around the
world.
62. Dr. Farley has a Wikipedia about her.
63. Dr. Farley wrote “The new Abolitionists” (2008)
a.
Farley, Melissa. “The New Abolitionists.” Spring, 2008: Vol.18 Pg 24.
64. Dr. Farley wrote “Prostitution Harms Women Even Indoors”
a.
Farley, Melissa. ““Prostitution Harms Women Even Indoors” Violence
against women 2005. Vol:11, issue: 7, pg. 950-964
65. Dr. Farley wrote “Prostitution is Sexual Violence”
a.
Farley, Melissa. Psychiatric Times Oct2004 Supplement, Vol. 21, p7-10
66. Dr. Farley wrote “Bad for the body, bad for the heart: Prostitution harms
women even if legalized and decriminalized.”
a.
Farley, Melissa. Violence Against Women vol. 10 iss. 10 (2004)
67. Dr. Farley wrote “Prostitution, Violence, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.”
a.
Farley, Melissa. Women & Health vol. 27 iss. 3 (1998)
68. When “Melissa Farley” is searched in the UWGB Cofrin Library database she
receives 208 “hits”
69. Melissa Farley has 871,000 hits on google search
70. Sienna Baskin is the co-director of the Sex Workers Project at the Urban
Justice Centre
71. Ms. Baskin provides non-judgmental legal education, advice and representation
to sex workers and victims of trafficking on a variety of issues.
72. Prior to joining the Sex Workers Project, Ms. Baskin advocated for criminalized
people's rights in various settings.
73. Sienna is a graduate of Hampshire College and the City University of New York
School of Law.
74. Sienna Baskin turns to specific legal cases and begins to scrutinize what she
sees as good and bad versions of decriminalization.
75. She is skeptical about Sweden's policy, which makes selling sex legal but
buying it illegal.
76. (In California) Every person who, within this state, takes any person against his
or her will and without his or her consent, or with his or her consent procured
by fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation, for the purpose of prostitution,
as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 647, is punishable by imprisonment in
the state prison, and a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000).
77. (In California) Every person who takes any other person unlawfully, and against
his or her will, and by force, menace, or duress, compels him or her to live with
such person in an illicit relation, against his or her consent, or to so live with
any other person, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
78. (In California) Every person who induces any other person to engage in sexual
intercourse, sexual penetration, oral copulation, or sodomy when his or her
consent is procured by false or fraudulent representation or pretense that is
23
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
made with the intent to create fear, and which does induce fear, and that would
cause a reasonable person in like circumstances to act contrary to the person's
free will, and does cause the victim to so act, is punishable by imprisonment in
a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison for two, three, or
four years.As used in this section, "fear" means the fear of physical injury or
death to the person or to any relative of the person or member of the person's
family.
(In California) Any person who receives any money or other valuable thing for or
on account of placing in custody any other person for the purpose of causing
the other person to cohabit with any person to whom the other person is not
married, is guilty of a felony.
(In California) Every person who purchases, or pays any money or other
valuable thing for, any person for the purpose of prostitution as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 647, or for the purpose of placing such person, for
immoral purposes, in any house or place against his or her will, is guilty of a
felony.
(In California) Every person who sells any person or receives any money or
other valuable thing for or on account of his or her placing in custody, for
immoral purposes, any person, whether with or without his or her consent, is
guilty of a felony.
(In California) Every man who, by force, intimidation, threats, persuasion,
promises, or any other means, places or leaves, or procures any other person or
persons to place or leave, his wife in a house of prostitution, or connives at or
consents to, or permits, the placing or leaving of his wife in a house of
prostitution, or allows or permits her to remain therein, is guilty of a felony and
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years;
and in all prosecutions under this section a wife is a competent witness against
her husband.(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) Any person who, knowing
another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole
or in part from the earnings or proceeds of the person's prostitution, or from
money loaned or advanced to or charged against that person by any keeper or
manager or inmate of a house or other place where prostitution is practiced or
allowed, or who solicits or receives compensation for soliciting for the person,
when the prostitute is a minor, is guilty of pimping a minor, a felony, and shall
be punishable as follows: (1) If the person engaged in prostitution is a minor
over the age of 16 years, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison for three, four, or six years.
(In California) (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who does
any of the following is guilty of pandering, a felony, and shall be punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or six years: (1) Procures
another person for the purpose of prostitution. (2) By promises, threats,
violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades or encourages
another person to become a prostitute. (3) Procures for another person a place
as an inmate in a house of prostitution or as an inmate of any place in which
prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state. (4) By promises, threats,
violence or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades or encourages
an inmate of a house of prostitution, or any other place in which prostitution is
encouraged or allowed, to remain therein as an inmate. (5) By fraud or artifice,
or by duress of person or goods, or by abuse of any position of confidence or
authority, procures another person for the purpose of prostitution, or to enter
24
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state, or to
come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of prostitution. (6)
Receives or gives, or agrees to receive or give, any money or thing of value for
procuring, or attempting to procure, another person for the purpose of
prostitution, or to come into this state or leave this state for the purpose of
prostitution. (b) Any person who does any of the acts described in subdivision
(a) with another person who is a minor is guilty of pandering, a felony, and shall
be punishable as follows: (1) If the other person is a minor over the age of 16
years, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three,
four, or six years. (2) If the other person is under 16 years of age, the offense is
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(In California) Any person who intentionally gives, transports, provides, or
makes available, or who offers to give, transport, provide, or make available to
another person, a child under the age of 16 for the purpose of any lewd or
lascivious act as defined in Section 288, or who causes, induces, or persuades a
child under the age of 16 to engage in such an act with another person, is guilty
of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term of three, six, or
eight years, and by a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).
(In California) (a) Upon the conviction of any person for a violation of Section
266h, 266i, or 266j, the court may, in addition to any other penalty or fine
imposed, order the defendant to pay an additional fine not to exceed five
thousand dollars ($5,000). In setting the amount of the fine, the court shall
consider any relevant factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness and
gravity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, whether the
defendant derived any economic gain as the result of the crime, and the extent
to which the victim suffered losses as a result of the crime. Every fine imposed
and collected under this section shall be deposited in the Victim-Witness
Assistance Fund to be available for appropriation to fund child sexual
exploitation and child sexual abuse victim counseling centers and prevention
programs under Section 13837. (b) If the court orders a fine to be imposed
pursuant to this section, the actual administrative cost of collecting that fine,
not to exceed 2 percent of the total amount paid, may be paid into the general
fund of the county treasury for the use and benefit of the county.
(In California) For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (a)
"Commit prostitution" means to engage in sexual conduct for money or other
consideration, but does not include sexual conduct engaged in as a part of any
stage performance, play, or other entertainment open to the public. (b) "Public
place" means an area open to the public, or an alley, plaza, park, driveway, or
parking lot, or an automobile, whether moving or not, or a building open to the
general public, including one which serves food or drink, or provides
entertainment, or the doorways and entrances to a building or dwelling, or the
grounds enclosing a building or dwelling. (c) "Loiter" means to delay or linger
without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of
committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered.
(In California) If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of
this chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and
independent provision, and that holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of the chapter.
(In California) A violation of any provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
25
89. (In California) Nothing in this chapter or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
639) shall prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws
consistent with these chapters relating to prostitution or prostitution-related
activity. Where local laws duplicate or supplement this chapter or Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 639), these chapters shall be construed as providing
alternative remedies and not to preempt the field.
90. (In Wisconsin) 944.30: Prostitution
a.
Any person who intentionally does any of the following is guilty of a Class
A misdemeanor: (1) Has or offers to have or requests to have nonmarital
sexual intercourse for anything of value. (2) Commits or offers to commit
or requests to commit an act of sexual gratification, in public or in
private, involving the sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of
another for anything of value. (3) Is an inmate of a place of prostitution.
(4) Masturbates a person or offers to masturbate a person or requests to
be masturbated by a person for anything of value. (5) Commits or offers
to commit or requests to commit an act of sexual contact for anything of
value.
91. (In Wisconsin) 944.31: Patronizing prostitutes
a.
Any person who enters or remains in any place of prostitution with intent
to have nonmarital sexual intercourse or to commit an act of sexual
gratification, in public or in private, involving the sex organ of one person
and the mouth or anus of another, masturbation or sexual contact with
a prostitute is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
92. (In Wisconsin) 944.32: Soliciting prostitutes
a.
Except as provided under s.948.08, whoever intentionally solicits or
causes any person to practice prostitution or establishes any person in a
place of prostitution is guilty of a Class H felony.
93. (In Wisconsin) 944.33: Pandering
a.
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) Solicits another to have nonmarital sexual intercourse or to commit
an act of sexual gratification, in public or in private, involving the sex
organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another, masturbation or
sexual contact with a person the solicitor knows is a prostitute; or (b)
With intent to facilitate another in having nonmarital intercourse or
committing an act of sexual gratification, in public or in private, involving
the sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another,
masturbation or sexual contact with a prostitute, directs or transports
the person to a prostitute or directs or transports a prostitute to the
person. (2) If the person received compensation from the earnings of the
prostitute, such person is guilty of a Class F felony. (3) In a prosecution
under this section, it is competent for the state to prove other similar
acts by the accused for the purpose of showing the accused's intent and
disposition.
94. (In Wisconsin) 944.34: Keeping place of prostitution
a.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following is guilty of a Class H
felony: (1) Keeps a place of prostitution; or (2) Grants the use or allows
the continued use of a place as a place of prostitution.
95. California vs. Harold Freeman
a.
Freeman was arrested in 1983 on a five counts of pandering – he hired
and paid adults to perform sexual acts while he filmed them.
26
96.
The Case of Robin Newell – Ohio
a.
Robin Newell, 32, was arrested in August of 2010 on charges of
compelling prostitution involving three school-age children.
111. Newell was charged with three counts of compelling prostitution,
which is a third-degree felony. She faces up to five years in jail for each
count if convicted.
97. Craigslist Deemed Dot Liable for Prostitution Ads
a.
U.S. District Judge John Grady on Tuesday tossed out a civil complaint,
filed in March by the sheriff of Illinois' Cook County, which accused
Craigslist of being a public nuisance and of violating federal, state and
local prostitution laws. Sheriff Tom Dart even alleged in his lawsuit that
Craigslist "solicits for a prostitute...by arranging meetings of persons for
purposes of prostitution."
98. Luring Minors into Prostitution
a.
State law makes it illegal for an adult to lure a minor to become a
prostitute, but an Appeals Court panel in Massachusetts ruled that
adults may not be convicted of that crime if the minors they exploit are
already prostitutes.
99. Porn VS. Prostitution
a.
Pornography has enjoyed First Amendment protection since the 1950s.
In the early 20th century, pornography was considered obscene, yet it
was also relatively rare. It wasn't until adult movies became more
widespread that authorities paid more attention. In a 1957 Supreme
Court case, Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan not only
wrote that obscenity wasn't protected by the First Amendment, but also
narrowed the definition of obscenity, effectively legitimizing most
pornography.
100. Caminetti Vs. United States – 1917
a.
The White Slave Traffic Act of June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 825,
applies to any case in which a woman is transported in interstate
commerce for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage.
101. Advertising Brothels in Nevada
a.
A state law prohibiting the advertising of brothels in counties which have
outlawed prostitution was enacted in 1979. It was promptly challenged
on First Amendment grounds and the Nevada Supreme Court declared it
to be constitutional in 1981. In July 2007 the law was overturned by a
U.S. District judge as "overly broad" and advertising in Las Vegas started
soon after. The district judge's decision was reversed by a 3-judge panel
of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2010.
27
Appendix B
Group Rules
1. Have an Agenda for every meeting time.
2. Meet at least once a week – meet often and for short time periords.
3. Participate. There are no excuses for lack of effort or non-participation in our
group.
4. Collaborate. This is a group project, we will help each other.
5. Support risk-taking ideas.
6. Always give your group members one hour prior notice if you cannot attend a
meeting or classroom lecture.
7. If you get stuck on your part of the project, ask someone to work on it with you.
And if you are asked and have time, help.
8. Have mutual respect for one another.
a. Examples include being on time, completing work timely, being honest,
etc.
7. Bring snacks to meetings.
28
Appendix C
Group Agendas
Agenda
February 8, 2011
Topics
100 Facts
Case Info
What States should legalize – WI / NY
Brainstorming
Contacting through email / text
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
29
Agenda
February 15, 2011
Topics
100 Facts - Completed
Case Info – questions / concerns
WI / NY – Audience Analysis
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
30
Agenda
February 22, 2011
Topics
Audience Analysis
Assumptions
Case Info – Negative / Affirmative
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
31
Agenda
February 24, 2011
Topics
Case Info – Negative / Affirmative
Toulmin Models
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
32
Agenda
March 1, 2011
Topics
Continue on from last meeting:
(Case Info – Negative / Affirmative
Toulmin Models)
PowerPoint / Presentation
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
33
Agenda
March 3, 2011
Topics
PowerPoint / Presentation
Layout of Material
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
34
Agenda
March 7, 2011
Topics
PowerPoint / Presentation
Speakers
So What?
Conclusion
Next Time
Homework
Due Dates
Time Line
Next Meeting Time
35
Agenda
March 8, 2011
Topics
Presentation Day 
PowerPoint / Presentation
Speakers – Practice, Practice, Practice
Next Time
Paper
Next Meeting Time
Assign parts for paper
36
Appendix D
Audience Analysis-Wisconsin
Audience
Wisconsin
Assumptions
Conservative
Catholic
Moral
Concerns
Upholding societal
values
Religious
conservatism
Agricultural
industry
Less prevalent
prostitution (less
exposure)
37
Objectives
Keeping the status quo
Appendix E
Audience Analysis-California
Audience
California
Assumptions
Liberal
Human Rights Activists
Entertainment
Industry
Higher Levels of
Prostitution
Concerns
Regulation and
Protection (Sex
Industry)
Economic
Advantages of Sex
Industry
Basic Human Rights
for All
38
Objectives
Embrace Change
Appendix F
Toulmin Models
A Toulmin Model is a great tool that can be used to form an argument. The
model is intended to focus on the justification of an argument by using a multi-step
approach. An example of the model is as follows…
Evidence
Claim
Warrant
Rebuttal
Support
Warrant
The first step in the Toulmin Model is the creation of a Claim in which a merit
for your argument must be made. Secondly Evidence must be sited in order to appeal
to the foundation of the made Claim. In order to support the Evidence a Warrant must
be established. The Warrant is a statement that has authority to backup the Evidence.
Most Warrants should also have a Support Warrant. The Support Warrant should be
thought of as the “Because” to back up the Warrant. The last step in the Toulmin
Model is the creation of the Rebuttal. The Rebuttal is a statement that recognizes the
restrictions that might be applied to the claim.
39
In order to understand both the affirmative and negative sides of the debate our group
laid out three Toulmin Models for each side and then combined those models into a
bigger model that supported each sides overall position on the debate.
Affirmative Claims Individual Arguments
Evidence: “Sex workers
are not being saved by
being arrested. Going
through the justice
system is a traumatizing
experience.”
Claim 1: Sex
workers get
trapped in the
industry.
Warrant: Since
overburdened criminal
courts encourage sex
workers to plead guilty
without explaining the risks
of having a criminal record.
Support Warrant: Because
this brands sex workers as
“untouchables” of society
which limits these women’s
futures.
40
Evidence: Sex workers are
afraid to report crimes
against them because they
experience high levels of
police brutality.
Claim 2: Criminalizing sex
workers fails to reduce the
levels of violence.
Warrant: Since trafficked
women are arrested for
prostitution.
Evidence: Police will not
take crimes against sex
workers seriously.
Claim 3: Relaxing barriers
for sex workers can help to
lower violence.
Warrant: Since the “Green
River Killer” murdered 60
women.
Support Warrant: Because
police don’t put sex crimes
on high priority.
41
Affirmative Larger Argument
Evidence: Promote high
levels of police brutality
against sex workers and
victims of human
trafficking.
Warrant: Since “Revolving
Door…”
Evidence: Loss of protection
and other basic human
rights.
Main Claim: Prostitution
should be legalized.
Support Warrant: Because
police don’t put high
priority on crimes against
sex workers.
Warrant: Since the ‘Green
River Killer” murdered 60
women.
Evidence: Criminalizing
prostitution encourages
violence.
42
Negative Claims Individual Arguments
Evidence: Quote from a
John, “it’s like renting a
organ for ten minutes. I use
them like I would any other
amenity.”
Claim 1: Prostitution is
ethically wrong.
Warrant: Since in
prostitution men remove
women’s humanity.
Evidence: “It is internally
damaging. You become
your own mind what these
people say a do to you. You
wonder how could you let
yourself do this and why do
these people do this to
you.”
Claim 1: No amount of legal
reform will remove the
damage prostitution does.
Warrant: Since women who
have done it for sometime
feel they are something for
him to empty himself into.
Support Warrant: Because the
John’s payment does not erase
what we know about the
violence and trauma it causes.
43
Claim 3: Legislation will
surely do nothing to reduce
its violence.
Evidence: Mayor of New
Amsterdam admitted he
was wrong about
legalization.
Warrant: Since 60% of
women in a Dutch study
were physically assaulted
and 70% were physically
threatened.
Support Warrant: Because
of this New Amsterdam
brothels have up to three
panic buttons in each room.
44
Negative Larger Argument
Evidence: Prostitution is
ethically wrong.
Warrant: Since in
prostitution men remove
women’s humanity.
Claim: Prostitution should
remain illegal.
Evidence: No amount of
legal reform will remove
the damage prostitution
does.
Warrant: Since pimps and
Johns do not become nice
guys.
Evidence: Legislation will
surely do nothing to reduce
its violence.
Warrant: Since sexual
violence and physical abuse
are the norm for women in
legal prostitution.
45
Appendix G
Class Evaluations
Professional Style
The speakers spoke with credibility.
Average Rating
9.5
The presenters effectively handled the
defense of their ideas.
9.25
The presentation was well-organized.
8.75
Application of Principles
The group made effective use of class
principles, models, and theories.
The group offered proof to back up their
arguments.
Average Rating
9.5
9.08
The group properly researched the topic.
9.08
Analytical Soundness
The group properly analyzed the
problem and defined the actual problem.
The group articulated a well-developed
strategy with appropriate tactics and
clearly linked the problem analysis,
strategy and tactics.
The group clearly examined the
implications of their analysis and ideas.
Average Rating
Overall
Overall Score
Final Score
Average Rating
9.21
91.92
46
8.92
8.92
9.17