How can they say you were doing something they never witnessed?

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    6 days ago

    [off topic]

    Back during the 1976 Democratic Convention at Madison Square Garde, the NYPD said it would arrest any unescorted woman near the place. Feminists like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan organized middle class white ladies to show up and demand they be arrested for being ‘unescorted.’

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    You assume cops need evidence lol.

    Jokes aside, stings are the most common way it happens.

    However, when it isn’t something like that, it tends to fall into two groupings based on my limited area of awareness. Not a cop, not a lawyer, or anything related, and I can only guarantee this as factual in the areas I’ve lived.

    The next biggest chunk of arrests after stings is warrants for places of business. Massage parlors, more blatant brothels. Once there’s suspicion of illegal activity, they get a warrant an d raid the place. Catch them in the act, and then manipulate the people they take in into confessing.

    After that, it’s plain sight and/or hearing. While most of the street corner type of thing is gone in a lot of places, it isn’t totally gone. All it takes is the discussion over prices and seeing the exchange to make an arrest.

    Plus, some places will post up with listening gear or cameras in hot spots and capture evidence that way.

    The kind of services that are less open get less raids. An escort service is usually harder to nail down than a massage parlor, which is harder than an outright brothel, which is harder than someone working out of a hotel or home. The really hard to catch prostitution is outcalls and incalls with independent sex workers.

    Escorts don’t do any transactions in the open, so you have to send in an undercover cop to fake being a john for individuals, or get enough probable cause to get a warrant for phone or other invasive surveillance when there’s an office.

    Massage parlors have that veneer of a massage business, and if they aren’t doing it dumb, they can last years before police even know they exist in a big enough city.

    Brothels, afaik, are pretty rare now because they’re easier to target. Since they’re really only serving sex, it’s more obvious.

    Solo workers tend to have to go out to find clientele, which is obvious enough to get attention. Kinda hard to advertise yourself enough to get clients without cops being able to tell, and then hassle the worker. If they’re working out of a bar, it’s a little easier to hide their intent, as long as the bar is okay with it. Some places take a cut to ignore it. One of the few regular bars I worked at had a couple of ladies that had made arrangements like that with the owner. Iirc, they were handing over ten percent and getting the benefit of being inside and not hassled as long as they didn’t cause trouble.

    At the titty bars I worked, some of the ladies would turn tricks with patrons. They only did it after their shift because the owner was not willing to fuck around and lose his licences over it. They’d get fired in a hot second if they did anything other than say they’d talk to the customer after their shift. None of them ever got caught. Hell, one of them turned tricks with a cop or two, which helped in that regard.

    But, yah, the vast, vast majority of arrests are stings. It’s low hanging fruit tbh. Why spend resources trying to get evidence other ways, when it works and keeps the segment of sex workers most likely to cause disturbances more limited? Escorts don’t cause trouble usually. Massage parlors don’t until they get too big and busy. They want the obvious hookers and blatant shops out of commission. If it isn’t visible, it’s lower priority.

    Now, the sheriff of our county handles it very lightly. Pretty much all sex work out here in the boonies is drug related to begin with, so that’s the key to keeping things controlled. Much, much easier to bust a prostitute for meth than for prostitution. So he’s got an unofficial policy against targeting prostitution as its own thing. Which, that’s its own problem, but he’s kinda stubborn about drug policy other than weed.

    There was a place that got busted in town a few years ago though. It was a ratty little place that was billed as a massage parlor. But all of the workers were addicts, so they were sloppy as hell. The lady on the phones was even stupid enough to discuss pricing for sex acts on the phone.

  • adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 days ago

    Often countries have laws that make the solicitation the illegal act for that exact reason.

    Or the arrest folk for conducting their business in public… So lewd behaviour.

      • adam_y@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You misunderstand. Soliciting merely means the act of trying to procure sex for money.

        They don’t need a sting for that. They just sit someone near a red light district and roll every car that pulls up and let’s known sex workers get in their car.

        Edit: not saying any of that is right though. It certainly feels like punching down… And if anything, it encourages some far more dangerous practices, particularly for sex workers.

  • akwd169@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 days ago

    My first thought is the cops can say to the prostitute (who wants to get back out to work ASAP) we will drop the charges and release you right now if you go on record/confess that you were engaged in prostitution with the John

    Customer gets ratted out, cops having evidence against him in the form of the confession from the sex worker, and prostitute sent on her way…

    Works the other way around too, cops tell the John (who doesn’t want his family or his workplace to find out he’s been arrested for soliciting a prostitute) we will let you go and drop charges if you go on record against the prostitute

    Wlsex worker gets charged with the John as the prosecutor’s evidence/witness and the John gets to go back to his life…

      • deadcatbounce@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        They’re no longer John’s, they’re porn stars. No shame necessary in this century, where OF exhibits consider themselves entrepreneurs.

        This century is a fail if that’s really all we’ve collectively created: a machine to destroy young people; a place to watch the light in their eyes fade.

      • thebartermyth [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        They would produce evidence subject to discovery and the court would either convict or acquit you. Depending on the situation there would be other charges, and maybe you confess for some reduction in sentencing, etc.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    You mean like text messages? If you have texts and then video cameras of two people going into a hotel room, that’s mighty fine evidence. What the hell else were they gonna do? Yoga?

    You don’t need eyewitnesses to get convictions. That is not the legal standard.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        The jury decides what has been proven, not you. It really is that simple. People get convicted all the time of crimes where nobody saw them do it. Because of other evidence and common sense.

        And look, think about the standard that you’re trying to push. If we have text messages before and after, plus video of them going in and coming out of the hotel room. Is that good enough for you? They could always say that they thought about sex but settled for monopoly and were only joking around later… Maybe you would believe that story, but maybe the average juror would laugh.

        • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          The prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, leaving no doubt in their minds about the defendant’s guilt.

          • orcrist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 days ago

            No. The expression you looking for is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. What you wrote is proof beyond any doubt, which is not the legal standard.

            Also, please take a look at Florida Chapter 796, or if you were concerned about another location, look at the state or local laws for that location. You will probably see that actually engaging in the act of sex is one of several ways that you could violate prostitution laws.

      • thebartermyth [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s easier to understand the process under the assumption that the person is innocent.

        If someone is arrested for prostitution, they would be fingerprinted, etc (processed), then within 24-48 hours will have an arraignment hearing. At the arraignment, a judge will present charges and the defendant will plea innocent or guilty. The judge will then set bail. The bail amount will be higher than the defendant can pay in the majority of cases (avg $10,000). The defendant will either buy bail bonds or have family help pay.

        If not, which is very very likely, the defendant will be held in pre-trial detention, aka Jail. Half a million people are incarcerated because they are unable to pay their bail. This makes up 2/3rds of the prison population. These people are incarcerated because they are poor. Again, they have not been convicted of anything. During this time, it is very likely that the defendant will lose their job and housing.

        After pre-trail detention, the defendant will go to trial. Here the police will produce whatever evidence they have in this hypothetical. For the sake of this hypothetical, the police do not fabricate evidence and instead rely on circumstantial evidence and random testimony from people who hate the defendant. This will be presented to the judge, having already been agreed on by the lawyers for the prosecution, state of xyz, and the defendant, public defender (or maybe private attorney). The judge, acting in capacity of the court, (possibly a jury, but more often a judge) will then either convict or acquit and lay out sentencing if applicable.