Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

When Is A Sex Worker A Victim?

posted by Dan Filler

In a recent story out of Richmond, a woman – Barbara Tanner, a 52 year old – who operated an escort service was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison. The interesting hook, noted by Doug Berman, is that the court treated each of the women who worked for her as a “victim” for sentencing purposes. This hoisted her sentencing guideline range from 24-30 months to 41-51 months. As a matter of guideline interpretation, perhaps this makes sense. Section 2G1.1 defines a victim as:

a person transported, persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in, or travel for the purpose of engaging in, a commercial sex act or prohibited sexual conduct, whether or not the person consented to the commercial sex act or prohibited sexual conduct. Accordingly, “victim” may include an undercover law enforcement officer.

Perhaps this is just a matter of nomenclature, but is this a fair definition of “victim”? While some sex workers are surely victims, others have chosen this work – admittedly under many of the stresses that propel other individuals towards sub-optimal life choices. Is a sex worker necessarily any greater victim than a coal miner or a worker in a meat processing plant? Would a sex worker who was working on her own, rather than for a madame, be able to claim victimhood as well? If not, why is he or she converted to victim status upon taking a position with Ms. Tanner’s agency? (And what would the IUSW – International Union of Sex Workers – say about this?)

The guidelines commission is within bounds when it makes Ms. Tanner’s sentence depend on the size of her operation. But does it make sense to frame the sentence on the number of people “victimized”? To the degree that those who promote commercial prostitution create unwilling sex workers, they are doing serious harm. And maybe we consider larger prostitution schemes more dangerous because they have the potential to increase coerced prostitution. But my sense is that, with such a broad definition of “victim”, the sentencing commission is mostly dressing up morality legislation in public safety clothing.

If you want to send Ms. Tanner to the pokey for sin, go for it, but don’t assume that all of her employees were necessarily victims. Maybe they were just sinners as well.


 May 1, 2006 at 11:24 am   Posted in: Criminal Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. 3L - May 1, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Do you consider someone working for less than minimum wage a victim?

    I don’t disagree with your analysis, but I’m surprised to see it here rather than at Volokh or another libertarian blog ;)

  2. Wendy - July 2, 2006 at 10:24 am

    I don’t think we’re victims of sex work, unless we we’re phyiscally, held against our will forced to do, but most of us CHOSE to do sex work. Whatever the reason might be (poverty, to support a drug habit, lack of education, desire to have a higher paying job, whatever), we chose it. I’m not ashamed of being a sex worker, what I’m ashamed for are the people that assume I’m too stupid to make a choice and am therefore a victim.

  3. JAY BILLS - August 21, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    LOOK, I AM GOING TO EXPLAIN THE REAL PROBLEM. IF THEY WOULD JUST TOTALLY LEGALIZE AND ORGANIZE SEX WORK THERE WOULD BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING LIKE THIS ONE. NO ONE WOULD BE VICTIMIZED BECAUSE THE SEX WORKERS WOULD HAVE A UNION AND BENEFITS. WHEN IS OUR LAW MAKERS GOING TO WAKE UP AND GIVE THE WORLD’S OLDEST PROFESSION ORGANIZATION AND PROTECTION. SEX WORK IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE LEGALIZE IT ALREADY! STOP STEROTYPING A SEX WORKER AND JUST TREAT THEM AS ANOTHER WORKER. YOU MAY OR MAY AGREE WITH THEIR TYPE OF WORK BUT LET THEM CHOOSE THEIR OWN LINE OF WORK. LET THEM HAVE THE RIGHTS TO TELL MEN TO WEAR A CONDOM EVERY TIME. GIVE THEM GUARANTEED PAYMENT. KEEP THEM FROM GETTING RAPED AND BEATEN BY GIVING SEX WORKERS A ESTABLISHED SAFE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT TO WORK IN. IT IS DONE FOR CIGARETTE AND LIQUOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT SO CALLED MORALLY CORRECT EITHER. THINK ABOUT. NO REALLY REALLY THINK ABOUT. I REALLY CAN’T BELIEVE THERE IS SO MUCH FUSS AND CRIMINALIZATION IN THIS WORLD OVER SEX WORK IT JUST DOESN’T MAKE SENSE LIKE THE WAY SOME PEOPLE ALWAYS WANT TO KNOW IF SOMEONE ELSE IS MASTARBATING. WHY WOULD THEY EVEN WANT TO KNOW THAT, IT ISN’T THEIR BODY BEING PLAYED WITH!

  4. beki - August 23, 2006 at 2:17 am

    Its really reassuring that there are people out there who acknowledge and support sex workers. The governemnt doesn’t want to support sex work and their agenda is inconsequential. The real problem is society’s view and attitudes on sex work. It as a whole doesn’t look too healthy. Ask an average American what they feel about it? There are people in America who think there is nothing wrong with it but they aren’t the ones raping women or supporting the war in Iraq. If children are raised seeing people being abused, killed and other types of violence that will impact his or her view of sexuality and therefore on sex work. If we examine this culture we see that sex is censored wheras violence is not. That plays a major role in sexuality. People that see sex work as criminal don’t understand that their views are scewed. People don’t acknowledge sex as a therapeutical activity and as an extension of humanity and expression. A sex worker may be a sex therapist rather than a “prostitute”. Rape is not sex. Beating someone isn’t sex. Gang raping someone isn’t sex. Sex work is about giving a therapeutic service in exchange for money. But men and women who give these services do it for different reasons. Sex work is ligitamate. What is illigitimate is coersion, a lack of desire for the proffession, abuse, lack of knowledge and an unappreciation for sexuality. We are being bombared with stigmas attached to sexuality so it does hold true to the sex trade.

  5. Joe S - January 16, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    haha. thats my aunt

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress