Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Study: Decriminalized Prostitution Lead to Reduced Rape and Venereal Diseases

The Wall Street Real Times Economic blog refers to a study which sees substantial social benefits from decriminalized prostitution (italics mine)
A loophole in Rhode Island law that effectively decriminalized indoor prostitution in 2003 also led to significant decreases in rape and gonorrhea in the state, according to a new analysis published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“The results suggest that decriminalization could have potentially large social benefits for the population at large – not just sex market participants,” wrote economists Scott Cunningham of Baylor University and Manisha Shah of the University of California, Los Angeles, in a working paper issued this month.

Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Shah got an opportunity to study the effects of decriminalized prostitution on crime and public health because Rhode Island lawmakers made a mistake. A 1980 change to state law dealing with street solicitation also deleted the ban on prostitution itself, in effect making the act legal if it took place indoors. The loophole apparently went unnoticed until a 2003 court decision, and remained open until indoor prostitution was banned again in 2009.
The effects:
As you might expect, the economists found that decriminalizing indoor prostitution was a boon to the sex business. “Decriminalization decreased prostitute arrests, increased indoor prostitution advertising and expanded the size of the indoor prostitution market itself,” they wrote.

Rhode Island also saw “a large decrease in rapes” after 2003, while other crimes saw no such trend in the state, they wrote. There also was “a large reduction in gonorrhea incidence post-2003 for women and men,” they wrote.

The economists then used several economic models to track the decriminalization’s effects versus other possible causes. They found “robust evidence across all models that decriminalization caused rape offenses and gonorrhea incidence to decrease.” One model estimated a 31% decrease in per-capita rape offenses and a 39% decrease in per-capita female gonorrhea cases due to the decriminalization of indoor prostitution.
Cited reasons
In the paper, they speculated about several possible reasons for the declines. For instance, they wrote that it’s likely at least some of the decrease in rapes was “due to men substituting away from rape toward prostitution.” And the decrease in gonorrhea jibes with “other empirical evidence showing that prostitutes who work indoors practice safer sex and are less likely to contract and transmit STIs,” they wrote.
The cited reasons are unsatisfactory. Nonetheless all prohibition statutes revolve around people's incentives.

Transactions conducted illegally will not only mean exchange in services but importantly conducting exchange while avoiding detection from authorities. This implies the following:

First, the illegitimacy of such transactions engender an in imbalance in the relationship between prostitutes and their respective clients. Such imbalance has the potential to motivate some clients to abuse prostitutes. For instance, a client, for one reason or another, may threaten to snitch on the prostitute to the authorities, so the client's unilateral power over the politically repressed prostitute may serve as a trigger for rape and violence.

Thus, decriminalizing prostitution which implies the leveling of legal position between prostitutes and their clients, extrapolates to the balancing of the trade equation for both parties and so the reduced rape and violence.

Of course it is possible too for the substitution effect as cited above where prostitutes serve as an outlet to some client's sexual urges. But I think of this as a lesser or secondary factor.

Second, because of the illegitimacy of transaction which will likely be conducted in haste, there will be little concerns over repeat business or the quality of service. This entails lesser incentive by prostitutes to have regular checkups. Thus prohibitions against prostitution leads to higher rates of sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Besides, having to go medical specialists for routine monitoring may risks the latter to become informants for the authorities.

Alternatively, decriminalization of prostitution will do away with the political aspects. Prostitutes will most likely focus on repeat business by keeping themselves and their customers satisfied. Thus reduced incidences of STDs.

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi John

    Thanks for your comments and for the link,

    Having communicated with one of the authors, the feedback is that the technical numbers used in the study emanates from the “uniform crime reports” inclusive of the site you submitted together with FBI data “prior to reporting it in publications”

    The author noted that technical data sources has been indicated in their study (p 25-26) which is transparent

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w20281.pdf

    start quote

    We also check police employment data in general to test whether there are any changes in overall employment post–decriminalization. Our data comes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted (LEOKA) dataset. We create a balanced panel of jurisdictions (ORIs) which report police records and associated ORI population annually from 1962 to 2005. Figure 11 plots this data for Rhode Island and the rest of the US, and we do not find any changes in police employment post–2003.

    We also check police employment data in general to test whether there are any changes in overall employment post–decriminalization. Our data comes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted (LEOKA) dataset. We create a balanced panel of jurisdictions (ORIs) which report police records and associated ORI population annually from 1962 to 2005. Figure 11 plots this data for Rhode Island and the rest of the US, and we do not find any changes in police employment post–2003.13 in Rhode Island following decriminalization in 2003 (results available upon request). We also spoke directly with the Providence police to understand whether any personnel or definitional changes were made that could explain the drop in rapes. We were assured by the Providence Police Department, the Rhode Island State Police and the FBI that the Uniform Crime Reports counts are accurate and definitions did not change during our study period. We also inquired about personnel changes around this time that would have been relevant for the collection and distribution of the UCR records, but no such personnel changes were reported to have taken place.

    Another possible “definition” related explanation for the decline in reported rapes in the UCR data concerns the introduction of the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in 2004 since numerous Rhode Island jurisdictions adopted NIBRS. As NIBRS defines rapes more broadly than UCR Summary definitions, the introduction of a second crime data collection program may have impacted the reporting of UCR Summary data. However, examination of ORI-level rape levels in the UCR Summary files show that Providence experienced the largest reduction of any ORI from 2003 to 2004, and since Providence did not adopt NIBRS until 2007, the NIBRS theory cannot explain the decline that occurred in Providence.

    End quote

    Hope this helps,

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’d like to add more to my earlier comment.

    First, the above cited study is subject to a peer review process. For career academicians, peer reviews are instrumental to career advancements.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Professional_peer_review

    So to make an elementary mistake based on dubious statistical data quality will extrapolate to a substantial career setback.

    While this is not to defend the authors (who can defend on themselves, besides I don't know them), the motivational aspect implies that academic papers are most likely to deal comprehensively with data quality. If they are to err it will be in the methodology rather than the data.

    But again I am not in authority to decide.

    It’s a different matter when one convolute statistics in order to sell books to cater to an ideology such as Picketty

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579557664176917086

    Of course, there is such a thing as peer review scam.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/07/academic-fraud-and-the-peer-review-process/

    Second, I don’t think the authors intended in their empirical study to raise an ideological perspective.

    Such would make them vulnerable to biases from peer reviewers. My impression is that their conclusion has been arrived from the methodology.

    Third, statistical hand waving does not prove or disprove anything.

    Will statistics explain why prostitution continues to exist despite the varieties of prohibitions imposed to be labeled as the “world’s oldest profession”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law
    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/History-of-Prostitution.htm

    The hardest part is to isolate criminal activities based on legalization of a prohibited activity and when they are illegal.

    Decriminalization of prostitution do not suggest utopia or the eradication of criminal activities, it suggest temperance.

    The social policy considerations have to center on which seems more socially efficient, prohibition which results to black market activities or legitimization?

    The problem with looking at prostitution is of the stereotyped view that women are forced either by gangs or by income status.

    As this article from Business insider shows some women work in brothels because it is a “turn on” (fetish) or even as a livelihood (even has husband).

    http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-mcandrews-photos-of-nevadas-legal-brothels-2014-2?op=1

    Yet prohibitions laws repress on the individuals as Bob Murphy’s account of a former call girl

    http://www.libertychat.com/2014/07/real-war-women/

    Imagine you are a prostitute who is arrested by police. You know that if you tell them, “I entered this trade voluntarily, because even though it’s seedy, it seemed the best option at the time,” then you are going to prison where you might actually be raped and otherwise abused.

    In contrast, if you tell the police that you were abducted against your will and forced to sell your body by a trafficker, then you will not be punished and in fact may be entitled to various government benefits. McNeill assured us that if those are the two options an arrested woman faces, we shouldn’t be surprised when she reports that she was operating under the control of an abusive pimp.

    Finally what of government who promotes prostitution by the rampant debasement of currencies?

    Such as Venezuela’s hyperinflation where prostitution is legal

    http://prudentinvestornewsletters.blogspot.com/2014/06/venezuelan-hyperinflation-prostitutes.html

    or in the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany
    http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3563.html

    Prostitution is a complex societal issue that hardly captured by mere statistical analysis.

    ReplyDelete