Group Members:

Jacqueline Burroughs

Carlyn Head

Sarah Gorman

Jordan Bridger

Proposed Topic: The Dangers of Criminalizing or Regulating Sex Work and a Closer

Look at New Zealand’s Sex Work Approach

The very first thing I learned from my research was the difference between

legalization and decriminalization. I also looked up the many different approaches

different countries have tried to regulate sex work. The first approach is full

criminalization which includes countries such as Russia, South Africa, and most of the

United States. The idea that full criminalization will work stems from notion that sex

workers will fear getting arrested and therefore the amount of sex workers will

decrease. This is not the case. Criminalization creates a trap and can lead to police and

prison brutality due to sex workers selling in isolated locations which makes them

susceptible to abuse. Something I read that struck me was that police can arrest

someone suspected of sex work if they are carrying condoms on them. This adds

another problem leaving sex workers with the options of either unprotected sex or the

chance of being arrested. Criminalizing sex work allows for the viscous cycle to

continue. Fines and criminal records force sex workers to continue through the viscous

cycle of sex work rather than helping them get out.

 The second approach to regulating sex work is partial criminalization which

include countries such as the UK or France. Partial criminalization means the buying

and selling of sex are legal, but brothel-keeping or soliciting on the street are illegal. A

brothel is when two or more sex workers are working together. This approach fully

isolates the sex worker into working alone which can make them more vulnerable to

violence. If you are caught selling outside, you must pay a fine so many workers work

in dangerous areas out of the public’s eye.

The third approach is the Swedish or Nordic model. This model criminalizes the

people who buy the sex. There is actually no proof that it is working because there are

still the same amounts of sex workers. People who sell sex often do not have other

options for income. Since this law seeks to reduce the amount of sex work clients by

criminalizing them, the sex workers then have to drop prices or offer more sexual

services. This in return forces sex workers to find more clients and even seek a

manager also known as a pimp. The Swedish or Nordic model can make clients too

scared to give information about themselves, and therefore can put the sex worker in a

very dangerous place by not knowing who the buyer is.

The fourth approach is legal and regulated prostitution. This approach is used by

the Netherlands, Germany, and Nevada in the United States. Commercial sex is only

allowed in legally designated areas, and sex workers must comply to certain

restrictions such as health checks and registration. This system created two types of

work, legal and illegal. This in turn makes the most vulnerable people work illegally,

exposing them to the dangers of criminalization. People with wealth can easily comply
with the brothel regulations and receive the proper license and venue. Someone who

does not have these types of resources are not able to work legally.

In conclusion, criminalization and regulation reinforce stigma and hatred against

sex workers.

New Zealand decriminalized sex work in 2003. Decriminalization is removing

laws that directly target the sex industry, and instead treat sex work like any other kind

of job. People in New Zealand have the ability to work together in safety and are

accountable to the state. Ninety-six percent of street workers feel the laws protect their

rights. The particular New Zealand legislation was written in collaboration with sex

workers. New Zealand has not seen an increase in the amount of sex work, but

decriminalizing sex work has made working significantly safer.