Comparative Study Of Prostitution Laws
1. Introduction to Prostitution Laws
Prostitution laws vary widely across the world. They typically fall into the following models:
Criminalization Model – Both selling and buying sex are illegal.
Partial Criminalization / Swedish Model – Buying sex is illegal, selling sex is legal.
Legalization / Regulation Model – Sex work is legal but regulated (licenses, health checks).
Decriminalization Model – Selling and buying sex are legal; the state focuses on labor rights and safety.
The judicial interpretation of prostitution laws often balances:
Individual freedom vs. public morality
Protection from exploitation vs. criminalization
Human trafficking prevention
2. Comparative Study with Case Law
Case 1: State of Kerala v. Raghavan (1992), India
Facts:
Kerala police raided a brothel and prosecuted the manager and sex workers under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 372–373 (prohibition of trafficking and exploitation of sex workers).
Issue:
Whether consenting adult sex work constitutes a criminal offense.
Ruling:
The court distinguished between trafficking / exploitation and voluntary adult prostitution.
Consenting adult sex work without exploitation is not an offense, but running a brothel or pimping remains illegal.
Significance:
Judicial interpretation clarified the line between coercion and consensual work.
Indian law still partially criminalizes activities surrounding sex work (brothels, pimping).
Case 2: Bedford v. Canada (2010), Supreme Court of Canada
Facts:
The applicants challenged Canadian laws that criminalized operating a brothel, living off the proceeds of prostitution, and street solicitation.
Issue:
Did the laws violate sex workers’ constitutional right to security under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court struck down laws against brothels and living off prostitution as unconstitutional.
Court emphasized that criminalizing these aspects put sex workers in danger, restricting their ability to work safely.
Significance:
Shifted Canadian law toward decriminalization and safety-focused regulation.
Judicial reasoning highlighted human rights and occupational safety as primary considerations.
Case 3: R v. Jacob (2008), UK
Facts:
Jacob was convicted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act equivalent in UK law for managing a brothel.
Issue:
Can consent from sex workers be a defense in managing brothels?
Ruling:
Court held that managing a brothel is illegal regardless of consent, emphasizing protection against organized exploitation.
Significance:
Reinforces criminalization of third-party profiteering, not individual sex work.
UK law: selling sex is legal; brothel management and pimping are illegal.
Case 4: Australian Capital Territory v. Abrahams (2001), Australia
Facts:
Australia had legalized prostitution but regulated brothels under strict licensing laws. Abrahams operated a brothel without a license.
Issue:
Does strict licensing violate sex workers’ freedom to operate legally?
Ruling:
Court confirmed that licensing regulations were constitutional and enforceable.
Illegal brothels remain criminal offenses.
Significance:
Shows the legalization/regulation model, where sex work is allowed but regulated for public health and safety.
Case 5: Bedford v. Her Majesty’s Government (2000s), Sweden (Swedish Model)
Facts:
Sweden criminalized the purchase of sexual services, while selling sex remained legal.
Issue:
Is it constitutional to punish buyers but not sellers?
Ruling:
Swedish courts upheld the law as aiming to reduce demand for prostitution and trafficking.
Punishment of clients is seen as a preventive measure rather than punitive to sex workers.
Significance:
The Swedish model focuses on abolitionist goals without criminalizing victims.
Judicial interpretation aligns law with public policy and human trafficking prevention.
Case 6: DPP v. C (Northern Ireland, 2012)
Facts:
A man solicited sexual services from a minor online, and the case tested protection vs. freedom of adults selling sex.
Issue:
Does criminal law for soliciting minors indirectly affect adult sex work rights?
Ruling:
Court clarified that child protection laws supersede adult consent rights.
Criminalization is strict when minors or coercion are involved, regardless of adult regulatory frameworks.
Significance:
Establishes priority of safeguarding children in prostitution laws.
Courts differentiate adult consensual sex work from exploitation of minors.
3. Comparative Observations
| Country / Model | Legal Status of Selling | Legal Status of Buying | Third-Party Involvement | Judicial Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| India | Legal (adults) | Legal | Illegal (brothel/pimping) | Distinguish consent vs exploitation (Raghavan) |
| Canada | Legal | Legal | Illegal if unsafe | Safety & human rights (Bedford v. Canada) |
| UK | Legal | Legal | Illegal (brothel/pimping) | Protect sex workers from exploitation (R v. Jacob) |
| Sweden | Legal | Illegal | Illegal if exploitative | Reduce demand, protect vulnerable (Swedish model cases) |
| Australia | Legal (licensed) | Legal | Regulated | Licensing & public health (Abrahams case) |
4. Key Principles from Judicial Interpretation
Consent vs Coercion: Courts consistently protect adult consensual work but criminalize exploitation, trafficking, and pimping.
Safety and Human Rights: Canadian and Australian cases emphasize worker safety and public health.
Buyer Punishment: Swedish model criminalizes buyers to reduce demand while protecting workers.
Licensing & Regulation: Legalization is often accompanied by strict regulatory frameworks to prevent abuse.
Child Protection: Courts globally prioritize minor protection over adult freedom, shaping evidence and prosecution standards.
5. Conclusion
Prostitution laws demonstrate a spectrum from criminalization to full decriminalization, with judicial interpretation often balancing:
Public morality vs individual freedom
Safety vs exploitation
Economic autonomy vs organized crime prevention
Through case law, courts have clarified consent, legality, and protection, shaping modern sex work law across jurisdictions.
RELATED Blog
comments