police chief wants DNA database of men who use prostitutes

[ISNT]

Great idea [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-12201907 here]

In theory this seems like a good idea, I'm not sure how it would work in practice though. Prostitutes are at huge risk of all sorts of violent assault and murder, and I'll bet that the men who abuse prostitutes abuse other people in their lives too. This would make finding them and linking cases a lot quicker.

why didn't my link work

here

Your link is not working

nvm it is now

Waiting for lots of people to say it's an infringement of civil liberties

Very interested to hear what others think.

Are there any stats about whether men who commit awful crimes (rape, murder etc) use prostitutes? If it is a strong correlation, then there is a case for this, surely.

I wonder how it would be implemented. Men who commit kerb crawling offences will have DNA taken anyway.

I am not comfortable with the idea of this. Can someone explain why it would be a good idea?

Ok I am not sure how they would get the DNA? will a prostitute go to the police saying a punters name? I don't see many doing this. Also won't the police have to inform the people involved that they have their DNA as they are not actually doing something illegal?

I am not sure how it would work

Agreed that in theory it's a good idea. Not sure how it would work out in practice though...

Well the big question is how, I don't see how this could possibly work in practice.

But as an idea, I think it has merit.

Gross violation of civil liberties

But it is. And could lead to false convictions.

And I struggle to imagine how it would work - unless prostitution were legal, prostitutes and punters had to be registered, and punters had to be signed in and out of monitored sessions like some Ofsted requirement.

So I say, nay.

LRD I guess that the policeman is coming at it from the angle that women working as prostitutes are at much higher risk of various types of violence than other women, and that risk comes from their clients.

I think his point is that if men who used prostitutes knew that the DNA was on file, then those who were minded to attack them might think twice. I think his idea is unworkable in practice and presume he has suggested it to raise awareness.

At the moment some areas have books where women can write names/descriptions of men they have had bad experiences with, to warn other women who are working in the area.

ISNT,

If you are talking about Chief Supt. Rose, then I am pretty sure he is a she .

whoops

Police have been pushing for a d/base of everyone's dna for years - as soon as the techy stuff was available. Usual fascist's response. No thanks.

ISNT, I understand that - but I thought it was considered wrong to act on suspicion before a crime was committed? I know that sounds very naive! But isn't this parallel (though different) to the debates some employers have about not wanting to employ women of childbearing age in case they go off on maternity leave?

Or am I being dim?

I suppose it depends on the stats (which I don't have!).

Sometimes when crimes are committed they get the DNA of all people in the area who fit the profile in order to rule them out. I suppose the theory is the same but it's a pre-emptive strike. If it is the case that there is a high correlation between men who commit crimes against women and using the services of prostitutes then it would be valuable surely. Not least for the women working as prostitutes who are at high risk.

I don't think you can compare getting pregnant to rape and murder! It is definitely legal to get pregnant

Is it illegal to visit prostitutes?

I know the comparison I made was a bad one (!), but I feel uncomfortable with the idea of making men who visit prostitutes feel like potential rapists. I mean, either we should make them feel like actual rapists (on the grounds that few prostitutes are entirely voluntary), or we should differentiate sharply between people who visit prostitutes, and rapists. What is surely not a good idea, is to allow the line to be blurred.

If people who visit prostitutes are treated with quasi-criminal suspicion, while the act of visiting prostitutes is not in itself criminalized to the same degree, then the people in question will start defining themselves according to that quasi-criminal treatment. And one of the reasons we criminalize things is (as I understand it), because the stigma dissuades people and makes them face up to the taboo on what they would do.

If we already treat non-criminals as criminals, I think would blur the distinction.

I may be very wrong about this though!

No it's illegal to murder and rape.

So the analogy

Most women go to get a job without intending to screw the company by getting pg immediately
Some women do

Most men who visit prostitutes aren't rapists/murderers (no stats there I have no idea TBH)
Some of them are

So your analogy compared the women who get pregnant to the men who attack women

So I don't think it quite works!

About this specific idea, I don't see how it could work in practice. I think your arguments are good - I think I think this is a good idea but it's not something I've ever thought about before!

I think it all depends on the stats doesn;t it? How much crime against women is actually being comitted by this group. If it is the case that visiting prostitutes means there is a 90% chance that you are a criminally nasty bastard, then there's a good argument. If it's only 5%, then not. IYSWIM.

In the cases where they take DNA to rule people out there are not usually objections, I see this in the same light. I think.

Dunno

Certainly criminalising many things doesn't stop people doing them, but drives them underground, which would be the result of this if they tried to actually do it. Your comments remind me of the "soft" drugs debate - that loads of perfectly decent people are criminalised for doing something which (in their opinion) is pretty harmless. That is a good parallel maybe.

In practice it's an impossible Idea I think.

It would be interesting to find out some stats on all this but I guess that's pretty impossible.

I have to agree I feel uncomfortable with this. It feels too much like the idea that all home educators get regularly checked up on just in case 0.001% of them might be using it to hide child abuse. It's just not the right way to stop men raping women and would harm the (ha!) innocent ones more than it would stop the real nasty piece of work.

And yes, yes, I'm aware that men who use prostitutes probably deserve such treatment but, as it's not illegal to visit a prostitute, the idea of bringing in a system like this just doesn't sit easily with me.

And it wouldn't stop rape...they'd just get more crafty. That's the thing with rules. You bring in a rule, and the bastards just work out a way around it, and you have to bring in a new rule until they work out how to get round that one.

x-post.

I know I'm not exactly sure about this. And it's all academic as I really don't think it would be practical and would have undesirable side effects.

I thought it would be interesting to discuss though

Sorry, ISNT, I did say it was a bad analogy!

What I'm worried about is that people would assume they were guilty before proven innocent, and this would create a society in which there was almost an encouragement to rape, as there'd be little or no additional punishment or taboo, once you paid for sex.

However, as you say it is all theoretical, so perhaps I should save my not-very-formed thoughts for later!

ISNT - quite