New (and kinda weird) prostitution law in Norway

[Weird Harold]

Kind of what I thought. So, since part of the what-would-be-a-crime-at-home was in fact committed at home - the soliciting for underaged company - that part is criminal if it turns out that it was in fact soliciting for underaged sex. ... or something like that, I suppose. But the actual jurisdiction of United States law still ends at the border. At least in this case.

No, the US law bans travel for the purpose of sex that is illegal in the US -- the reservations in my example are just the evidence that the travel was for the purpose of engaging in illegal sex. It isn't the ilicit sex that is outlawed, it is the traveling to engage in illicit sex that is the crime.

It is essentially violating the terms and conditions agreement for using a US passport that is the crime -- making a side-trip for the express purpose of having sex that is banned in the US ( almost exclusively considered to be underage sex for the purposes of sex tourism) is still illegal as long as you are traveling on a US passport.

I imagine if you dig into Norway's wording, the extra-territorial clause is also tied to use of a Norwegian passport as the enabling factor of Norwegian jurisdiction.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

What do you think would happen if you had a man who traveled to Bangkok on business and concluded the business and had some time available. If he consorted with a 20 year old prosttute, would he be subject to prosecution? What if he was from a county in Nevada where prostitution was legal? What if the prostitute was very young? As long as sex was not his reason for traveling, could he be prosecuted for any of these things?

 

[Weird Harold]

What do you think would happen if you had a man who traveled to Bangkok on business and concluded the business and had some time available. If he consorted with a 20 year old prosttute, would he be subject to prosecution?

No. Not unless he made a distinct side trip for the purpose of having sex prohibited in the US under federal law. Prostitution is NOT a federal crime in the US. A 20 yo prostitute would be legal as far as US federal law is concerned -- unless it's been changed recently, the federal age of consent is 16.

What if he was from a county in Nevada where prostitution was legal? What if the prostitute was very young? As long as sex was not his reason for traveling, could he be prosecuted for any of these things?

Being from Nevada has no bearing on the sex-tourism law, it only applies to travel for the purpose of avoiding restrictions in federal law. If the prostitute was very young, he'd probably be subject to local laws, but as long as sex wasn't the purpose of the trip, he'd be OK. A businessman who habitually engaged the services of child-prostitutes whenever he was out of the country could probably expect the business justification for his travel to be closely examined, but incidental sex isn't the target of the law

It would take some suspicion of other misbehavior for a person with legitimate business abroad to be prosecuted under the sex-toruism law. A tourist is far more likely to be tagged as a sex-tourist if they patronize a prostitute if she happens to be under 16, but there would have to be some suspicion of premeditation for it to fall under the law -- such as patronizing a company suspected of arranging "sex tours."

As far as I can tell, the US sex-tourism law is one of those "if we can't get them on something else" kind of laws that is seldom the primary motive for prosecution.

 

[ishtat]

There is nothing to prevent any sovereign state in the absence of relevant treaties or agreements from prosecuting any person within their power. The limitations are usually diplomatic rather than legal. The most famous case is Eichmann . His crimes predated the existence of the state of Israel but that state was the "heir" at law to the British mandate and therefore the Israelis had a sound right to prosecute because Eichmann was clearly within their power .The location of the crime is of no relevance to the law.

Examples of where diplomacy intervened include the fact that when US servicemen were charged with serious crimes in the UK during WWII they were repatriated to the USA - if they were white. The UK civil authorities were allowed to try non white Americans and in fact executed a number of black servicemen and in one notorious case a Native American (doubt as to guilt). However the repatriated men often got a worse deal, particularly where the charge was rape as US military or state law was generally much more severe in sentencing than the British alternative.

 

[Pure]

some urls and texts

the newer versions of laws in US, Norway etc. make travelling abroad and engaging in 'illicit' sex acts, illegal and prosecutable in the home country. the initial intent of the traveller is not relevant.

illicit, in US law, is any sexual act with someone under 16 and any commercial sex with anyone under 18.

several of these laws are bundled with laws against trafficking in humans, abuse of children and women, and against child pornography (which, in the law, is intended to include 'virtual child pornography,' where no actual children were involved in the production--it's computer simulated.)

There are two acts: "Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act" [2005] amending the earlier act of 2000, and the "PROTECT Act" [2003].
====
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/PROTECT-Act-of-2003


Encyclopedia > PROTECT Act of 2003
The PROTECT Act of 2003 authorized fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad.

For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18, and all sex with anyone under 16. Previous US law was less strict, only punishing those having sex either in contravention of local laws OR in commerce (prostitution); but did not prohibit non-commercial sex with, for example, a 14 year-old if such sex was legal in the foreign territory.

Again: Under the Protect Act, the intent of the person at the time he or she traveled is not a legitimate defense of acts later committed abroad.
===
Text of act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108ze7oOu::

SEC. 105. PENALTIES AGAINST SEX TOURISM.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:6:./temp/~c108ze7oOu:e13122:
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

`(b) TRAVEL WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT- A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

`(c) ENGAGING IN ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT IN FOREIGN PLACES- Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

`(d) ANCILLARY OFFENSES- Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

`(e) ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY- Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection.

`(f) DEFINITION- As used in this section, the term `illicit sexual conduct' means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.

`(g) DEFENSE- In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 2423(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `or attempts to do so,'.
====
see, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Tourism

 

[Liar]

Thanks, pure. I guess it's sec. 105 pt. (c) that I think steps over the line of what a country should be able to do. In (b), it can be argued that a crime was committed on US soil. In the case of (c), one can not.

But I think the whole thing is shaky. One could plausibly replace "illicit sexual conduct" with "acts illegal under US jurisdiction". Like smoking pot. Or driving at 100 mph (if that's illegal, I dunno). Or shooting a rhino. Or recieving a medical treatment that is not cleared by the FDA.

The problem with Norway having a law like that, is that they have, just like Sweden, stated that they for instance are open to letting women come here and have abortions, who can't have them in their home land. We then would lose important moral high ground and be unable to object when those women are punished when they go home. We can't say "Our house, our rules. You don't see us imposing our laws in your country.".

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Just to quibble, if said rhino is okayed in the country of origin under CITES, like Republic of South Africa, shooting one is okay under U.S. law. Expensive? Oh yeah, but legal.


No, I haven't. No, I don't want to (except maybe with a dart). And even if I did, I couldn't afford it.

 

[3113]

No, I don't want to (except maybe with a dart).

You're so kinky

 

[Pure]

while i don't disagree with laws against social evils, exploiting the poor, the women, the kids, i find much of the current trafficking legislation, posing. Orrin Hatch, fighter against child porn is a fighter against 'trafficking' and 'sex tourism.'

why do i say 'posing'? because not much is proposed to really address the prob. Hatch and co. are not that interested in 'third world' women and kids. they have a moral agenda.

the legislation is kinda like passing a law saying mice will be punished for eating foodscraps that fall from the table. these crusading folks-- most of them, espl the white males-- 'write off' third world women, just like said foodscraps. (the sex tourists are the mice).

as an indicator of the indifference i allege, if you read through these acts [US] which 'protect' the victim, they are VERY careful, regarding these 'trafficked' women [forced to be whores in the US]. they are allowed to stay in the US, after the bust, *to testify in court against their abusers*. as far as i can see-- and there are pages of fine print-- there is NO intent, on the part of the US, to make trafficked women have a solid claim to refugee [permanent] status.**

i can't speak of Norway and Sweden, but IMO, the US despises its hos, and *particularly* the 'trafficked' ones, the asian women in the 'massage parlors.' they are *generally* all subject to arrest as well as deportation. the fact that a few of them are temporarily of use to the state in 'going after human smugglers, etc.' is a minor issue, quite beside the point.

similarly the 'concern' of the US for girl and boy prostitutes--eg in Thailand and Philippines-- is, IMO, a sham. the whole issue of prosecuting a couple sex tourists a year as a 'moral calling' is disgusting.

let Hatch and co. spend $10,000 making a school for poor kids, and feeding them. THAT would matter. to fine one in 10,000 'sex tourists' for fucking such a young person--who has no choice but to be a ho-- is really a drop of piss in the ocean. in watching a few documentaries, there ARE efforts to have schools and shelters in some third world countries, for kids 'leaving the street'. needless to say the Republicans and the US government are NOT sending any funds to these groups; they're privately financed, on shoe strings.
====

**read the

[US] Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109vlT2gs::

see, generally,
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/240

i think some first world countries are sincere in their efforts against 'human trafficking'; the US gov. is mostly NOT.

 

[Pure]

here is an abstract to a paper with a similar point at US efforts

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1273726

Good Intentions are Not Enough: Four Recommendations for Implementing the Trafficking Victim Protection Act to Better Protect Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States

Dina Francesca Haynes
New England School of Law

September 25, 2008


Abstract:
Many good people within the federal, state and local governments and within civil society are engaging to combat human trafficking. Nevertheless, there remain crucial problems in the non-implementation of the otherwise good laws that exist to protect victims of human trafficking. One problem involves the still persistent inability or unwillingness of law enforcement to look beyond stereotypes to recognize or believe victims who, for instance, were not rescued by law enforcement.

Another problem involves an unnecessary chilling effect whereby law enforcement do not certify victims of human trafficking, therein enabling them to receiving victim support services, when law enforcement fear that prosecutors will not be able or willing to take the case. These and other problems largely limit the United States from achieving its stated goal of finding and assisting victims of human trafficking.

 

[Weird Harold]

while i don't disagree with laws against social evils, exploiting the poor, the women, the kids, i find much of the current trafficking legislation, posing. Orrin Hatch, fighter against child porn is a fighter against 'trafficking' and 'sex tourism.'

why do i say 'posing'? because not much is proposed to really address the prob. Hatch and co. are not that interested in 'third world' women and kids. they have a moral agenda.
...

Thanks for the links.

I think you're right about "posing" -- the "foreign affairs" aspect of these laws are more about 'protecting' the image of Americans abroad and the "sanctity" of a US passport thant hey are about protecting foreign women and children from exploitation.