The Law is an Ass

There is an old expression which is used when people are frustrated with the law or if the law does not make sense: "The law is an ass". There are times when this is true.   

Last week, I discussed the fact that it is legal for a pair of 14-year-olds to have consensual sex, but if either of them take a picture of it, they could be charged with making "child pornography".  However, two adults (18 or older) can legally take pictures of themselves having consensual sex.  This is an inconsistency in the law. 

Prostitution is another great example. The Criminal Code has several offences relating to prostitution.  It's an offence to be the proprietor of a "brothel" (the law calls it a "bawdy?house").  It's an offence to live in one, to be in one without a lawful excuse or to permit a place to be used as one.  It's an offence to transport or even direct a person to a "brothel".  It's an offence to solicit prostitution or entice a person to a brothel.  It's an offence to try to convince someone to become a prostitute.  It's an offence to be a "pimp".  It's an offence, in public, to stop a car, slow down traffic or people, or even communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute.

Have you noticed something missing?  It is NOT an offence to be a prostitute.  It is also NOT an offence to pay for sexual services.  However, to actually get to the point where you are receiving services from prostitute, you generally have to break the law.  Actually receiving the services is not illegal. It's like having a room with no doors and windows.  The only way into the room is to break through the wall.  Once you're in the room, you might not be doing anything wrong. So, if you're Houdini and the police find you in the room but can't find any evidence of how you got there, you might be OK.

It may seem like a no?brainer, but if there are all these laws preventing the activities which accompany prostitution, why isn't prostitution against the law?

These are the "loopholes" in the law that make it possible for people to be acquitted of an otherwise illegal activity.  If there is a flaw in the law, the accused may challenge the law and succeed in having the law declared unconstitutional.  The result is that the accused "gets off on a technicality".  The general public (and the media) rarely understand the full story, and get caught up with the controversy of the acquittal. 

Think about it from the other perspective: how fair is it to prosecute people under rules that are inconsistent and don't make sense?  How would you feel if you were trapped in a criminal proceeding because the rules were unfairly stacked against you?  It's like any sporting event: if the rules aren't fair, people will not have respect for the game.