The other day I wrote about the charms of Suffolk, that county in East Anglia in which I was brought up. A place famous for gentle, flattish countryside, nice buildings, coastal scenery, fine beer and a once-very-good football team (Ipswich Town FC won the FA Cup in 1978 and the European UEFA Cup in 1981 in the glory years when the team was managed by Sir Bobby Robson).
Alas, Ipswich is now likely to be known some time for very different, appalling reasons.
Now is not the time to really go into much analysis of the crimes themselves. My heart goes out to the friends and families of the victims and like most people, I hope the piece of scum that carried out these killings is quickly brought to justice. While I have my doubts about using the death penalty in a world when so much of our Common Law has been damaged by stupid governments, it is hard not to feel sympathy for despatching such a lowlife rather than leaving him – I assume it is a he – to rot in jail for years at the taxpayer’s expense.
The victims in this case are described as prostitutes. Blogger Tim Worstall has thoughts about the nexus of drug use and prostitution and, being the pro-liberty guy he is, reckons that the women who ply this trade would be safer if prostitution was legalised. I agree (I had quite a joust with an authortarian if probably well-meaning chap by the name of Martin on Tim’s comment thread). I think that a person who sells his or her sexual favours for cash is entitled to do so with consenting adults and it is no business of the state to say otherwise. The harms that people usually associate with prostitution stem from the fact that it is often illegal and thus controlled by organised criminals, many of them drug-pushers as well. Legalising it, and taking prostitution out of a legal twilight zone is not a cure-all for the ills some people associate with it, but it would reduce problems, I think, such as sexually transmitted diseases, and perhaps reduce the sort of horrors that we have seen in the Ipswich area. Of course, if this monster strikes again and this time attacks someone from a very different set of circumstances, then the debate will shift.
This terrible saga also prompts me to wonder what could and should be done to encourage people to learn and practice self defence, but that is a whole topic in itself and I don’t have the time right now to explore it, but I am sure that commenters will want to think about it. I’d be interested to know if there are comparable recent incidents from other parts of the world and what happened subsequently. Send in any examples.
Perceptive article on the local area by Times columnist Libby Purves.
(Update: fixed silly typo in original).
What? I thought everybody was doing it that way. I kinda feel like the boy who was told by his girlfriend they’ve been putting it in the wrong hole.
Failing lives, addiction, murdering deviance … this is not such promising material for libertarians, I think. The ultimate source of such psychological damage is not authoritarianism of any kind. If any generalisations can be made at all, one must say that the source is the loss of normal, healthy human bonds.
Freedom of the will in the conventional, liberal sense that you want it, Johnathan, does harm to the majority of ordinary, not so very intelligent people.
Legalising prostitution will, I believe, do very little to remedy the problems associated with the practice because, legal or not, the same low-life and ne’er-do-wells will be making use of the same, sometimes tragic, women who will use it to finance their drug habits. All legalisation will do is provide another tax stream to our soon-to-be Dear Leader II.
The reason prostitution is illegal is because it is an affrontary to the social ideal of sex as being a loving and intimate part of a committed marriage. Whether you share this idealisation of sex or not (and I accept the reality is far removed now from the ideal) the point is that once you legalise a trade in which this most personal of relations is reduced to a financial transaction you psychologically destroy the generally accepted ideal – and so degrade the relation.
Prostitution is a sad business and as old as human being perhaps but I feel it harms the people involved and it would add some harm to society unable to suffer much more harm if it were to receive official sanction.
What authoritarian tosh and what arrogance to seek to compel others to do what you think is appropriate in their lives with their own bodies and with other consenting adults.
Nothing undermines social bonds quite like states. As more and more previously social interactions are replaced with politically mandated formulae, of course it undermines normal, healthy human bonds.
Also women have sold themselves since time immemorial and most sensible men deal with that fact quite well… if the woman is honest about it and does it for short periods with a given person, they are called ‘prostitutes’. If they lie about it and do it for long periods with a given man richer than themselves, they are often said to have ‘married well’.
Stephan,
I really disagree with your second paragraph with the implicit suggestion that those of us who aren’t some form of “philosopher king” should be protected from ourselves.
You sound like you’ve got a case of the raving Nietszche’s!
In any case, I don’t think you were addressing the point Jonathan made. People may get into prostitution, drug addiction and all sorts bad things because of the loss of “normal, healthy human bonds” but that wasn’t Jonathan’s point. All he was saying is that the situation for prostitutes would be ameliorated if their trade were fully legal.
Prohibiting things people are going to do anyway is never such a good idea. Look what a roaring success the 18th Amendment was in the USA.
Information from customers will be very helpful in cracking this case. No matter that the police may (or may not) have declared an amnesty, customers are going to be very reluctant to come forward because of the legal situation.
I cannot see anyway in which prohibition of street prostitution makes this situation better.
I’m not dogmatic about legalising street prostitution, although I think that there should definitely be some forms of prostitution that should be liberalised.
What really shocked me with the news on this were the number of people sympathetically interviewed on the BBC who expressed hopes that the murders would persuade the prostitutes to change their ways.
I’m used to the BBC providing moral (and more practical) support for murderers with socialist or islamic affiliations, but this was the first time that I’d seen moral support for a lone nutter murderer agenda. It might be too much to say that this is the moment to support their freedom to solicit. It cannot be too much to ask that they do not choose this moment to condemn it.
Stephan, a remark like that suggests to me that you are not so very intelligent, either. “Let he who is without sin….”
What you or I think about prostitution as a “sad business” is not really what counts, Gary. What counts is that by driving it underground, we magnify the seediness of it. Read my post again: I did not say that all problems would go away if we legalised it since I am well aware that much else needs to change as well in our society. But banning consensual acts between adults has never struck me as either bright social policy nor right in principle. The world seems to be overflowing with those who want to mind other folks’ business and a very great deal of unintentional or perhaps intentional harm they do.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillside_Strangler
for similar case.
Here it was two cousins. The police were at a loss, until they captured one of the cousins and he turned state’s evidence on the other based on his fear of the death penalty.
That’s when I started to re-think the death penalty.
what could and should be done to encourage people to learn and practice self defence
There is not really an atmosphere conducive to learning to defend oneself at the moment, not only due to the fear of arrest but also because “violence” tends to be looked down upon by many.
When it is accepted by the police, courts and general public that the victims of muggers, rapists and the like are not only entitled but have a duty to resist, then there will be more demand for instruction in self defence.
I’ve always had a problem with the “degrading and dangerous” criticism of prostitution. If I understand correctly a coal miner goes to work down a hole in the ground to sell his labour for money while risking sudden and violent death. If he’s lucky (?) he survives to die a painfull and unpleasant death from lung disease. This is the dignity of labour.
A prostitute sells sex for money (not for more sex – unfortunate typo Jonathon) on the streets or in a brothel and risks death from violent clients or unpleasant diseases. This is unacceptable.
I know the sex urge is very powerful, so we all (but especially Anglo Saxons) have strange hang ups about it, but I still don’t understand the difference.
Inform them that the police are not there for their protection, as is widely thought, but the protection of those in power. A policeman is not going to magically appear beside you when you get mugged, neither is one going to instantly manifest themselves at your door while a burglary is in progress. They will instead be harassing protestors and scraping drunks off the streets, then spend the rest of their shift filling out the paperwork. As soon as people realise this then they will make their own arrangements for the defence of their person and property.
It is quite clear that the law needs tightening up in this area. I expect the government to rush through the Serial Killers (Suffolk) Act as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Legalising prostitution on its own does not appear to be the solution.
Making drugs legal first would, in my view, deal with many of the problems facing prostitutes.
95% of prostitutes, they say, are class A drug users. Prostitution is their way of paying for the habit that I suspect their pimps are partly or completely responsible for.
Legal drugs can be clean, predictable and cheap. No need to fund an expensive addiction. No need to fraternise with the criminal underclass to get it. No money in selling drugs. No point pushing it. No motivation to be a prostitute.
In the past I suspect it was a child to support (illegitimate and the mother abandoned by the extended family) that tended to drive women into the game.
Generalisations, yes, but I believe you could reduce the problems significantly and then it woudl be of a scale to tackle in other ways.
Once the drug issue is sorted and prostitution is legalised, then there is less scope for trafficking and slavery, fewer dark corners to hide in (in fact those shadows become more obvious and the first place to look).
95% of prostitutes, they say, are class A drug users.
If they say that, they are almost certainly wrong. It is plausible that a high percentage of street prostitutes are sustaining a drug habit, but 95% strikes me as very high indeed.
Which is not to say TimC is wrong on the rest of his points.
K said –
At first it seems reasonable. But do we as libertarians want to advocate that the government offer us our lives in exchange for evidence and testimony?
In the county where I did most of my growing up (an affluent Republican county) a government prosecutor framed an unpopular suspect apparently to further his political career. He did it with the assistence of the sherriff’s dept officers assigned to the case.
There is a fashion(?) in the United States of ex cons teaching for and about self defense. They are very effective as advocates, motivators and as teachers.
I personally know one who lived from smallest childhood a life of crime. He became a devoted Christian and spent his efforts during the time I knew him warning and teaching women about danger. How to avoid it and how to defend against it.
These prostitutes should be given posthumous Darwin awards. This is where I stop being a libertarian. Shoot all drug takers and pushers and ban prostitution. The Chinese have got it about right here.
(Sorry to cause offence!)
For a presumed iconoclast, you sure seem to be worshiping the false idol of victimless crime.
Groveling at the feet of the
god.
niconoclast,
The Darwin Award is, pretty much by definition, posthumous. You really are a nitwit.
As far as self-dense is concerned… Well, there’s plenty of options for someone to choose from of their own free will. Encouraging people to learn, the way it was suggested earlier, sounds a little nanny-state, 5 a day-ish to me.
Inconclast,
The CDA’s are given to people killed in daft accidents, not to people brutally murdered. Are you implying that these women somehow did the human gene pool a favour by getting themselves killed? I hope that is not what you are saying because if you are, you are no better than something people wipe off their shoes.
I very much doubt that the Chinese have “got it right here” in banning prostitution or drug-taking. Where do you think a lot of opium comes from? China is a massive country and I would have thought the sex trade goes on, albeit underground.
Prostitution, i.e. accepting money for sexual favours, is already legal in the UK. What’s illegal is solicitation.
Survival of the fittest is a Spencerian concept and one that should be favoured by all libertarians. Those unfit for life take themselves out of the gene pool by their dumb actions be it as ‘sex workers’, junkies, pissheads,smokers,joy riders, those who play on railway lines etc.
Of course that is not to gainsay the personal tragedy for the families of such fatalities but in a way society benefits by being rid of those the Bible refers to as ‘the stupid ones’.
I would be lying if I said I am not mortified at being blacklisted by Samizdata especially as I am broadly sympathetic with its objectives. I do not think it is warranted. That is of course your prerogative. Perhaps it is true that inside evey libertarian is an illibertarian trying to get out?
You are welcome to visit my humble blog where you will not be airbrushed out for expressing a contrary view – perhaps because I am more confident in my beliefs than you guys?
best wishes,
niconoclast
Iconclast, I am very confident in my beliefs, precisely because they are based on the observation that interfering with the liberties of adults causes all manner of problems. You . seem to think quite differently.
As far as I can tell, Iconoclast, you are a thoroughly nasty piece of work and I am not sure that this blog’s values has much in common with yours.
Here is what I attempted to post this morning. I shall leave it to your intelligent readers to decide whether your ad hominem attacks on me were justified Johnathon.
Survival of the fittest is a Spencerian concept and one that should be favoured by all libertarians. Those unfit for life take themselves out of the gene pool by their dumb actions be it as ‘sex workers’, junkies, piss-heads, smokers, joy riders, those who play on railway lines etc.
Of course that is not to gainsay in any way the personal tragedy for the families of such fatalities but in a way society benefits by being rid of those the Bible refers to as ‘the stupid ones’.
Re: “I’d be interested to know if there are comparable recent incidents from other parts of the world and what happened subsequently. Send in any examples.”
‘Ipswich Ripper’ Prostitute Murder Investigators Eye Atlantic City Cases for Possible Link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236320,00.html#
via http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9828
On the subject of the death penalty. Sad to say it still exists de facto if not de jure for some who draw the short straws in life.
One dreary day, many years back, I had the misfortune to represent a juvenile criminal with a penchant for attacking people who merely looked at him in a funny way.
He was about to be dealt with by the Barnet Magistrates in just a few moments time, when he said to me “I am ready for the big house”. To which I replied, “Are you sure about that?” “Whadaya mean”. was his educated response. “Well, you realise that you could die from just being in an adult prison”. This astonished him, being clever and a know it all with street smarts, he had never reckoned on AIDS as a possibility. Perhaps state education missed that one.
When cautioned about the possibility of a death penalty for being a prize twit, he decided not to go for the big house as an option that day.
If they catch this nasty murderer he has the pleasure of AIDS as a real risk along with Hep and other wonders of prison life.
Thus spake Niconoclast:
By that logic, we should repeal the ban on murder, manslaughter, etc. If people get killed, then obviously they weren’t all that fit to begin with, and all the criminal did was pool-cleaning. If someone gets run over by a semi truck whose driver was whacked up on acid and trying to avoid hitting the talking tree, then obviously the deceased wasn’t paying attention and it’s a good thing he’s unable to pass on his inattentiveness gene.
I’m going to have to go with Mr. Pearce on his evaluation of you.
Why should “all libertarians” favour such a doctrine? Yes, I also believe that we are all responsible for our actions, and if people inject themselves with drugs, play on railway lines, or whatever, then frankly one cannot be very sympathetic. Some prostitutes and the people who use them are fairly pathetic characters. All true.
But these women were murdered, Iconclast. They did not kill themselves. And the reason why I have taken a fairly harsh view of you and your comments is that you came across as someone who is gloating at the fate of these women. To bring up the example of Charles Darwin Awards in relation to a serial killer is fatuous nonsense, and shows scant regard for human life. If you now want to stress your horror at what happened, perhaps out of guilt, then I applaud you but it might have served your case had you mentioned that at the start.
You have not been blacklisted, I assure you.
Legalise prostitution! Are you mad! How about getting girls like these off drugs so they no longer have to sell their bodies. If they wern’t on the drugs they would never have been in the position to be murdered.
And that would be because making solicitation illegal has been soooo effective, right? The notion criminalising the ‘world’s oldest profession’ could ever work is laughable.
And what if they do not want to get off drugs? Could it be that the fact their habit is illegal is the source of the problem? And what if they did not see their lifestyle as a problem at all? Or are you of the view that only prostitutes get murdered in Britain?
How do you know that?
If it were so easy to get women or anyone else off drugs. Despite the fact that drugs are illegal and large resources of public money are paid on trying to deal with drug abuse, the fact is that many of Britain’s towns and cities have people with such problems. As I said in my original posting as Perry said just here, the fact that these consensual activities – admittedly often stupid activities – are illegal means that criminals control them.
It is something that many people of a usually sensible cast of mind do not want to admit: to reduce a lot of crime in Britain means accepting that people will do dumb things and it is not the job of the state to prevent adults from making mistakes. The job of the state is to prevent the initiation of force against persons and their properties. Trying to outlaw consenting acts crimes only means that genuine crimes will get committed.
Leaving aside the moral and ethical issues ably raised by Mr. de Havilland and Mr. Pearce…
I’ve met non-drugged prostitutes before. Most of them in my area are using, to be sure, but not all.
Most of the prostitutes in my area stay in the game for reasons other than the need to fund a drug habit. Fear of the pimp is a big one. Inability to actually see a different life is another: they intellectually know that there are other ways to live, but don’t believe it. Some have out-and-out psychological issues.
And funding drug and psych treatment would be nice, but let’s be real about resources. We frankly don’t have enough public money to fund treatment for the people who actually want it and will actually take it: how the hell can we afford to force more people in?
I mean it: I’ve brought people in for mental-health holds who were an immanent suicide threat, and had them cut loose early based on a lack of room for them. On what planet will there be enough room in the hospital/clinic, and enough professionals to provide the treatment, for patients who don’t even want it?
Don’t ask me for an easy fix: I don’t think there is one. Ten years and counting as a cop, including six months (thankfully long since over) on Vice, and I’d love an easy fix.
Interesting comment, Sunfish, and more or less along the lines I have heard from coppers before. Always good to hear perspectives from people ‘on the coal face’ as it were.