Penalising buyers

The argument

Supporters of the Nordic Model argue that the law should distinguish sharply between the two sides of a transaction that it has historically treated as a single offence. On this view the sex worker is the party whose interests the state ought to be protecting, and the buyer is the party whose conduct the state ought to be deterring. The model is built to reflect that asymmetry: it removes state sanctions on sex workers themselves while penalising those who solicit sex from them. Proponents argue that the effect is to change the sex worker's relationship to the state. Where selling sex is itself an offence, a vulnerable woman must weigh the risk of prosecution against every contact with the authorities, which means the law functions as one more source of the danger she faces rather than as a remedy for it. Removing the sanction removes that fear of prosecution, so the state stops adding to a vulnerability it did not create but has been compounding. Supporters further argue that decriminalisation alone would be incomplete, which is why the model is normally accompanied by increased support for those attempting to exit prostitution: the aim is to open a route out, not merely to make staying safer. The second element of the case concerns the market. Because the penalty falls on purchasers rather than sellers, the model is designed to suppress demand instead of punishing supply, and proponents argue that the record of adoption bears this out, pointing to decreases in rates of prostitution in the countries that have introduced it. The figures most often cited come from Sweden, where the model was first implemented; within two years, supporters report, there was a 50% decrease in supply and a 75% decrease in demand. On this reading the approach achieves what neither blanket criminalisation nor blanket decriminalisation achieves, shrinking the trade while treating the people who sell sex as the ones owed protection rather than punishment, and it is the penalising of buyers that makes both results possible at once.

Context

Originating in Sweden in 1999, the Nordic Model makes the purchase of sexual services illegal whilst removing criminal prosecution for suppliers.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The research regarding the success of the Nordic Model is far from conclusive. Research has shown that criminalising the clients of sex workers does not guarantee an increase in the safety of sex workers. An Amnesty International study found that in Norway since the Nordic Model was introduced safety has not increased, leading to a severe contravention of the human rights of sex workers, especially at the hands of police. Sex workers in countries under the Nordic Model are pushed to work in criminal situations due to the illegality for their customers. Safety for sex workers is severely compromised under the Nordic Model. Just because sex workers do not have to fear being prosecuted specifically for prostitution does not mean they are safe.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Penalising buyers does not necessarily ensure sex worker safety.