NYC Mayoral Race: Prostitution

The quasi-Republican NYC mayoral candidates have used various tactics to try to label Zohran Mamdani as a dangerous radical. One tactic is to cite Mamdani's co-sponsoring of prostitution reform. 

Mamdani is currently in a good position and is trying to avoid any controversies. He says it won't be a priority in his administration (who thought it would?) and that he did not support legalization. That is, not decriminalization, which does not set up a legal administration to regulate the thing.

Marijuana legalization is a good comparison. We now have authorized dealers of marijuana (there is one in my neighborhood, a few blocks from a junior high school). Marijuana is regulated in various respects. New York didn't simply stop making marijuana illegal.

Mamdani co-sponsored "Cecilia's Law" (which did not pass), which partially decriminalizes prostitution. It is named after a sex worker advocate. 

Cuomo signed into law something overturning an anti-solicitation law. Someone challenged him on the point after Cuomo went after Mamdani. He tried to downplay its importance, partially claiming ignorance.

An article cited at the first link clarifies:

On paper, the legislation repealed an anti-prostitution law which previously prohibited “loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.” But in recent years, LGBTQ+ activists charged that police more often used the statute to harass or arrest visibly trans women, particularly trans women of color, under the guise of combating prostitution.

Gay USA continues to report that such "neutral" laws have resulted in discriminatory enforcement. So-called vices or moral laws tend to have that effect. 

After Lawrence v. Texas, laws against fornication have been struck down on right to privacy grounds. Prostitution is different because it is not just private sexual conduct. 

It is an economic transaction. The line drawing, however, is sometimes difficult. Common dating procedures, to be blunt, can be quite transactional. 

Privacy rights, such as obtaining sexual materials or contraceptives, also have an economic component. Escort services can also entail non-sexual aspects. Criminalizing prostitution is dubious.

The average voter probably is not too concerned about this issue. They would at most want to address the stereotypical "streetwalker" as well as abusive tactics, including the use of minors. They would be fine with focusing on social services, including helping prostitutes who need medical treatment. 

Mamdani's more left-leaning causes overall tend to be positive developments. The voting population might be more conservative than he is on certain issues. But they also will often find his ideas, including reducing the reliance on police for providing mental health services, to be good ideas.

Any changes to the law here will be up to the legislature. The most Mayor Mamdani would do is change executive priorities. He would even have somewhat limited influence over the police, depending on who he chooses (or leaves in place) to run that department. That is not nothing, but it again shows the over-the-top concerns are just that.

And, to the extent Mamdani did support prostitution reform, it is a positive development. I did not parse the legislation he supported, in part because it did not pass. I do support its overall goals. On this issue, I'm generally libertarian.* Prostitutes often are victimized. Bans, however, are not the way to help them. 

===

* We need not apply that word absolutely. 

Things tend to have degrees. I'm not a "libertarian" even if I am libertarian on certain issues. 

Why? Because we need regulations, we aren't islands, and that factors in when applying a label for myself.