That it 1999 legislation got a couple of biggest needs: reducing prostitution (for a while from the policing they and also in the fresh new enough time identity by changing public perceptions towards they) and cutting peoples trafficking to own sexual aim (Holmstrom Skilbrei, 2017)
A second categorization scheme distinguishes among criminalization, legalization (or regulation), and decriminalization. The first category can be divided into “criminalization of the client” and “criminalization of the seller” (Ostergen, 2017). A third typology, with four categories, comes from Garotalo Geymonat (2014): criminalization (or prohibition), regulation (or legalization), abolitionism, and decriminalization. With criminalization, a state completely outlaws the exchange of sex for money. Criminalization may apply to workers or to clients, as in Sweden. With controls, the state recognizes prostitution/sex work (only among adults and without any restrictions) and regulates the sexual activities. With abolitionism, prostitution/sex work is not illegal per se, but Netherlands county escorts certain activities are declared illegal and banned, such as trafficking and third- party gain (as in brothels and pimping). Decriminalization, the newest category, has been occurring only since 2003, when New Zealand became the first country to adopt this policy. In New Zealand there is no specific law on sex work, and selling sex and sexual services is equal to any other economic activity. Danna (2014) has suggested two additional categories: neo-prohibi- tionism (the criminalization of the client) and neo-regulationism (non-punitive toward sellers).
The Swedish Sex Purchase Act was first presented as part of the Womens Peace Bill. Its purpose was “to combat prostitution, which was seen as harmful, both for those directly involved and for society at large” (Holmstrom Skilbrei, 2017, p. 83). To accomplish these goals, the law criminalized the clients ot prostitutes (as we know, the law does not use the term sex experts). These clients, who commit a criminal offence, are punished with a fine and in theory even with prison (in 2011, the prison sentence increased from 6 months to 12 months), but only 200 cases are reported each year, and of these only 10% end in a fine or imprisonment (Garofalo Geymonat, 2014). Nonetheless, many other countries, including Norway, Iceland, France, and Ireland, have adopted the “Swedish model.”
Considering Jonsson and you will Jakobsson (2017), there can be a higher level out-of social invited to have professionals- titution/sex operate in regions where prostitution/sex tasks are legal and you may/or managed than in places where it’s unlawful otherwise criminalized
Twenty years later on, we could inquire: Performed new Swedish Sex Get Act achieve its requires? Based on Holmstrom and you can Skilbrei (2017), it is rather tough to influence the effects, if any, of your own Swedish legislation for the Sweden. Earliest, let’s consider new law’s very first objective: the new decrease in prostitution. Centered on Kotsadam and you will Jakobsson (2014), prostitution is more preferred in which it’s courtroom (as in Denmark) much less well-known where it is illegal (such as Sweden). not, “visibility” usually relates to street prostitution. Since the 1999, what amount of feminine (and you will guys) just who promote sex in the pub in Sweden has reduced significantly, but it is nearly impossible to express a comparable throughout the on the internet prostitution. The fresh new law’s 2nd mission were to transform society’s views with the prostitution.
For this reason, we can finish you to definitely “the newest Sex Purchase Work has actually contributed to improved help about [Swedish] people to possess forbidding not just to purchase sex and in addition selling sexual services” (Svedin, Jonsson, Kjellgren, Priebe, Akerman, 2012, p. 33). Put another way, it appears that the newest Swedish society not only firmly likes its laws and regulations but also thinks your law must also criminalize new suppliers. However, this trust functions resistant to the chief purposes of one’s legislation, which is designed to include the newest sufferers (the brand new vendors) in order to criminalize the purchasers (Holmstrom Skilbrei, 2017).
