I just thought I'd highlight this story that's covered by the Harlot's parlour blog of UK sex worker rights activism.
The short version is that Claire Finch worked as a prostitute from her home, with a number of other women, which arrangement they felt gave much better protection against assault, rape or robbery (or murder) than working on the streets. For this, she was charged with "keeping a brothel". Despite a campaign to prevent the case being brought to court, the charges were heard by the Crown Court.
A jury of 12 citizens (including 4 women) of the UK decided after deliberating for 90 minutes to return a "not guilty" verdict.
This is the strength of the jury system. I am fairly sure that under the letter of the law, there was sufficient evidence to convict (the Crown Prosecution Service letter to those who protested against the case being brought certainly indicates they felt there was sufficient evidence). However, the jury looked at the situation and, considering the spirit of the law and what their consciences told them was the right thing to do, returned a not guilty verdict. This is the protection we have against unjust laws.
By association, we can see that a jury of 8 men and 4 women found that the anti-prostitution laws are unjust in such cases, and hopefully this will be another few grams on the scale to tip towards decriminalising sex work.
0 things wot people said:
Post a Comment
Comments Moderation Policy
This blog is intended to be a place where I can develop my thoughts freely and get free and honest responses. Essentially, it is my safe space, and for that reason I have elected to maintain this blog as a moderated space. However, I am opposed in general to censorship and believe that usually the best way to kill a bad idea is with a better one, so very few comments will be rejected. Comments designed to cause offence for the sake of it (e.g. abusive or inflammatory remarks with no other content), or else those that I feel cross a boundary of human decency, are most likely to be rejected.