A quick compilation in one place.
Cho, Dreher, Neumayer, „Does Legalized Prostitution increase Human Trafficking?“ (Answer: Yes.)
Der Spiegel on the failures of legalisation:
„As regards improving prostitutes’ working conditions, hardly any measurable, positive impact has been observed in practice. At most there are first, tentative signs which point in this direction. It is especially in this area that no short-term improvements that could benefit the prostitutes themselves are to be expected.The Prostitution Act has not recognisably improved the prostitutes’ means for leaving prostitution. There are as yet no viable indications that the Prostitution Act has reduced crime.The Prostitution Act has as yet contributed only very little in terms of improving transparency in the world of prostitution.“ (p.79)
(Data / sources etc. from Germany and The Netherlands)
And then she still has to prove absolute coercion. Which is very hard to prove, as the courts would have to accept that she never had a chance of running away. Very simply put, but that’s it. I have highlighted the important parts.
Section 180a(1) Criminal Code in its amended version serves to protect prostitutes from exploitation in prostitution. According to the provision, those in charge of a prostitution establishment are liable to punishment if they keep prostitutes personally and financially dependent on the operation.At the same time the offence known as “procuring pimping” (kupplerische Zuhälterei) in accordance with the old Section 181a(2) Criminal Code was revised. The promotion of prostitution on a commercial basis by finding clients for sexual intercourse is now only punishable if it thereby restricts the prostitute’s “personal or financial independence”. The revised provision aims to ensure that the mere finding of clients for voluntary sexual intercourse itself is not punishable.The Prostitution Act has also had an impact on the highest courts’ interpretation of Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code (so-called dirigiste pimping – “dirigistische/dirigierende Zuhälterei”). The Prostitution Act has not made any amendment to this alternative offence as per Section 181a. Accordingly, it is punishable, among other things, “for material benefit [to] supervise another person’s engagement in prostitution, to determine the place, time, extent or other circumstances of the engagement in prostitution…”. Attempts were already made during the legislative procedure to point out that “supervise” and “determine the place, time” here referred to actions on the part of the employer which, if they remained punishable, would contradict regulations under civil law and the legislator’s intention of protecting prostitutes by enabling them to enter into employment relationships. In the explanatory memorandum for the Act the legislator stated that “a voluntary agreement on the time and place for the exercise of prostitution, i.e. a consensually founded, legally effective employment relationship” did not constitute the offence of dirigiste pimping. Subsection (1) served to protect prostitutes’ financial and personal freedom of movement and was thus to be interpreted restrictively. For that reason it was not deemed necessary to amend Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code.By decision of the 2nd Criminal Panel of 1 August 2003 (ref. 2 StR 186/03; Decision of the Federal Court of Justice 48, 314 and NJW 2004, p. 81 ff.), the Federal Court of Justice readjusted the standards against which Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code was to be interpreted in consequence of the entry into force of the Prostitution Act:“Where a prostitute is working voluntarily in a brothel or brothel-like establishment, the mere fact that she is integrated into an organisational structure by rules governing fixed working hours, place of work and prices does not constitute “determining” her work within the meaning of Section 181a(1) No. 2, second alternative Criminal 42 The direct and indirect impacts of the Prostitution Act 43 Code. This not only applies to legal employment relationships within the meaning of Section 1 Prostitution Act, but also if the employment relationship infringes other legal provisions, such as foreigners law, tax law or the law concerning social insurance. (…) The brothel operator may not determine the nature and extent of the prostitute‘s work. The prostitute must have the right to terminate her employment relationship at any time, she must be permitted to refuse to perform sexual acts and may also not be subject to the employer’s right to issue directives to the effect that she must accept certain clients.”In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, when interpreting Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code, the connection to the provisions in Sections 180a(1), 181a(2) Criminal Code, which have been amended with the introduction of the Prostitution Act, and the legislator’s objective of legalising prostitution as a job that is subject to social insurance and, at least in part, making it comparable to normal employment relationships, must be taken into consideration. This case law ensures that the founding of employment relationships in prostitution by mutual agreement will go unpunished at the same time as restricting the employer’s right to issue directives.
As a result, a case of trafficking, exploitation and rape / sexual violence in Germany was ruled a „work accident“ as the other charges could not be proven/ didn’t have a chance to be proven.
Group Freedom from Sexual Exploitation: http://www.ffse.org.nz/resources/publications