The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A Federal System of Prostitution Should Be Allowed for America's Prisons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,155 times Debate No: 52698
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




This idea is what I plan on using as a Proposal in a youth program called CONA.

The ideal CONA proposal is debatable and controversial, which is why I have presented such an absurd solution to the problem of prison rape. I have spent a little time anticipating and receiving from my friends Cons in regards to the Proposal. As far as I can tell, I have solid refutations for all Cons at this point. However I would like to test it out on DDO.

What exactly I'm talking about:
Prisoners do have money. They have a small balance they are given, and they can earn more for doing extra work around the prison. I'm proposing that we allow prisoners to buy sex with that money. The prostitutes would be provided by the Federal Government. The Federal Association of Prostitutes, or FAP. If anybody has any more questions about what I'm proposing be instituted, please ask in the comments before you jump in.

First Round will be for Acceptance.


Hello! And I accept your debate. As Con I will be arguing against the institution of a Federal System of Prostitution in America's Prison's.
Debate Round No. 1


Justinian thanks for debating me on this, and voters, thanks for taking the time with this.

Why Prostitutes?
I propose that we let inmates buy sex from prostitutes for a very simple reason. People who spend many years away from the opposite gender may eventually turn to the desperate measure of forcing themselves on a member of their gender. The thought is that allowing these potential rapist inmates to have sex with a prostitute who is consenting will leave them far less likely to turn to the measures of rape and coercion.

How Needed is This?
Very needed. 4% of our prison populations and 3.2% of our jail populations (over 200,000 people) admitted to being sexually assaulted[1][2]. This number is likely higher as ratting out on people is frowned upon in jail[3]. There are more people raped in prisons and jails than there are people raped outside of jails[1]. The US Prison and Jail Population is roughly half a percent of the US population[4][5], and yet more people are being raped in prisons and jails.

There are laws in the works right now that intend to lessen this problem, but it is highly unlikely new laws will stop this epidemic because it is up to the guards within the facilities to enforce new laws and take the issue seriously. However it is often reported that guards and administration care very little about issues of inmate rape[3], and therefore are unlikely to enforce new laws regarding that. Not only that, but someone who rats out a rapist in prison could face serious consequences at the hands of his/her fellow inmates[3]. Based on these two things I conclude that making new laws will not be enough, we need to address the truest root of the problem: human nature.

Another Texas inmate, who had deep scars on his head, neck, and chest, told Human Right Watch that the prisoner who inflicted the wounds had raped him eight separate times from July through November 1995. The first time M.R. was raped -- "which felt like having a tree limb shoved up into me" -- he told the prison chaplain about it, and the chaplain had him write out a statement for the facility's Internal Affairs department. According to M.R.'s description of the events, the Internal Affairs investigator brought both the victim and the perpetrator into a room together and asked them what had happened. Although M.R. was terrified to speak of the incident in front of the other inmate, he told his story, while the perpetrator claimed the sex was consensual. After both of them had spoken, the investigator told them that "lovers' quarrels" were not of interest to Internal Affairs, sending them both back to their cells. "The guy shoved me into his house and raped me again," M.R. later told Human Rights Watch. "It was a lot more violent this time." [3]

It is Morally Acceptable
Some people disapprove of prostitution because they believe it is immoral. To these people I would posit this:
Which is worse? Consensual, paid sex. Or, consensual, unpaid, traumatizing, and possibly harmful/fatal sex. Those are the options in this scenario.

Therefore we can come to the easy conclusion that prostitution is a lesser evil than rape, and if the greater of the evils can be replaced by the lesser, we as a society should strive for that.

Thanks for reading. I realize this is a short opening, but with the nature of this proposal, I will spend more time fending off proposed Cons. The reasons for doing this are simple, the reasons to not listen to those who say we shouldn't do this are more complicated, and will doubtless be explored once my opponent has fired back.




First off great points! I will be making rebuttals and counter-assertions of my own. I apologize if I have taken multiple days off; I have been a bit busy, but anyway on to the debate!

I first off I'm going to ask a series of questions to Pro to better understand his assertions and then fire back with rebuttals of my own.

1. How much money do these prisoners earn?
2. How will the U.S government get "access" to these prostitutes?
3. What guarantee do you have that the men who choose not to pay for prostitutes will stop raping each other?
4. Will the U.S government give healthcare to these prostitutes for their line of work? I.e: birth control, abortion coverage etc.
5. If a prostitute get's pregnant, will the inmate have to for child support?
6. Will the U.S government also provide male prostitutes to male inmates who prefer men?
7. Along those lines will the U.S government provide male prostitutes for women prisoners?
8. What is to stop these inmates from violating or raping these prostitutes?
9. Would the prison have coitus rooms for inmates and prostitutes?
10. If so, to protect these prostitutes, would video cameras be installed into these rooms or would that violate the 9th amendment to privacy?
11. Would you apply FAP to every U.S federal prison?
12. What criteria must these prison's match to receive the program.
13. Prostitution isn't exactly a "healthy" profession to have STD wise; wouldn't you be exchanging rape for more serious epidemic of AIDS, HIV, and Herpes?
14. How many times a month would a prisoner be able to afford a prostitute?
15. If the number of times a prisoner get's to see a prostitute was negligible, then wouldn't the rapes still continue?
16. Would only prisoners that were deemed mentally fit be able to procure access to prostitutes?
17. How many times a month would these prostitutes visit prison?
18. To me the costs to bring in Prostitutes into prison's for what ever amount of extra money inmates make is not cost-effective for either the prostitute or the inmate.
19. If prostitution became legal in America's Federal System of Prisons; what precedent would that decision make towards the legality of prostitution in America in general?
20. And lastly what screening processes would be used so that the prostitutes that would visit these jails wouldn't be smuggling drugs, narcotics, and weapons?

Note that I have and will be focusing the access to America's Federal Prison's on two key areas: Logistics and Health. The questions that I have posted were only semi-rebuttals and I will post them when Pro has gave his answers to the questions that I have asked. It is not my intention to overload Pro with all of these questions, but for the sake of this argument; there are too many problems with Pro's proposal and it just does not seem feasible.

One more note Pro gives us a link in his opener to website:
I would like to point out to the page he linked to bullet number six-
"6.To help youth and adults to better understand and strengthen their values for living through the Christian objectives of the YMCA."
I doubt that Pro's proposed program will receive much support on a CHRISTIAN website. It is well known mainstream Christian values, that they do not believe in pre-marital sex or the idea of the legalization of prostitution. If a Christian group were to sponsor your noble idea then every other evangelical Christian group would come down on them: as was in the case of World Vision. I like your idea to lesson prison rape, but instead of finding a lesser evil that will continue to fester, why don't we deal with the root of the problem through counseling, better protection of the prisoners, more flexible policies to deal with violence, and stricter punishment to rapists?
Debate Round No. 2


1) I don't know. However the possibility of them not having enough funds shouldn't be of issue. Since this would be run by the government, they wouldn't have to set their prices to make a profit, they'd just set prices in a manner that firstly assures the main objective of this proposal and secondly offsets the amount of taxpayer funding that need be put towards this proposal.
2) I imagine they'll hire them. Just open up shop and let the interested women wander in. Of course the government can do whatever screening/background checks they need to feel safe in their employment decisions.
3) I cannot provide any statistical guarantees, only a guarantee ensured by logic. If you're straight, it is logical that you would choose a woman to deal with (excuse me for this) your horniness before you choose a man.
4) *
5) *
6) Of course. At least if I had my way.
7) Same.
8) I assume that the government will not want to be associated with sending women to get raped, so they would try to control these situations as much as possible. So they'd try to make it a controllable situation, and then also have punishments in place if the prostitute reports mistreatment. Even when these countermeasures fail, I would imagine that raping of a prostitute isn't all that common(since they're there for sex), and the rare instances in which it will occur will number much smaller than our current number of prison rapes, therefore making it a worthy trade-off.
9) That's how I'm envisioning it. Also, *
10) I would advocate that. And if both parties are consenting to the camera observation, is it really a violation? Also, *
11) Yes. And state jails. As many places as possible. If there had to be prioritizing, I'd advocate targeting high rape incidence prisons and jails.
12) No criteria. Unless prioritization must be made. In which case refer to the above response.
13) This will probably induce a spike in STIs, though I believe there are several things that would keep this to a bearable spike, given the trade-off. First, constant government screening for STIs. Second, protected sex. Prison rape spreads a lot of STIs due to its unprotected nature, protected sex with prostitutes will slow this spread. Third, knowledgeable consent from both parties. Both the prostitute and the prisoner must know the condition of their partner before having sex. The thought with this is that less 'clean' prostitutes will risk getting an STI from a prisoner they know has an STI by simply refusing to have sex with him. To put it colloquially, it'll generally mean the dirties will stay with the dirties, and the clean will go with the clean. If my opponent needs more on this I have another reason, which is substantially longer.
14) This gets back to the first question.
15) Perhaps. This will be a system that may need some tweaking at first. If a guy knows there's a light at the end of the tunnel, he may refrain from rape for say, 2 to 4 weeks, because he knows he will get a prostitute. We'll have to see what the case is and change prices and whatnot to compensate for different trends.
16) Perhaps not. Perhaps just give their potential prostitutes full knowledge of who they could be banging, and allow them to make the choice. Also, *
17) *
18) In an earlier question response I stated that this system would not be out to make a profit. So they're not going to bust the prisoners' balls price-wise, and the prostitutes will receive fair pay from the government.
19) At first I predict it wouldn't affect anything. But once you get to a generation who has grown up their entire lives with prostitution as a real thing, they may not be so opposed to it being allowed outside of prisons.
20) *

*CONA Proposals shouldn't be written as if they were legislature. They are simply intended to be a general motion towards action. Examples here[1]. If I left an asterisk, it's because I think the question has crossed the line from general plan of action to the kind of details you'd find in an actual bill[2]. If my opponent is truly dissatisfied with this, I will answer his questions to the best of my ability.

Christian Values
While it is obviously listed on the site, I can tell you as a firsthand witness and participant of YMCA's mock government programs, that number six bullet never really comes into play. And it's not like these things are Christian camp either. If I recall correctly, only 1 or 2 people out of 70 I was with (at MYIG[3], basically CONA's little brother) actually debated based on religious values. The rest of us acted and talked in a purely secular manner.

Just Do It A Different Way
"..why don't we deal with the root of the problem through counseling, better protection of the prisoners, more flexible policies to deal with violence, and stricter punishment to rapists?"
Trying to fix the rules is ineffective because of the prison atmosphere. The majority of guards simply don't care. Creating a law about what to do about rape and telling the guards to follow it won't work that well, simply because it's down to them to follow through, something that is unlikely to happen with any useful frequency.



Thanks Pro!

I would like to finish my argument based upon three things: logic, health, and finance.

"3) I cannot provide any statistical guarantees, only a guarantee ensured by logic. If you're straight, it is logical that you would choose a woman to deal with (excuse me for this) your horniness before you choose a man."-Pro

This argument is invalid, because for the sole reason: why would prisoners follow your method of logic, when they are the one's who have committed crimes to be locked up in the first place? If they knew that there were punishments for crimes then why would they do said crimes? This shows that prisoner's are not highly logical.

I have found a great site that shows some of the dangerous of legalization of prostitution and will make refutations based on this site. According to, 50% of the world's prostitutes have contracted HIV, prostitutes on average are beaten 12 times a year, and in the U.S alone 92% of women say that they want to leave prostitution, but can't due to a lack of food and money. And the average murder rate of prostitutes is 204 out of 100,000 prostitutes. That's over 20 times the national average! Lastly, one more statistic: 40% of female prostitutes in the U.S were former child prostitutes...

1. Half of the world's prostitutes are not in fact "clean" and could spread HIV to hundreds of people especially in prisons. Do you honestly think that even with protection a prisoner would want to have sex with someone who has contracted HIV?

2. Why in the world would you send prostitutes into prison's with them getting beaten on average 12 times a year? Your not only putting them into more physical harm, but also mental and emotional harm. This could even result in a high death rate of prostitutes be it in prison's or every day work.

3. You said, "2) I imagine they'll hire them. Just open up shop and let the interested women wander in. Of course the government can do whatever screening/background checks they need to feel safe in their employment decisions."
I hardly think that your proposal would be effective when only 8% of women prostitutes would take up your offer.

As mentioned above even if women prostitutes thought that your job proposal was good money wise, do you honestly think that they would take it? 92% of them said that they would leave their profession if not for money and food problems. You would be only contributing to the cycle of violence, STD's, and death to unfortunate women.

"Trying to fix the rules is ineffective because of the prison atmosphere. The majority of guards simply don't care. Creating a law about what to do about rape and telling the guards to follow it won't work that well, simply because it's down to them to follow through, something that is unlikely to happen with any useful frequency."
How can you say this when you have said this?

"I assume that the government will not want to be associated with sending women to get raped, so they would try to control these situations as much as possible. So they'd try to make it a controllable situation, and then also have punishments in place if the prostitute reports mistreatment."

Obviously the U.S government hasn't passed stern reprimands to the raping of prisoners that guards would follow, what makes you think that they would do this for prostitutes? When the U.S government wouldn't want itself doesn't want to be associated with prison rape?
And lastly if guards don't listen to prison rape even if their are laws, then it seems hardly logical that they would listen or follow anti violence and rape laws against prostitutes.

Your proposal has merits, but there are too many holes and flaws in it.
1. There would not be that many women to take up your offer (8%).
2. You would only be continuing the cycle of violence towards women from childhood to adult hood.
3. A women shouldn't have to be a prostitute in order to make ends meet.
4. Tax payers would not vote for this bill or legislation and if the constituents won't like a highly unpopular bill then what makes you think that their representatives would vote for it?
5. And lastly due to a high amount that women prostitutes get beaten (12 times a year), you would make the women be the target of hostility and violence instead of inmates.

I have proven why the legalization of prostitution would not work through: the law number of volunteers, the sheer number of STD stricken prostitutes, and the trampling of a women's rights of happiness and liberty. In essence the very proposal that you suggest is illogical, would be unsupported, and unsustainable.

Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has put forth the argument that since people who end up in prison are obviously incapable or unwilling to follow rules, they will obviously be incapable or unwilling to follow my logic. At first glance this may seem like a reasonable assessment, but I believe after viewing a few aspects to this scenario, we can realize this is not a valid refutation.

I'll start with this: why are they breaking the law? Answer: (and this is of course a mass generalization of criminals) They are very selfish. They wanted something so badly that they were willing to break the law to get that thing.

So apply that idea of self-centered motivations to this. If most prisoners are straight, most prisoners do not really want to have gay relations with other prisoners. They do it as a final resort, when things have become really desperate. But if we provide them with what they would want before that, they won't even bother considering gay rape.

The reason gay rape happens is because these guys think they're never going to have sex with a woman again, so they have nothing to lose. Give them the alternative they really want, and they won't feel the need to rape prisoners. It's all about their selfish nature. Their selfish nature got them in prison, and their selfish nature will be satisfied by consenting prostitutes.

It's like if you're a starving man. If all that's around is a shoe, yeah you'll eat it because of your desperation. But if there's a large supply of ice cream, you'll eat that ice cream and never nibble on a shoe again.

I'd like to add another thing, in anticipation of an argument that my opponent may make that I won't be able to respond to. The point could be raised that some men in prison may have been raping for so long that they have actually come to enjoy it, and this proposal wouldn't effect them. While this is true, this would only raise issues in the beginning.

Let's say you've got 6 potential rapists. 3 of them have been doing it for 20 years now and will not be changed in their ways by this Proposal. But the other 3 are new to prison, and haven't yet grown fond of raping fellow prisoners. These men will be stopped by this Proposal. And as each new man comes in and is stopped in advance, and as each guy who has been in for a while and likes it dies off of old age (or is released), we will see prison rape decline.

1. I see my opponent has not addressed my colloquial statement for this portion of the debate. If we give both sides full knowledge of the other's sexual 'cleanliness', we can count on most prostitutes who are clean to not have sex with men who have STIs, lest they make their service less valued by having a disease. We can also count on the prostitutes who do have STIs to have sex with the prisoners who do have STIs. Keeping the groups 'segregated' will reduce STI spread.

I also believe my above statement addresses my opponent's rhetorical question. If a prisoner already has the same disease the prostitute does, he shouldn't have an issue. And since only half of America's prostitutes have an STI, any clean prisoners will be able to find a prostitute who is likewise clean.

In addition, the use of protection is not intended to be the sole barrier to stop the spread of STIs. I mentioned many things that in combination would help significantly to reduce the spread. The other, which my opponent did not address, was government screening. The Federal government could do screening of their employees to make sure that if someone does contract an STI, they don't remain in the system any longer than they already have, or, if they remain in the system, they remain so, but with the information attached that they have an STI.

2. Before I address that statistic, I'd like to open with a quick thought: Would you rather receive a beating or a raping? Remember my objective is to replace the worst evil with a lesser evil.

Anyways, I don't believe that 12 number will transfer over to prisons, and for a few reasons.

First, the prostitutes are no longer in an abusive pimp-prostitute relationship. "Included in this model is physical and verbal abuse, isolation, and severing ties to the victim's community. The victim enters into the sex industry where [s]he experiences constant violence and severe trauma. Victims undergo a process of being recruited, groomed, abused, controlled, and being turned out by violent pimps."[1] So part of that 12 beatings comes from their pimp. If we remove the pimp and replace them with some government workers who oversee and protect the prostitutes, suddenly we cut down on that number.

Realize also that a prisoner who's only way to have heterosexual sex is with a prostitute is likely to be careful not to abuse the prostitute. Why he would receive punishment for abusing the prostitute is something I will get to later. But all it would take is one report of abuse and suddenly that prisoner is cut off. He won't risk that when he has so much to lose. So we can cut down on beatings there too.

On the subject of reporting things, that's the other reason the number would be nowhere near 12. A prostitute today cannot report her abuses to the law, because prostitution is illegal (most places). If prostitution is legal in these prisons, the prostitute can obviously go to a government worker and let them know about the abuse.

3. My opponent has said that since only 8% of prostitutes actually want to be prostitutes, it'd be hard to get enough people for this. I have reasons why that 8% number wouldn't apply, but first let's examine the number as if it's the final verdict. There are 1 million prostitutes in the US[2][3]. With my opponent's statistic that comes in at 80,000 prostitutes for my idea. If you recall my 200,000 number for rapes per year in prisons, we can see that this would be sufficient, because prostitutes of course have sex with multiple people.

Consider also all the information I provided in the previous round for why it would be easier to be a prostitute in this program. Things like pimps, abusive customers, and the inability to report these things, are no doubt among the main contributors for why a prostitute would be among the 92%. Remove these things and the number will probably go down, and we'd see even more than 80,000.

My 'Contradictory' Statements
I wasn't very clear in the second statement my opponent showed, so now I need to be more specific, and show why I'm not being contradictory, and my idea is still feasible. When we're talking about protecting and monitoring these prostitutes, we're not talking about prison guards doing this, we're talking about government workers. So we're not, as my opponent said, passing laws for the prostitutes that the prison guards must enforce. There will be Federal agents whose sole job is to monitor and provide protection and attention to these prostitutes. Lax prison guards shall not be put on the case.

Tax-Payers and Politicians Won't Like It
I don't believe saying that this idea is too controversial is a valid point, given the title and question of this debate. The question is whether or not this 'should' be allowed. There can be things that should happen but won't because people are not agreeable or are afraid it'll be too controversial. The question is should this happen, not, will politicians be too afraid to touch this idea? There was a time in America when an anti-slavery bill would've been unpopular or controversial, but we know that an anti-slavery bill should pass.

Thanks for the nice debate Justinian, it has given me many more things to focus on in defense of my Proposal. And to you voters, thanks for reading. I hope you read the whole thing.



I apologize, but I will not be able to finish this debate due to time constraints and extracurricular' s that demand my attention. It was my belief that their would only be three rounds and thus I only prepared for three rounds, but ignorance is no excuse. I will let the audience decided upon this debate, but I anticipate a lose due to my lack of participation. It's been a great debate and I would like to thank Pro for his time and investments. In accordance I am officially forfeiting this round
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Finally got back to this... lol
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
Absolutely, will do. Thanks.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Remind me next week (have finals to get ready for, so can't do the in depth consideration needed for this right now).
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
Will you be voting?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DauntlessWarrior 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, in my opinion had more convincing arguments to support his belief as well as demolished Con's arguments and rebuttals. Also con forfeited the last round