Arizona lawmakers add felony, mandatory fine to cut down on prostitution

By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers have approved a new approach they say should cut down on prostitution: Come down harder on the people who patronize them but ease up on some who are victims of sex trafficking.

Legislation set to take effect in September would make it a felony to pay for sex.

It’s already a misdemeanor. And there are mandatory minimum 15-day jail terms for a first offense, going up to six months behind bars for those convicted three or more times.

But House Bill 2720, approved with bipartisan support, adds on a mandatory $200 fine — above and beyond anything imposed by the court — on customers. The dollars collected would be earmarked for special programs to help victims of sex trafficking.
At the same time, the new law also contains other provisions designed to assist those who want to get out of prostitution.

Most notably, it strengthens existing law that allows someone convicted of prostitution to have that conviction vacated if a judge determines the person’s participation in the crime “was a direct result of being a victim of sex trafficking.”

What’s new is under those circumstances, a judge would be required to seal all records relating to the person’s arrest, conviction and sentence — giving what backers of the measure say is a fresh start to be able to see employment and housing without having a record.

Democratic Rep. Flavio Bravo said the measure is the work of years of negotiations. Bravo, who represents a portion of Phoenix known for the prevalence of prostitutes on the streets, said it “reflects understanding that the status quo was not working.”

“Together, we as lawmakers, local leaders, advocates, and community members recognize that we needed a smarter approach,” he said.

A key aspect of that, according to Rep. Selina Bliss, is reducing the demand by making it a felony to solicit prostitutes. Until now, the law did not differentiate between customers and prostitutes, with the same misdemeanor charge.

But the Prescott Republican said what also is critical is the provision about not just vacating the criminal convictions of prostitutes who a court determines were victims of sex trafficking but also sealing the records “so that those that are trafficked can pursue jobs and housing,” opportunities that otherwise might not be available with a criminal record.

Gov. Katie Hobbs, who did a ceremonial bill signing Wednesday, said it was time to scrap the laws that provided no differentiation between offering sex for money and paying for it.

“This approach completely ignores the fact that, statistically, the sex worker is very likely a victim while the consumer is almost certainly engaging in this illicit activity by choice,” she said.

“Why, then, are we treating the victim the same as the offender?” the governor asked rhetorically. “This is not the way the system is supposed to work.”

Prostitution actually was legal in Arizona, not just in territorial days but also for six years after statehood in 1912.

There have been spotty movements to legalize it, like a small demonstration by fewer than a dozen sex workers in 2023 when Arizona was host to the Super Bowl. But there have been no proposals introduced at the Capitol in recent memory to decriminalize it or, as in the case of Nevada, make it a local option.

So would legalization — with regulations, licensing, oversight, and areas set aside for the business — be a better solution than having police out looking for prostitutes and their customers?

“That is not something that I have heard talked about as a solution at all,” Hobbs responded.

“I’m not saying that it’s not a possible solution,” she continued. “But have you met our legislature?”

Even if it were politically achievable, though, the governor said she’s not convinced it solves all the problems wrapped around prostitution.

“I don’t think there is any evidence that that would address the real issues of victimization and exploitation and trafficking that we’ve all talked about,” Hobbs said. “And, possibly, even, taking the criminal consequences off the demand side could have the potential of making that worse.”