Project ROSE Is Arresting Sex Workers in Arizona to Save Their Souls

Baylor said:
Both are states that have a large number of retirees (warm climates and all), making an influential voting block state politicans love to woo.
Click to expand...

This retiree is NOT one of those ******** and ex-*****************.

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to evade the autocensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"I'm trying to work my way through nursing school."

Like I haven't heard that a hundred times.

Maybe it's time to man up and support my local prostitutes.
 
https://asunews.asu.edu/20120426_social_work

The initial Project ROSE in September 2011 had extraordinary success, Roe-Sepowitz said. Nearly 30 percent of the 43 women participants had completed the diversion program and had not been re-arrested in the past seven months.

“The cornerstone of Project ROSE is the City of Phoenix Diversion Program, which we have evaluated and published on and found to have strong impact on a participant’s re-arrest – reduction – if they complete the Diversion program. Thus, we are using evidence and research to support requiring the clients we contact through Project ROSE to complete the Diversion program,” she said.

The goal is to provide “essential human needs” of the individual, treating the victim with an understanding that they are a person in crisis, Roe-Sepowitz said. For example, one victim with significant substance-abuse issues agreed to go to detox and Catholic Charities DIGNITY, a prostitution-focused residential program, only after volunteers found someone (an ASU student) to adopt her 18-year-old cat – the main concern of this woman who had little else in this world.

With 116 volunteers, 76 victims were served at Project ROSE with 73 eligible for the Diversion Program. They were between the ages of 19 and 55, with 71 women, four transgender individuals and one male.

Overall, 29 victims received health care services from Healthcare for the Homeless, 26 saw EMPACT for mental health services, 23 saw Community Bridges with seven entering crisis detox, 10 into safe housing and 73 completed intakes at Catholic Charities Dignity Diversion.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with mandatory sentencing laws, that seems like something key to the activist's complaint here. Otherwise, the article seems more like an editorial than a news article, and has misrepresented some basic facts. Is that article from Al Jazeera? Really?

There is absolutely nothing at all in any article that says they are trying to 'save their souls'. Catholic charities is generally a secular program.

Fact one: They were not under arrest, this was a diversion program to avoid that. So I'm missing what the complaint's about here. Is it that they should have all gone directly to jail? Or that laws should not be enforced? Or that we need more lawyers?

Most states including Arizona allow people to be held without being charged for a limited time. Being handcuffed is not the same as being arrested. A drunk being sent to detox is not kidnapping. A kid caught shoplifting and released to their parents has not been kidnapped. People picked up for prostitution and taken to a counseling center instead of jail is not being kidnapped. That's just nonsense and a misrepresentation of fact.

Agree with the law or not, prostitution is a crime in Arizona.

Look at how many of the people picked up went to a mental health program or were treated for substance abuse. Prostitution is not a form of health care.

Is this really a life that someone would choose for themselves? In any country? So where are all the male prostitutes? Where are all the older prostitutes? Which human rights organizations are supporters of legal prostitution?

Prostitution attracts crime to an area and is a business that lowers property values while giving nothing at all back to a community.

If it were to be legal it should be taxed, zoned, and regulated. Prostitutes would receive health care, regular working hours, day care for their children. Costs would go up a lot. Only the rich white men could afford it, something I suspect is the case where it is legal.
 
Last edited:
As I understand this ... if the prostitutes agree to sign up for the program, then the arrest is no longer pursued. If the response is "hell no, I ain't going to that church thing" then I suppose the arrest proceeds, and charges filed under statutes previously cited in this thread.

Sounds less than crystal clean to me. Seems that if a violation of the law is formally observed and acted upon by the officer, then the arrest is made and a citation issued. After that, per due process, the follow on part of the justice system, in the DA's office or a court, could offer a mitigation of the arrest/crime via a variety of pleas/deals ... which could include a program like this, be it based in a church or other civic body.

This part needs a bit of scrutiny. They seem to be cutting out the middle man, but also not quite fulfilling the due process bit.
I am not a Lawyer, and it appears that some lawyers may have been involved in figuring this out.
According to Project ROSE's website, most costs are absorbed by taxpayers, who pay the salaries of the officers carrying out the raids. Fifteen-hundred dollars (£900) more per day goes to the Bethany Bible Church. Volunteers, including students from Arizona State University, fill in the gaps. SWOP-Phoenix, an activist organisation by and for sex workers, is filing freedom of information requests to discover ROSE's other sources of funding.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Potential separation issue there.

I appreciate what the lady from academia is trying to get at: the problem of a lot of human trafficking in that area, and many of these pros being both victim and criminal at the same time. Not sure that this is the answer.
 
Last edited:
Folks, there are ample threads on this forum where "should prostitution be illegal or not" are raised.

This topic has to do with a law that is in place, and then what has arisen from that. I would like to suggest that we stick to that topic.
 
Kopji said:
Most states including Arizona allow people to be held without being charged for a limited time. Being handcuffed is not the same as being arrested. A drunk being sent to detox is not kidnapping. A kid caught shoplifting and released to their parents has not been kidnapped.
Click to expand...

I am not sure you are correct.
If police handcuff you and transport you to another location where they ask you questions about crimes you may have committed, they are expected1 to Mirandize you. The fact that these women were interrogated without access to legal counsel is a violation of their Constitutional rights.

People picked up for prostitution and taken to a counseling center instead of jail is not being kidnapped. That's just nonsense and a misrepresentation of fact.
Click to expand...

They were handcuffed and not allowed access to lawyers. Police driving people to counseling centers in handcuffs may not reach the level of kidnapping (I'll let an actual lawyer cover that), but it sure looks like illegal detainment.

............
[1] technically, the police can question you in such a situation, but none of your answers can be used in a court of law. You cannot be convicted on any answers you give under these circumstances.
 
Ladewig said:
I am not sure you are correct.
If police handcuff you and transport you to another location where they ask you questions about crimes you may have committed, they are expected1 to Mirandize you.
Click to expand...
I agree. My (albeit imperfect) understanding of U.S. law is that arrest occurs when the police control your physical movements and prevent (or would prevent) you from going about your business. Where I come from (UK) this would unquestionably be an arrest, requiring the equivalent of Miranda. It therefore seems to be a situation in which it is generally agreed that rights attach.

I thought that diversion programs were used primarily after formal charging, as an alternative to prosecution - rather than as some sort of alternative to investigation & charging.
 
Aulus Agerius said:
I agree. My (albeit imperfect) understanding of U.S. law is that arrest occurs when the police control your physical movements and prevent (or would prevent) you from going about your business. Where I come from (UK) this would unquestionably be an arrest, requiring the equivalent of Miranda. It therefore seems to be a situation in which it is generally agreed that rights attach.

I thought that diversion programs were used primarily after formal charging, as an alternative to prosecution - rather than as some sort of alternative to investigation & charging.
Click to expand...
My brother in law is a cop in a city with a program somewhat like you are describing. I'll need to do a little digging, but the Chief of Police was in the papers a while back describing the program, defending it, and so on.

Give me a day or so, I'll get a link.
 
In November 2013, Roe-Sepowitz told Al Jazeera: “Once you've prostituted you can never not have prostituted... "​

I red that quote and think
Once you have placed some idol above God, you can never not have once placed an idol above God.

Once you have coveted you neighbor's wife or ox or donkey, you can never not have once coveted your neighbor's wife or ox or donkey1.​

Doesn't the New Testament say that all sins are equal in that any sin is capable of sending one to hell? Making prostitution a sin that is "more equal than others" seems somewhat extra-biblical .

Also, Jesus didn't tie people up to make sure they heard His message, did He?



...........
[1] extra bigotry point for the Bible putting wives in a list of property.
 
Crow T R0bot said:
And Arizona for the umpteenth time proves how backwards and depraved it is as it tries to resolve its "problems" with prostitution.



There's more...much more...and much worse, in the article. I think it's time we took a star off our flag at this rate if this is how Arizona treats the human beings on its soil.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose in the strict sense of the term, this so called ‘Project Rose’ thing is legal.

However, I would say that it is just barely legal and the city of Phoenix, AZ is dancing terribly close to the foul line and their feet are starting to collect chalk dust.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Folks, there are ample threads on this forum where "should prostitution be illegal or not" are raised.

This topic has to do with a law that is in place, and then what has arisen from that. I would like to suggest that we stick to that topic.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
If the deal is that if you go to a Church sponsored religious based program you will have charges of prostitution against you dropped,then IMHO it is a clear cut case of violation of the Seperation of Church and State.
 
Darth Rotor said:
...
I appreciate what the lady from academia is trying to get at: the problem of a lot of human trafficking in that area, and many of these pros being both victim and criminal at the same time. Not sure that this is the answer.
Click to expand...

"We're here to help! Now UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SPREAD 'EM!"

Ladewig said:
I am not sure you are correct.
If police handcuff you and transport you to another location where they ask you questions about crimes you may have committed, they are expected1 to Mirandize you. The fact that these women were interrogated without access to legal counsel is a violation of their Constitutional rights.



They were handcuffed and not allowed access to lawyers. Police driving people to counseling centers in handcuffs may not reach the level of kidnapping (I'll let an actual lawyer cover that), but it sure looks like illegal detainment.

............
[1] technically, the police can question you in such a situation, but none of your answers can be used in a court of law. You cannot be convicted on any answers you give under these circumstances.
Click to expand...

Now now, they weren't arrests, they were "contacts", just as those raids were really "programs". And the dirty cop who clubs you across the brain stem is just giving you a "neck massage".
 
I'm going to get on the horn and ask a few questions - I've got friends in AZ LEA's and when the linked article got to the part about "two years" for offering oral for $20.00 my eyebrows jumped off my head.

The church program nonsense is bad enough, but I've never heard of a simple street solicitation conviction resulting in being sentenced to more than a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom