Sex, death and the law in Hong Kong

Easy prey

Nov 27th 2008 | HONG KONG. From The Economist print edition

The law may be endangering prostitutes in Hong Kong

JUST after midnight on November 23rd, the landlady of a building in
an older district of Hong Kong checked on one of her tenants, a
prostitute. The sheets were bloody and the woman was dead, apparently
strangled. The murder was similar to four killings that occurred in
March—three in the New Territories on the mainland, one on Hong Kong
island. The investigation that followed quickly led to the arrest of
one man accused of the first three killings and another for the
fourth, deemed to be a copycat crime.

The latest death has prompted police to raid prostitutes' haunts and
scrutinise footage from Hong Kong's ubiquitous video cameras.
Critical clues in the March killings were said to include video
images and the use of an electronic pass for the city's metro that
allowed police to trace a suspect's movements. But as effective as
the Hong Kong police may be in capturing criminals, the murders have
raised a wider question: rather than protecting prostitutes, are Hong
Kong's laws contributing to their deaths?

Seeking to ensure that women are not forced into prostitution, Hong
Kong makes it illegal for anyone but the prostitute to profit from
her services. A laudable sentiment, perhaps. But the consequence is
that a sex worker in Hong Kong may not hire the basic protection an
office worker would expect, nor is she permitted under the law to
share her quarters with other women. As a result, prostitutes are
uniquely vulnerable.

To some extent, this vulnerability is mitigated by the triads—local
gangsters —and by informal co-operation among prostitutes. But the
informal support is of limited use against a violent client, and
providing business opportunities for gangsters is hardly desirable.
A recent Hong Kong court decision raises more awkward questions.

On May 15th the owner of a website that carried advertisements for
prostitutes was sentenced to 18 months in jail for conspiring to live
off prostitutes' earnings. By this standard, who else might be
guilty?

Local newspapers carry solicitation advertisements, and could in
theory be prosecuted (none has been), as could landlords, doctors who
treat prostitutes and even, notes one legal critic, the Water
Authority, which enables a prostitute to take a shower—sometimes
presumably with a client. Plainly, better and clearer rules are
needed.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12708142