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

LogicMy 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.Health1. 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' StatementsI 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 ItI 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.Sources: [1] http://annaengel.wordpress.com...[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...[3] http://www.havocscope.com...