Sex Work

Hawaii Cops Demand the Right to Have Sex With Hookers


Comedy Central

Hawaii's prostitution law includes an exemption for "any member of a police department, a sheriff, or a law enforcement officer acting in the course and scope of duties." A bill that the state legislature is considering originally would have limited that exemption to exclude "sexual penetration or sadomasochistic abuse." In response to police objections, that qualification was eliminated; the current version of the bill, which was unanimously approved by the state House of Representatives earlier this month and is now before the state Senate, leaves the exemption as it is.

That's right: Cops insisted that they must be free not just to receive blowjobs and handjobs from prostitutes but also to engage in vaginal and anal intercourse with them. Evidently the police also need permission to engage in "flagellation or torture by or upon a person as an act of sexual stimulation or gratification" (Hawaii's definition of "sadomasochistic abuse"). Just in case. Since an entire chamber of the state legislature agreed to this request, the cops must have had a pretty persuasive argument. Here it is, as summed up by Jason Kawabata, captain of the Honolulu Police Department's Narcotics/Vice Division:

As written, this bill would nullify the exemption if the officer agrees to pay a fee for sexual penetration or sadomasochistic abuse. This would limit the type of violations law enforcement officers are able to enforce. Even if the intent of the amendment is merely to limit actual conduct by the officer, we must oppose it. Codifying the limitations on an officer's conduct would greatly assist pimps and prostitutes in their efforts to avoid prosecution.

In other words, if it were generally known that police are not allowed to engage in sexual penetration or sadomasochistic abuse with prostitutes, suspicious hookers might insist that undercover officers do so to show they are not cops. When those officers balked, their status as agents of law enforcement would be revealed. That scenario seems rather implausible, since a person commits the offense of prostitution as soon as she "agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person for a fee." For Kawabata's fear to be realized, a prostitute would need to have sex first to make sure her customer was not a cop, then negotiate payment afterward, which does not seem like a very good business strategy.

Critics of the exemption argue that it is unnecessary, that it invites abuse, and that it could inflict additional trauma on women coerced into prostitution. More fundamentally, the double standard demanded by police highlights the utter absurdity of prostitution laws. Police do not commit murder to catch killers or knock over banks to catch robbers. Yet here they are insisting that they need the leeway to have sex with prostitutes in order to stop people from having sex with prostitutes. Even if cops never take advantage of that freedom, they routinely commit the crime of agreeing to pay for sex, except that in their case it is not treated as a crime. That exemption is considered acceptable only because exchanging money for sex, unlike murder and robbery, does not violate anyone's rights. But if so, why not broaden the exemption to cover everyone?

NEXT: Illinois Lawmakers to Millionaires: Get Out!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jason Kawabata? The same Jason Kawabata who tortured his wife? Yeah, I can see why that piece of shit would agitate against having his free S&M card revoked.

    1. I mean, that was 4 years ago. He just proved that he is up to the job of torturing suspects.

  2. That is the perfect picture to accompany this story.

    1. Would be perfecter with alt-text.

  3. If the cops need to break a law in order to enforce it, then it’s probably a bad law.

    1. I don’t know, murder is illegal too.

      1. But they’re murdering over traffic laws, not murder laws.

  4. Under this law, if a cop in Hawaii demands sex to make an alleged traffic offense go away, his semen in her would not be evidence of him committing a crime.

  5. So does this mean the Jury can say to cops….

    “Pics or it didn’t happen bro”

  6. Well the joke is on them. Where are they going to find any cops willing to have taxpayer funded sex with hookers?

  7. I’m surprised a whore allowance isn’t something the union had negotiated long ago. Kind of like how the congressional union negotiated an exemption from insider trading rules for its members.

  8. fraud at the very least, rape at the worst.

    prosecuting prostitution is immoral either way.

  9. would have limited that exemption to exclude “sexual penetration or sadomasochistic abuse.”

    Exclude sadomasochistic abuse? But how will the cop get off if he isn’t allowed to knock the bitch around? What a bunch of spoilsports.

  10. You know who else demanded to have sex with hookers? Along with shrubs, cutlery, and barnyard animals…

    1. cutlery
      What’s wrong with spooning?

  11. So, clicking through the link to the law is very enlightening, in particular the commentary on the law:

    History has proven that prostitution is not going to be abolished either by penal legislation nor the imposition of criminal sanctions through the vigorous enforcement of such legislation. Yet the trend of modern thought on prostitution in this country is that “public policy” demands that the criminal law go on record against prostitution.[1] Defining this “public policy” is a difficult task. Perhaps it more correctly ought to be considered and termed “public demand”–a widespread community attitude which the penal law must take into account regardless of the questionable rationales upon which it is based.
    A number of reasons have been advanced for the suppression of prostitution, the most often repeated of which are: “the prevention of disease, the protection of innocent girls from exploitation, and the danger that more sinister activities may be financed by the gains from prostitution.”[2] These reasons are not convincing. Venereal disease is not prevented by laws attempting to suppress prostitution. If exploitation were a significant factor, the offense could be dealt with solely in terms of coercion. Legalizing prostitution would decrease the prostitute’s dependence upon and connection with the criminal underworld and might decrease the danger that “organized crime” might be financed in part by criminally controlled prostitution.

    1. So, that is to say, “we don’t think this law should exist but since it does we’ll make it clearer and lest damaging.”

  12. Bang her Dano.

    Poor Dano always getting McGarret’s sloppy seconds.

  13. I keep thinking this story should have emanated from The Onion.

  14. It has been the targeted that can be the usefuk information

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.