Sex Work

Immigrant Sex Workers Say They're Victimized by NYPD, Not Traffickers



For the second time since September, The New York Times profiles one of the state's specialized criminal courts created to handle prostitution cases, known as "human trafficking intervention courts." This one, in Queens, sees largely Latin American and Asian defendants, including a large number of undocumented immigrants. Many turned to sex work with debt piling up and few other employment options. 

This is, of course, precisely the cohort that elicits the most concern. All those American-born sex workers on Twitter may insist they want "rights, not rescue," but surely these low-income, low-skill women are victims. Surely they'll appreciate state power being used to help rend them from their wretched lives. 

Yeah, no. The women the Times talked to "often don't define themselves as having been trafficked."

On several Fridays, nearly a dozen women said during interviews in Mandarin that they did not feel like trafficking victims, but victims of the police.

While some appreciated the social services they were connected to through the court, they didn't appreciate the arrest and court dates required to get there. "We're still arresting them at a very rapid pace," Leigh Latimer, a Legal Aid Society lawyer assigned to the court, told the Times. "We're trying to solve their problems through being arrested, which is not an affirming process."

So far in 2014, Queens has seen 686 arrests for misdemeanor prostitution and loitering charges. (In contrast, it's seen only 15 cases against traffickers.)

Sex workers who go through the New York's Human Trafficking Intervention Courts can opt for a series of counseling sessions in lieu of jail time. If they remain out of trouble for six months, the charge will be wiped from their records. While this is certainly better than giving everyone jail time and criminal records, nearly 40 percent of cases in the past year did not end in counseling but traditional prostitution punishments. 

"The women who accept the court's deal attend full-day group counseling sessions once a week," the Times notes. One can't imagine it's financially easy for low-income women—whether working in sex work or whatever—to lose a full day's pay once a week for six weeks or to arrange for this time off from work or child care. But at least they may learn some useful skills to help them start earning money in a post-prostitution life right?

… they often begin the day with yoga, and then learn about the court process, their rights and prostitution law. 

Let them eat yoga, darlings! Who needs to earn a living when you have good intentions on your side?

NEXT: WATCH: America's 3 Most Fee-Ridden Cities

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. First.

    1. So fucking what?

      It’s an early afternoon thread, and you didn’t say anything beyond the fact that you’re trying to Fist the thread.

      1. Yeah. For that stupid shit, he’s been added to my Reasonable ignore list.

        1. There are so many other, better, reasons to add asshat to the ignore.

          1. Well, I figured either 1) he’s too stupid to know how annoying it is, or 2) he knows how annoying it is and is deliberately trolling.

            And either way means I have nothing to lose with the ignore.

  2. The yoga may come in handy during the once and future career, no?

  3. I support the decriminalization of prostitution, but what’s with all this PC crap? Sex workers? What’s wrong with the word “prostitute?” In addition, it’s insulting to those of us who do actual work.

    Let them eat yoga, darlings! Who needs to earn a living when you have progressive good intentions on your side?

    As if “sex work” is their only possibility to “earn” a living. Seriously this is the kind of crap I’m used to seeing on feminist sites.

    1. Calling anything for which people are willing to pay “not actual work” is what’s insulting.

      1. Is standing on the street begging for money also “work?” People get money to do it!

        1. The people who do it call it “working a sign,” so apparently they think so.

          1. Seriously? If they were carrying those advertising placards around I’d call that working a sign. Those guys are at least getting paid to perform a service, and not just playing off pity.

            1. They provide a service. Some people actually have hearts, and it makes them feel good when they give to beggars. So the beggars provide a service by giving charitable people a moment of good feels.

            2. and not just playing off pity.

              Worked with the homeless so they evoke no pity from me. Two points:

              1: There’s a guy “working a sign” (aka spangin’ up in Brooklyn Center who jumps up and down while wildly waving the sign. If he can do that, he can get a fucking job.

              2: Passed a guy “working a sign” that read “Total Despair”. Busted a gut laughing so hard. Two weeks later and it still makes me smile.

        2. That’s debatable, but what’s not debatable is that prostitution is “actual work.” They’re providing a service to paying customers.

    2. As if “sex work” is their only possibility to “earn” a living.

      Um, for immigrant women with little English and no work visas, it may be.

      1. In my own community, I see plenty of people with little English but non-sex-related jobs. (And “work visas” are kind of a joke given the under-enforcement of immigration laws)

        Let’s see – there’s the Asian seamstresses at the tailor shop (and many of their customers are cops, so they have a bit of protection), the clerks and owners at the convenience stores, the owners and wait staff at the Chinese restaurants (limited English), and that’s just off the top of my head in one community.

        1. Clearly, you know every single immigrant in those communities, right?

          1. All I know is they have little English, and as to work visas, the underground economy isn’t as insistent on those.

            IOW, I’m responding to the specific point raised.

            1. Um, for immigrant women with little English and no work visas, it may be.

              Bolded the part you seem to have missed. That does not imply that this is the case for all such women.

            2. Historically, when has “limited English” restricted immigrants to the sex trade?

              I think a look at the history of immigration in this country would show otherwise.

              1. I think a look at the history of immigration in this country would show otherwise.

                I think a look at the history of this country would show a thriving sex trade among underprivileged women.

                1. Both statements are true.

                  But my point – that immigrants with limited English can get a foothold in the U.S. economy without being hookers – stands.

                  1. No. Your now stated point “can get” is not your original point, mocking the idea that some people are less able than others to get non-sex work.

                    Hypocritic statist, but I repeat myself.

                    1. OK, then, here is what I was replying to:

                      “[Morrion] As if “sex work” is their *only possibility* to “earn” a living. [emphasis added]

                      [ENB] Um, for immigrant women with little English and no work visas, it may be.”

                      Did you note the phrase “only possibility”? That’s the ENB claim I’m disputing.

                    2. Your grasp of the English language is pathetic.

                      “For some people, a certain condition may be impossible.”

                      That’s as clear as it can be. Your lack of understanding does not make it babble.

                    3. Thats some Bo level stuff

                    4. Why do either of you consider sex work to be less desirable than other employment? Maybe these women do have other options and simply decide that sex work is the preferable choice.

        2. If these women really did have no other choice than prostitution, basic economics tells us their wages would be a lot less than they actually are.

          1. What are their wages and how much lower would they be?

            1. The wages vary but are usually much higher than fast food work.

              1. It’s almost like it’s a function of supply and demand, with an added premium thanks to the risk imposed by the state. You must have skipped your basic economics class when they covered that.

            2. Here’s a study on wages of prostitutes:


              1. What would their wages be if you deducted what they made off of married men without the consent of their wives?

                I mean, if we’re following the libertarian model that sex must be “consensual” – meaning that if you promise sexual exclusivity to another person, you should be held to your bargain?

                1. I don’t think that’s what “consensual” means. Are you suggesting that married men who use prostitutes’ services are being raped because their wives own their consent? That’s a novel idea.
                  Breaking your marital promises to a third party is something different (and still technically illegal in many places).

                  1. As it stands, civil marriage bears no resemblance to that kind of contract. If that’s what you want, fine, but 1) that’s not what anyone else signed up for, and 2) enforcing that is not the responsibility of a third party.

                    Also, the assumption that unfaithful husbands are somehow the main money maker for sex workers is not warranted.

                2. What would their wages be if you deducted what they made off of married men without the consent of their wives?

                  I mean, if we’re following the libertarian model that sex must be “consensual” – meaning that if you promise sexual exclusivity to another person, you should be held to your bargain?

                  What on earth are you talking about? You’re taking more liberties with the word “consensual” than even the radfems do there.

                  1. Obviously it’s a sign that gay marriage is destroying traditional marriage. And something about abortion too.

                    1. Nailed it. Like a roman criminal to a tee-shaped stand.

                    2. OK, let me repeat the example I gave below.

                      You make a contract with Jones by which you give him seed money to design a better and more efficient dildo, and in exchange he promises to split the profits 50/50.

                      He takes your money, invents the superior dildo, but instead of letting you have half the profits, he gives your half to some other guy.

                      Do you have a right to complain? Is the guy who stole your profits in the clear as far as Libertarian Theory is concerned?

                    3. OK, you win. THROW THE WHORES IN PRISON.

                3. Why assume that marriage necessarily includes an agreement to sexual exclusivity? In my case it certainly doesn’t (and my wife would be upset if I suggested it, even though we have been de facto monogamous in our marriage to date).

        3. Who TF appointed you guardian of the word “work”? Who put you in charge of what is appropriate work for anybody other than yourself? You’re just another statist, with yourself as the self-appointed state apparently.

          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Who the fuck put you in charge of whether to call others a “slaver?” You’re just another self appointed statist.

            1. I put myself in charge of my calling statists slevers.

              What is your major malfunction?

            2. Morrion, you’re showing your n00b big time. “Fuck off, slaver” is kind of a thing here, and SR used it correctly and appropriately.

          2. I’m more annoyed by the scare quotes around “earn”. Did the prostitute steal the money or something?

            1. No, you have to do real, worthwhile labor (as defined by Morron) for it to count as legitimate earning.

      2. And even if it’s not the only option, it is one of the better options among few. The proper response to anyone who wants to remove that option is: fuck off slaver.

      3. They can always go back to their own shitty countries and do real work there.

        But let’s look at how libertarians look at it, these women are so extremely poor that they have no choice but to sell themselves. And what do libertarians want to do about it? Nothing! No help for these women, no offers of education or work. Talk about the attitude of French aristocracy!

        1. Are you the poster formerly known as American?

          1. No.

          2. Would you really expect TPFKAA to answer honestly, Eddie?

        2. And what do libertarians want to do about it? Nothing! No help for these women, no offers of education or work.

          Wait. When did libertarians turn against private charity? Oh wait, you’re just full of shit. Carry on then.

          1. Works wonders in the third world doesn’t it? Also worked wonders in the gilded age, pre revolutionary France, ect.

            And of course, it’s working wonders right now, for these prostitutes.

            1. What are you complaining about? All those people stayed in their own shitty countries and did real work.

        3. And what do libertarians want to do about it? Nothing!

          I wish. We need more do-nothing and whole lot do-something.

        4. Libertarians would absolutely offer work and access to education. As for help, we would offer all the private charitable aid that people were willing to provide. What we wouldn’t offer is the ability of cops to blackmail these women for free services or pimps to extort them with the threat of deportation.

          1. You think there is a “threat of deportation?”

            You’re living in a fantasy world.

            1. Yeah, no one ever gets deported. Nope, doesn’t happen. And Obama hasn’t presided over more deportations than any recent president.

            2. Hi. Maybe you’re new here, so I should be polite, but man, you suck ass.

              Do you really think a young girl prostitute from Salvador who speaks little or no English is going tho say to a pimp who threatens her with deportation “You know, you’re living in a fantasy world.”

              Sucks. Ass.

            3. Way to dodge the rest of HeteroPatriarch’s post… coward.

        5. And making their lives worse by making them jump through mandatory bureaucratic hoops is preferable? Please let me know how you’d go about saving all of these poor souls, Mr. White Knight. I’m interested in what infinite wisdom you have to offer.

      4. Um, for immigrant women with little English and no work visas, it may be.

        Construct a hypothetical where this is the case.

    3. You misspelled your name.

    4. Work = F x d. They’re doing something in exchange for money. That’s not only work, but also earning a living.

      If that offends your sensibilities, tough shit.

    5. You’re new here, obviously. You seem to have confused this with a socon site, which this is not. You’d probably be happier at freep.

      The word “prostitute” is both judgemental and not truly descriptive of the wide range of sex-worker services, not all of which involve intercourse or even touching.

      And, yes it is real work.

      1. I do think the term ‘sex worker’ is generally lame though. How about sexigneer?

        1. Yes, it’s lame.

          But I hate the overclassifying of anything and everything as engineers – domestic engineer (housewife), sanitary engineer (trash collector, IIRC)…

          1. ‘Meretrix’ was the term the Romans used for registered prostitutes that had to pay taxes. That’s kind of classy at least.

            1. Botherin your livestock.
              They know what I need.

      2. I don’t really care if “prostitute” is judgemental or not. If that’s what you are and that’s what you want to be then I have no (legal) problem with it. FTR, I would also be fine with “whore”.

        1. That’s fine. But even then “sex work” covers more than just prostitution.

    6. How is it relevant at all that it is or is not their only possibility to earn a living? It is the work they are doing. And it involves sex. So “sex workers”, just like people who work in construction are called “construction workers”. I don’t see how it is any less “real” work than any other service or entertainment job.

      Also, “sex worker” often includes things besides just sex-for-money prostitution.

      What do you do for work?

    7. You’ve inserted an unnecessary “ri” in your name.

  4. Yoga and counseling are very cute, but are these women linked up to honest jobs?

    I suspect that, without a non-hooker job to fall back on, these ladies will be back to sex work as soon as the judge’s eye is turned, if not sooner.

    1. Why are so many of these “rehabilitation” programs so long on counseling and so short on real work?

      There’s a whole Chinatown in NY, call those guys up and see what the job situation is like.

      NY is welfare state central, and they can’t have a jobs program, an education program, etc?

      I mean yoga? Really?

    2. The prosecutor and the baliff got their contact information on the way out to set up ‘follow-up’ visits.

    3. The job IS honest. It’s the legal system that makes honest work illegal per se which is not honest, and the cops, prosecutors, and judges which implement that dishonesty.

      The difference is who’s doing the screwing and whether it’s what they paid for.

    4. I see nothing dishonest about exchanging sex for cash on a per-transaction basis.

      1. It’s not like they’re doing policing or anything.

    5. Why isn’t whoring an honest job? Woman has a commodity that is in demand. Woman offer commodity in exchange for a fee. Customers willingly pay.

      WTF is dishonest about that?

    6. What’s inherently dishonest about sex work?

      I think you have a good point here, though. If they really want to get these people out of the sex business, actual alternatives would probably help more than counseling.

      1. Because then they run into the problem of why should someone have to sin or suffer before you help them? And it’s just not as satisfying to their nanny moral pureness to help people who haven’t hit rock bottom.

    7. Why do you suggest that prostitution (as well as many other forms of sex work) is not honest?

  5. “Sex workers who go through the New York’s Human Trafficking Intervention Courts can opt for a series of counseling sessions in lieu of jail time.”

    Is this like drug abuse counseling for DWI offenders? If so it makes perfect sense. It is essentially the CJ system shaking down people who can’t fend for themselves, splitting the proceeds with their cronies in the counseling industry.

    1. And it’s hard to have a thriving counseling industry if the clients keep getting sent off to jobs.

      Counsel me this – screw you, and find honest work for these ladies!

      1. Their current line of work is about as honest as it gets.

        1. A lot of the clients (I’m told) are married men – it’s not very honest to their wives for them to go to hookers.

          1. That’s the customer believing in a dishonest fashion, has nothing to do with the actual worker providing the service.

          2. That’s still not the prostitutes being dishonest, Eddie. Not expecting you to climb out of your narrative, but do realize that the actual realists here do see a difference.

            1. So if I buy stolen goods from a fence, I’m being honest?

              Because that sure sounds like a close analogy to someone who earns money from the violation of marital vows.

              1. How is the sex worker similar to a fence in this situation? The fence is selling stolen goods, the sex worker is selling a service that requires the use of no stolen goods, only her/his own body.

                1. It’s the narrative, JT. Eddie (TNGKC) disapproves, so we must all disapprove.

                2. Ah sorry, didn’t read that correctly. But still, how is the sex worker responsible for the actions of the client outside of their work relationship/trade agreement? Is the knife company responsible if a customer murders someone with their product?

                  1. Better still, if I buy a mink coat for my mistress, is the furrier a bad person?

              2. You understand that marrying somebody is not purchasing ownership of them, right? If I sell something that I own, it’s not dishonest for somebody to buy it, even if my wife doesn’t want me to sell it. You are clearly insane on this topic.

                1. You you are more likely to own a wife than a sex worker. Sex workers do to sell their bodies as I have been 1 for 30 years and I still own my body.

              3. It’s more like selling goods without ensuring that the money was earned honestly. In other words, it’s like almost all commerce.

                1. Sex workers do earn their money honestly, yet capitalism and corporate American doesn’t.

              4. So if I buy stolen goods from a fence, I’m being honest?

                Because that sure sounds like a close analogy to someone who earns money from the violation of marital vows.

                You are, in fact, aware that adultery is not a crime in this day and age, correct? That being the case, how does anything you are saying make sense?

              5. If a man promises his wife he’ll quit drinking, does that mean it’s the bartender’s fault when he falls off the wagon?

                Your proposition only makes sense if you start from the position that “sex for money” is intrinsically bad–which is a position that much of society takes, but nobody here does.

                1. OK, then, let’s assume for purposes of discussion that marriage is merely a contract: “The party of the first part and the party of the second part agree to live together and share household expenses and support each other in sickness and health, and forsake other sexual partners, as witness our signatures.”

                  We can at least agree that a husband who has signed such a contract with his wife is violating the terms of the contract if he has sex with a prostitute? And can at least be compelled to pay damages for this contractual breach?

                  Suppose you pay Jones to develop a superior dildo and split the profits 50/50. Then Jones takes your money, makes the dildo, and instead of splitting the profits with you, splits them with some other guy?

                  Would that other guy be acting in accord with strict libertarian principles?

                  So if we uphold contractual rights in a contract involving a dildo, why not in a contract involving marital relations?

                  1. What does any of that have to do with your original criticism of the claim that sex work is honest? The sex worker has no responsibility towards the actions of the client.

                    1. See the example above – if someone has promised you half of the profits of his dildo business but I take your share, knowing about the contractual rights you have, am I being honest?

                    2. I’ve never seen H&R people so tongue-tied in a dildo-related discussion!

                    3. Sex work is not a business partnership, it is a service sold by a producer to a consumer. The producer has zero obligations towards the consumer’s other contractual obligations. They did not agree to any such obligations, all they agreed to was providing a service, which they fulfilled, i.e. honest work. The consumer’s contractual obligations are not the sex worker’s.

                      The secondary partner in your example provides no services or financial support and is a false example when compared to the actions of sex workers, which specifically provide a service for monetary benefit.

                    4. To me, it’s just as if Beth gave her husband Bob some money to buy a crib for the baby, but Bob instead uses the money to pay for the services of Christine, a prostitute.

                      Christine has profited from taking stolen money – never mind the legal implications, is she morally in the clear?

                      If not, what are we to say if Bob has promised sexual fidelity to Beth, and swore that the money he had would be used to promote the interests of the marriage he has with Beth?

                    5. And once again, Christine has no moral obligations because she is not part of Bob and Beth’s contract. Bob is fully responsible for his behaviour, but Christine is providing service for monetary benefit. That’s it, full stop. She has no moral responsibility towards where Bob got the money, in the same way that anyone selling goods and receiving ‘dishonest’ or stolen money is not responsible for the actions of the consumer. You seem to make a very specific exception to that concept.

                    6. To me, it’s just as if Beth gave her husband Bob some money to buy a crib for the baby, but Bob instead uses the money to pay for the services of Christine, a prostitute.

                      Christine has profited from taking stolen money – never mind the legal implications, is she morally in the clear?

                      But this question would apply regardless of what Bob does with the money. What if he buys a lawnmower, or donates it to the Red Cross? Are you suggesting the Red Cross should be held responsible?

              6. Then the wife had better start spreading her legs like she’s supposed to. That’s part of the marital vows.

          3. So, I take it, then, that you’d be fine with a hooker who only had single guys as clients?

            1. No, but I wouldn’t waste my time denouncing her in *this* forum!

              1. So let’s stipulate that hooking is OK if the client is single.

                1. Still no reply to my dildo analogy?

                  Who knew that other H&R commenters were more puritanical than me when it came to discussing dildos!

                  1. That’s because it’s a bad analogy.

  6. This is, of course, precisely the cohort that gets white-savior boners popping.

    ENB, did you mean white slavery? But I like where you went with that. 😛

    1. “White-saviors” are professional Social Justice Warriors.

    2. I don’t think she means that, I think she means the whole ‘White Man’s Burden’ attitude that those poor coloured people can’t possibly want to be in their line of work and the only thing to do is for clever white people to socially uplift them.

      1. Yeah, I guess I worded that kind of weirdly, but I meant what John says

        1. Oh, OK, and +1 Rudyard Kipling to JT.

        2. Like Oprah’s school for girls in Africa.

      2. socially uplift them

        By criminalizing their profession, imprisoning and bankrupting them through court and “rehab” costs.

        1. Hey, sometimes you need a stick and a carrot to drive a mule, and sometimes you need to cut off a Congolese man’s arm for stealing to help ‘socially uplift’ him.

          1. And sometimes you just need to smack the shit out of a wife who won’t put out.

  7. I don’t have a naive bone in my body but it just continually staggers my mind that massive legal systems have been built- from law enforcement units, special courts, prisons, and behavior modification schemes- JUST to stop women from selling a fuck.

    Nietzsche was correct when he posited that morality is imposed through immorality.

  8. I guess the recent immigration threads have attracted a new class of troll, of the DEY TUK UR JERBS variant.

    1. There’s also the “libertarians don’t care about those poor immigrants who need to GTFO and go back to their own countries” troll, which is a novel approach, at least.

      1. Yeah, I’m still scratching my head over that one.

  9. A few years back I became good friends with an escort. She told me about a friend of hers who got busted for prostitution by an undercover officer. After she was released from jail the same cop showed up later at her motel expecting a freebie. Not sure if I should be more appalled at the blatant hypocrisy, or the unbelievable chutzpah of the officer. I’ve come to the conclusion the vast majority of vice cops are sociopathic scum.

    1. the vast majority of vice cops are sociopathic scum.

      Most cops in general. It’s not possible to be a vice cop and not be sociopathic scum.

    2. If you are making a career out of caging people for engaging in voluntary activity, then yes you are sociopathic scum.

      Since that is the vast majority of police work, then I would say that the majority (if not all) of police fit that description.

    3. Maggie McNeill has stated unequivocally that she would never take on cops as clients. From high-end escorts they expect freebies and to be allowed abusive games like choking. Street whores they just pimp out (and fuck for free, of course) under threat of arrest.

  10. Now you readers know why our Sex Workers Anonymous meetings were kicked out of the “system”. In 2004, we had SWA meetings in connection with every court in this country. Our members have “sponsors”. Those “sponsors” would hear stories of abuse, and also of denial of medical care. We also would hide our members from corrupt police who wanted control over the “system”. We refused to cooperate with corrupt police and those who had sexually abused our members. When they were being railroaded – we got them private attorney’s. So they kicked us out and replaced us with their “advocates” who are not sworn to confidentiality by the way. So these women pour their hearts out to these people and think it is confidential – only to have them take the stand against them.

    1. OMG Jody 20 years later and you are still playing the victim pimp and trying to make you living off the back’s off other sex workers, and now that you are no longer a madam yourself, you have thrown all sex workers under the bus. Didn’t you just email people last month begging for money to get your teeth fixed.

  11. They say they want to “tap phones” to “find victims” yet I have cases I’ve been trying to get help with that everyone is ignoring. I’ve contacted the mayor, police, district, city and even US Attorney, local citycouncil, politicians, etc. and no one will return my calls about a trafficking ring operating out of Pasadena – but they want to “tap phones”. Wake up. They excluded me from every documentary made after 2008 (I was in every one before 2008). They did this because I was also talking about cases where our own government was behind the trafficking – not a street pimp. That’s pimping and not trafficking. Now they got everyone all wound up about “trafficking” with numbers that are absolutely faked – and they are trying to convince you this is why you need to give up your free speech and privacy rights. The push for johns is to give the traffickers more control who are now robbing the johns and when they want to go to the police for help – they’re now threatened with losing their jobs and families behind being arrested themselves. That’s because the traffickers I see – have law enforcement working for them so why wouldn’t they want to arrest the johns who can rat them out? Plus they can clean out their bank accounts now in the process. If you want help to escape this –

  12. “….When you say that you “rescued” someone, that statement is about empowering and aggrandizing yourself while disempowering the person you think you rescued. This is because “rescuing” creates an uneven power dynamic where the “rescuer” (read: hero) has all of the power in the relationship and the “rescuee” (read: helpless victim) has no agency or role in the exit of his or her abusive.”

    Are you a Erotic Service Provider and you are tired of the discrimination, then its time to join

  13. Cops who rob, rape, exploit and murder sex workers in the US

    http://www.policeprostitutiona…..s_all/COPS DAs JUDGES RAPE EXTORT PROSTITUTES RUN PROSTITUTION RINGS/Cops_rape_solicit_pimp_prostitutes.pdf











  16. When we look at all the prostitution and disorderly conduct arrest in the US over a 30 year period, we see than only 1.8% of the arrests involve minors.
    We also know the average age of entry is 17 to 25 and the average age of those arrested is 35 to 65.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.