Providence Democrats abandon their bills strengthening the state's prostitution laws after critics say the language unfairly targets women.

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, June 16, 2005

BY AMANDA MILKOVITS
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- Prostitutes who work behind closed doors will be able to dodge the law for at least another year.

Pressure from local civil-rights groups has killed efforts by the police and City Hall to criminalize prostitution in brothels, escort services, and illegal massage parlors.

The Providence Democrats sponsoring legislation that would have strengthened the state's prostitution laws are abandoning their bills. Rep. Joseph S. Almeida said yesterday he was withdrawing his bill after getting calls from activists and others that the measure unfairly targets women. His decision came three weeks after Sen. Rhoda E. Perry chose to drop her version of the bill for the same reasons.

"They don't feel going after the girls is the answer," Almeida said.

That was welcome news to the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, which had lobbied the legislators to drop the bill.

And it was a dismaying surprise to the head of the Providence police's vice squad. Providence has nearly a dozen brothels masquerading as massage parlors -- including three within walking distance of City Hall.

Last week, Lt. Thomas Verdi told the House Judiciary Committee that Providence would be the "capital of the Northeast" for prostitution if the bill wasn't approved.

"I'm very disappointed," he said yesterday, when told Almeida withdrew the bill.

Rhode Island is the only state whose prostitution law doesn't outlaw sex-for-money indoors -- and those involved in the prostitution business know it, he said. "Several years ago, there were one or two [massage parlors]. Now we're up to 10," Verdi added. "Unless we find another avenue, what's to say it can't go to 20?"

There are clusters of massage parlors, which the police say are actually brothels, operating throughout the state. The police raid them, but charges of prostitution don't stick because of a 25-year-old loophole in the law.

The state's law criminalizing prostitution was changed then after a group of female prostitutes sued in federal court with claims that the Providence police were discriminating against women in their arrests.

The law at the time made prostitution a felony. The General Assembly amended the law to the current version of loitering for indecent purposes, a misdemeanor. The law targets the streetwalkers, their pimps, and customers who solicit them from their vehicles. But there is no provision for prostitutes working for escort services and brothels.

Up until 2 1/2 years ago, the Providence police were charging women for prostitution inside massage parlors. They stopped after Warwick lawyer Michael J. Kiselica persuaded District Court judges to dismiss the cases based on the wording of the current law.

Both Almeida and Perry sponsored bills targeting the prostitutes and those who knowingly permit prostitution on their premises. The crime was a misdemeanor, with a six-month sentence and $250 fine.

But both were swayed by arguments from the ACLU and local activist group Direct Action for Rights and Equality that the legislation unfairly singled out women.

Almeida, a former Providence police officer, had called his bill a "great tool" for the police. But then he skipped the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee last week. He said he didn't intend to amend the bill for this session, but would meet with Verdi later to discuss a version for next year.

The legislation was heard after a series of raids at massage parlors, including one where the police found cots in a room where the women were apparently living. Providence Police Chief Dean M. Esserman said the women were locked inside the massage parlor -- raising questions of sex trafficking.

If that's the case, Steven Brown, executive director of the state ACLU, said yesterday, the police should target those running the brothels.

"Arresting and jailing these women is going to put the tiniest dent in the problem," Brown said. "It's a way women are further victimized. . . . I find it hard to understand the rationale for recognizing women are locked in their rooms, and the solution is to put them in jail."

While the police have said that arresting the prostitutes would give them a method to investigate and close the brothels down, Brown disagreed.

"These are women who fear for their lives," Brown said. "I don't know how the thought of a six-month sentence will give them the fortitude to cooperate with the police."

But Verdi said the legislation would have given the police a tool to investigate the brothels and pressure them to close down.

Now the police seek other ways, with limited success.

The illegal massage parlors aren't licensed by the state, so the police arrest the prostitutes for "massage without a license," a misdemeanor. The police also charge the managers with pandering or harboring, and arrest pimps for deriving support from the prostitutes.

The latter charges are difficult, Verdi said, because they require some cooperation from the prostitutes. The pandering charge isn't applicable to a prostitute working out of a home or a hotel room, he said.

Using the attorney general's nuisance task force, the police can pressure the landlords to evict the brothels. However, without the record of arrests, the police have little to make their case.

Verdi says the current law discriminates between arresting the street prostitutes, who are often poor and drug-dependent, and leaving alone the high-class call girls working for escort services or brothels.

By not changing the law, Verdi said, more women will end up in prostitution in Rhode Island -- working by the dozens in the brothels.