THE DRUMBEAT has been steady. Many writers on these pages believe that many women who sell sex in Rhode Island do so against their will, that they are trafficked to Rhode Island by contemptible international syndicates. Somehow, they say, these women would be better off were we to empower police to arrest them, and the courts to imprison them.

We think that idea runs counter to the ideals and very purpose of our criminal-justice system: Since when do we arrest and punish the victims of crimes? Human trafficking is obviously a despicable practice; its magnitude in Rhode Island remains in question.

We don’t contest that trafficking occurs, and we want to protect the victims. Prostitution, however, is different than human trafficking, even though some proponents of putting prostitutes in prison have cynically conflated the two issues. This point was underscored in testimony to the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary committee, provided by lawyer Ann Jordan, director of the Program on Human Trafficking at American University’s law school: “The bill erroneously assumes that arresting women who sell sex will somehow lead to more prosecutions for human trafficking. This is not an effective strategy.”

We support separate legislation that would actually make it easier to prosecute traffickers. We voted against H5044, which criminalizes all prostitutes. We join many organizations, including the Rhode Island chapters of the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood, and several groups that have worked specifically on human trafficking in our opposition to the bill. None of us want to see more women wind up in the ACI, where 215 women were already imprisoned for prostitution last year.

Under the proposed legislation, the police would raid suspected brothels, and arrest women “for their own good.” Some of the women arrested would be victims of trafficking, but most probably would not. A genuine trafficking victim detained under the prospective law would likely be traumatized, poor, of foreign origin, limited in English language skills, and with an over-worked public defender as her only guide to the legal system.

She would face an impossible dilemma: be prosecuted, or prove that she is a victim and help the police prosecute her traffickers. Even if competent to mount her defense and build a case against her handlers, she could reasonably choose to sit in prison instead.

As Jordan asserts, “Such coercive tactics might expose the women or their families to violence from the traffickers who remain at large . . . . It is highly probable that the overwhelming majority of victims of trafficking would be arrested and prosecuted multiple times for prostitution . . . without ever being recognized as victims.” A victim should be able to freely decide if it is in her interest to cooperate, without the state hovering over her, its coercive cudgel drawn.

Robert Moosy, the director of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Section of the Civil Rights Division, has noted that trafficking victims usually fear law enforcement precisely because they worry they will be prosecuted for prostitution. The proposed law would legitimate and deepen this fear, and lessen the likelihood that women would approach the authorities.

While human trafficking is clearly tied to immigration, the proposed anti-prostitute law contains no affirmative protections for women relative to immigration status, whether or not they cooperate with the police. So in addition to jail time, the state would hang potential deportation over the heads of the victims for whom we purport to have so much sympathy.

Where does this leave the remaining women, likely the large majority of prostitutes, who engage in sex work by choice, whether out of economic hardship or because of substance-abuse problems? The focus of all people of good will, no matter what their views on prostitution may be, should be to work together to address the root causes. A woman who, up until the prospective criminalization of indoor prostitution, had been working legally would now go to jail. Imprisoning her addresses none of the underlying causes of prostitution and costs the state tens of thousands of dollars. Other women would be punished with a fine of up to $1,000.

It is clear to us where these women would find that money, in this economy, when they have been supporting themselves through legal sex work, and will be saddled with new criminal records that will make it even harder to find a legitimate job. The state would thus compel further prostitution by women who are struggling to pay off fines levied against them, under threat of imprisonment.

So, rather than enact legislation that will only make matters worse, let’s heed the advice of the experts. The Urban Justice Center’s Sex Worker Project put it succinctly. The solution to the human-trafficking problem “is more effective and vigorous enforcement of federal anti-trafficking legislation and passage of strengthened state anti-trafficking legislation, not the wholesale criminalization of the very persons you seek to help.”

David Segal and Edith Ajello are Rhode Island state representatives.