On the edges of the law: sex workers' legal consciousness in England
On the edges of the law: sex workers' legal consciousness in England
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s1744552319000041
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Klambauer, Eva
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Klambauer, Eva
在英国，性工作者被置于法律的边缘。在半法律的环境中，性工作者的社会和法律的地位如何影响他们对法律的看法和与法律的互动，尚未得到探讨。借鉴52定性访谈室内和室外性工作者在英格兰，本研究调查他们的处置法律，合法性和国家。室内性工作者与室外性工作者经历的共性与差异揭示了法律的框架与社会地位的结合对性工作者法律的意识的影响。这项研究发现，即使在半合法的环境中，性工作者也试图避免与国家当局接触。然而，这种对现行法律的厌恶并不妨碍他们提出要求改变法律的主张。令人惊讶的是，室内和室外性工作者对性行业的适当监管和国家参与持相反的观点。值得注意的是，尽管户外性工作者对法律仲裁员有更多的负面经历，但他们渴望法律的保护。相比之下，室内性工作者的主要不满是性工作是一个合法的行业，可以在最低限度的国家控制下运作。室外和室内工作者的法律的要求的这些差异可以用社会地位、脆弱性和刑事定罪程度上的尖锐分歧来解释。这些研究结果表明，组内差异的法律的意识的边缘化群体的关键是理解的作用，社会和法律的地位，在塑造法律的索赔。
In England, sex workers are placed at the edges of the law. How the social and legal status of sex workers impacts on their perception of and interaction with the law in a semi-legal setting has not yet been explored. Drawing on fifty-two qualitative interviews with indoor and outdoor sex workers in England, this study investigates their disposition to the law, legality and the state. The commonalities and discrepancies between the experiences of indoor and outdoor sex workers reveal the influence of the combination of legal framework and social status on sex workers' legal consciousness. This study finds that, even in a setting of semi-legality, sex workers attempt to avoid contact with state authorities. However, this aversion to the current law does not prevent them from making claims for legal change. Surprisingly, indoor and outdoor sex workers hold opposing views on the appropriate level of regulation and state involvement in the sex industry. Remarkably, although outdoor sex workers have more negative experiences with arbitrators of the law, they desire the law's protection. In contrast, indoor sex workers' main grievance is for sex work to be a legitimate industry that can operate with only minimal state control. These differences in outdoor and indoor workers' legal claims are explicable by sharp cleavages in social status, vulnerability and degree of criminalisation. These findings demonstrate that intra-group differences in the legal consciousness of marginalised groups are key to understanding the role of social and legal status in shaping legal claims.