97,102,122,125,127–130].
49,97,99,104,106,111,112,118,119,122,125,127,128]. This took the form of arbitrary arrest and detention, verbal harassment, intimidation, humiliating and derogatory treatment, extortion, forcible displacement, physical violence, gang rape, and other forms of sexual violence during raids and in police custody [49,97,99,103,104,106,111,112,118,122,127,128]. In Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Serbia, Sri Lanka, and the US, sex workers experienced extortion (unofficial ‘fines’, payments, or bribes) or provided sexual services enforced through physical or sexual violence or under threat of detention, arrest, transfer to rehabilitation centres, or forced registration (Quotes 10 and 11) [49,101,103,110,119,122,128–130], with limited or no opportunity to negotiate condom use [128]. Similar extortion and/or arbitrary fines were reported in China, India, Thailand, and Turkey (Quote 12) [99,107,110,125]. In Nepal, cis female sex workers, including those hired as peer educators, reported being arrested, beaten, and robbed by police upon being found in possession of condoms [106].
Reporting violence could result in sex workers’ being further criminalised [49,97,120–122,127,128]. Sex workers were reluctant to report violence and theft to the police [98,125] for fear of the following: arrest for prostitution-related activities, unrelated petty offences, or non-payment of previous fines [97,98,116,120,124,131]; being accused of crimes they had not committed [49,103]; harsh treatment or moral judgement [97,120]; further extortion or violence [35,101,112]; disclosure in court [97]; prohibitive costs [112]; or because no action would be taken to address the crime [97,111,112,114,116]. Long-standing discrimination, and the sense that police viewed them as criminals, made sex workers doubt the police would take complaints seriously [114,115,128]. When reports were submitted to police, sex workers’ accounts were dismissed as implausible, with police simultaneously blaming sex workers for the violence they had experienced [49,120,125], discrediting them as victims (Quote 13) [97,103,121,127,128], and sometimes further attacking or extorting them [49]. Cis and trans women in Canada and the US reported police questioning whether it is possible for a sex worker to be raped [97,128]. (Quote 14). Similarly, in Kenya, one cis woman reported being asked by an officer ‘how a prostitute like me could be raped as I was used to all sizes’, discouraging her from going to the police in future: ‘Never will I again go to report a case’ [127]. This produces an environment of impunity, where further violence, extortion, and theft from police and others operate unchecked [98,103,120,121,125,127], perceived to be a major contributor in normalising violence against sex workers [26,125].
34,114]. While some cis and trans women in Canada felt that police were now more concerned for their safety [26,114], others felt that officers continued to view them as ‘trash’, blame them for the violence they experienced, and deprioritise their safety [97], despite laws and police guidelines constructing them as victims [26]. In contexts of regulation, registered sex workers in Guatemala viewed their health cards (recording compliance with mandatory testing) as protective against police and immigration harassment [126,132], and registered sex workers in Mexico had better access to police protection but rarely reported violence [35]. In Senegal, registered workers still experienced being disbelieved when reporting physical or economic violence to police and so were reluctant to report it as a result (Quote 16) [105]. Concerns about being exposed to family and friends were paramount [35,105] and deterred some from registering [126]. Relationships with police were precarious, conditional on maintaining registered status, which can vary each month depending on compliance with mandatory screening requirements—with those whose registration has (temporarily) lapsed facing arrest, detention, and/or fines (Quote 17) [35,126]. Those who were not registered were afraid they would be sent to jail or fined for working illegally, or for active drug use [35], and were more heavily targeted by police for fines, arrest, detention, extortion, and sometimes sexual violence [35,101,124]. In India, marked reductions in police raids and violence were achieved through a peer-based intervention that facilitated access to justice and challenged power relations between sex workers and police, although some officers cited lengthy procedures to dissuade reporting [99]. In Canada, Mexico, Thailand, and the US, some sex workers described certain officers’ concern for their safety and support, but such concern was the exception [35,97,103,125].
36,95,96] and more deserving of respect (Quote 18) [36]. The removal of threat of arrest—which reduced police power and afforded sex workers rights—gave sex workers, and particularly young people [95], greater confidence to report violent incidents, exploitation by managers, and disputes with clients [36,96]. However, some officers treated disputes with clients as breaches of contract rather than crimes [96]. While there were still some reports of abuses of police power, there were also examples of offending officers being prosecuted as a result, helping to challenge environments of impunity [36,94,96].
Article source: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680