Men falsely accused of soliciting for prostitution in Zimbabwe
Prostitution is a profession as old as the human race. It has always been a wrong act, abominable in society. Today we cannot say the same in some countries where prostitutes are legally licensed to operate. Whether prostitutes should be allowed or not is not my subject for debate, at least for now.
It is wrong to punish John for Peter’s crime. In that regard, I wish to enquire if the police in Zimbabwe have tangible evidence against men whom they allege to be loitering for the sake of prostitution. It is now common knowledge to city men that during the evening some places have to be avoided for fear of being arrested. At the end of the day it automatically becomes a crime to walk through these places at night.
When one gets arrested he is automatically accused of loitering for the purpose of prostitution and I wonder how the police arrive at these conclusions just automatically. The police make men pay fines. However, when the men do not have money they spend nights in custody or are sent to court later. Considering that prostitution is a commercial practice – we even call the prostitutes “commercial sex workers” – is it not common sense that whoever is soliciting would have money for that purpose? If that person does not have cash at hand how would he have hired the service?
The courts prosecute poor people who do not have cash at hand, and who might not even have succeeded in the endeavor even if they wished to, because they have no money. Surely no man can intend to engage commercial sex workers without cash? In fact the real culprits come with their cars, pick up prostitutes and go. There is little ability to arrest such people since most of the police involved usually move around on bicycles. Surely the poor are paying for the wrong they never did, and the rich are guilty and yet go free?