What role do law enforcement practices play in perpetuating harm to sex workers?
Executive summary
Law enforcement practices linked to criminalization—arrests, surveillance, “condoms-as-evidence” rules, sting operations and discretionary policing—systematically reduce sex workers’ safety, access to services, and ability to seek justice, and increase exposure to violence and health risks [1] [2] [3]. Multiple reviews and empirical studies find that policing discretion, harassment, and criminalization drive sex workers underground, heighten vulnerability to client and police violence, and deter reporting of crimes [4] [5] [6].
1. Criminalization hands police broad discretion—and that discretion produces harm
When selling or buying sex is illegal, police retain wide discretionary power that shapes daily interactions with sex workers; research shows that this discretion facilitates extra‑judicial policing practices—harassment, surveillance, and targeted arrest—that undermine health and safety for people who exchange sex [1] [5]. Systematic reviews and cohort studies conclude the harms of criminalization are mediated by routine policing practices that can be exploited by officers, clients, or others to the detriment of sex workers’ wellbeing [1] [3].
2. “Condoms as evidence” and paraphernalia laws deter lifesaving behaviors
Civil‑liberties and public‑health groups document that prosecutorial and policing tactics—most notably using condoms or safe‑use kits as proof of intent to commit prostitution—discourage carrying prevention supplies and seeking health services, increasing risks for HIV/STIs and other harms [7] [8] [6]. Advocacy organizations and legal analyses cite condom‑seizure practices as a concrete policy that converts public‑health tools into incriminating evidence [7] [8].
3. Policing practices themselves are a source of violence and coercion
Multiple empirical studies and qualitative reviews record police harassment, threats, sexual coercion and even sexual assault by officers as recurring harms experienced by sex workers; in some countries a measurable share of reported sexual violence against sex workers is attributed to police [4] [3]. Longitudinal cohort research in U.S. cities describes sexual encounters with police—sometimes coercive—linked directly to the criminalized status of sex work [5] [4].
4. Surveillance and raids push workers into riskier settings
Law enforcement surveillance, raids, and workplace shutdowns force many sex workers into unfamiliar, isolated or clandestine locations to avoid detection; those displacement tactics increase exposure to violence, reduce ability to screen clients, and sever the protective benefits of working with peers [2] [4] [3]. Interviews compiled by legal and human‑rights groups show sex workers adopt riskier practices—working alone, in secluded places—specifically to evade policing [2].
5. Reporting harms to police remains fraught and often ineffective
Research and advocacy reports document that sex workers routinely face dismissal, blame, further criminalization or even arrest when they attempt to report assaults or exploitation, producing a “justice gap” where enforcement imperatives crowd out safety outcomes [9] [2] [10]. Several sources note that enforcement priorities and institutional hostility mean many sex workers regard police as a source of harm rather than protection [11] [10].
6. “Protective” policing roles can reproduce the same power imbalance
Attempts to create liaison roles or “vulnerability policing” within police forces produce mixed outcomes: while some officers and units aim to bridge trust, scholarship warns that these roles still operate inside structures that prioritize enforcement and intelligence‑gathering, which can perpetuate surveillance and undercut genuine protection [9]. The literature argues for minimizing harms of enforcement and mitigating risks inherent in closer police contact [9].
7. Policy variation shows law and enforcement choices shape outcomes
Global and national analyses conclude that different legislative models yield different enforcement practices and health outcomes. Criminalization—whether of workers, clients, or third parties—correlates with worse safety, higher violence, and poorer health, while decriminalization advocates point to reduced harms and improved reporting and public‑health metrics [3] [12] [6]. Legislative changes that remove criminal penalties and end punitive policing are presented in these sources as pathways to reduce the harms documented.
8. Competing perspectives and limits of current sources
Some law‑enforcement advocates and victim‑protection groups justify policing and “rescue” operations as tools against trafficking and exploitation; critics counter that trafficking frames are sometimes used to justify sting operations that harm consensual sex workers [13] [11]. Available sources do not mention whether there exist large‑scale, peer‑reviewed evaluations showing consistent net safety gains from enforcement‑led anti‑trafficking stings versus their demonstrated harms to consensual workers—current reporting emphasizes harms from criminalization and problematic policing [13] [3].
9. What the evidence implies for reform
Across legal analyses, cohort studies and advocacy reports, the implication is consistent: policing practices embedded in criminalization regimes produce predictable harms—undermining health, increasing violence exposure, and blocking justice—and reforms that limit punitive policing, end “condoms‑as‑evidence,” and move toward decriminalization or rights‑based approaches are presented as evidence‑aligned remedies [7] [1] [6]. Sources call for centering sex workers’ voices in policymaking and for accountability mechanisms to curb police misconduct [2] [5].
Limitations: this summary relies on the supplied set of advocacy, empirical and review sources; available sources do not mention large randomized trials comparing enforcement models, nor do they present comprehensive counter‑evidence claiming that current enforcement practices improve safety for consensual sex workers (not found in current reporting).