By Alan Ehrenhalt

When we want people to stop doing something, we pass a law against it. That’s the civilized way. But what if they refuse to stop? Well, there are a couple of options. The police can start arresting them. Or the legislature can pass a second law making it clear that the undesirable behavior is really and truly illegal, and this time we mean it, and you’d better listen.

That’s what they do in Hawaii. That state, along with all the other 49 except Nevada, bans prostitution. But streetwalkers in Honolulu have always plied their trade anyway, especially along the beach at Waikiki, where tourist customers are plentiful. Concerned about the area’s sleazy reputation, the legislature passed a new statute last year declaring Waikiki officially “prostitution-free,” and barring all convicted prostitutes from the area between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

This is a little odd, isn’t it? It’s roughly the equivalent of telling streetwalkers to hang around Waikiki till dinner-time, then go somewhere else. But it did seem to work. In the first few months this year, police reported fewer incidents in the previously troubled area.

The only trouble is that other areas of the city have reported an increase in prostitution. And here’s an interesting coincidence: These recent incidents seem to be taking place between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

So the Honolulu city council has been considering a bill that would expand the “prostitution-free” zone to the newly affected neighborhoods. If that causes the offenders to relocate again, additional areas could be designated. Eventually, prostitution could be outlawed everywhere in the city. At that point, Honolulu would be back where it started from.

The prostitution crackdown has been generally popular, but some of the more cynical local commentators have had a field day with it. “If you want to get rid of prostitution,” columnist Charles Memminger wrote recently in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, “make prostitution and pimping punishable by 10 years in prison.” Of course, he didn’t want to do that. He just wanted to make the point that passing new laws on top of old ones is a problematical strategy in the long run. Finding a way to enforce what’s already on the books — or else repealing — would seem to make more sense.

I think he’s right.

Alan Ehrenhalt is executive editor of Governing.

Agree? Disagree? Want to expand on a point? E-mail us at mailbox@governing.com, and we'll post your comments here. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes).

Recently in View:

Ghosts and Fire-Eaters: the impossible compromise (posted July 9, 2000)

The Disappearing County: why New England should tread carefully (posted July 5, 2000)

A GOP at Sea: California and the Quackenbush factor (posted June 30, 2000)

Dangerous Prosperity: the value of incremental change (posted June 22, 2000)

The Malling of Free Speech: What is a public place? (posted June 19, 2000)

Complete index of previous columns

Copyright © 2000, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.