Differences between prostitution, loitering and soliciting a prostitute

I was recently asked what the difference is between the criminal offenses of loitering for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. Well, the answer is very simple. For the most part they are the same type of crime. That is, in every criminal offense there is what is called mens rea and something called actus rea. These are legal jargon terms, often preached in law school, but hardly discussed outside of law school.

The mens rea means the intention of the crime, the actus rea means the actual act. So, in a soliciting and loitering case, the intent of the offense is to solicit a prostitute for a sexual act. The actus rea in these cases actually means exchanging money for a sexual act.

So if these two offenses have the same mens rea and actus rea, how are they different? Well, the answer is simple. In your typical Soliciting a Prostitute case, the suspect or John usually contacts a Prostitute. They discuss a fee, in exchange for a sexual act. John pays the fee and the sexual act is performed. Soliciting a prostitute is a felony punishable by a jail sentence of more than 1 year.

In your typical prostitution loitering case, the same set of facts typically apply. The suspect, or John, will contact a prostitute with the intention of paying for a sexual act. However, John may not get to the point where he physically hands over money or receives the sexual act. Therefore, the loitering charge was created to prosecute individuals who fall short of the solicitation charge. It was also created as a more ambiguous crime in that it also contains situations where John is helpless with the prostitute.

For example, when John does not agree to pay a price or does not commit to a specific sexual act, he may be charged for prostitute loitering. Or where John is hanging around an area of ​​high prostitution, but doesn’t actually get into one. If the police can establish that John was going to solicit a prostitute, then this is a situation where he can be charged with loitering.

In my opinion, the charge of loitering was created when the Prosecutor’s Office does not have enough solicitation evidence. Perhaps the case is thin on evidence, but there is still circumstantial evidence that John wanted to solicit a prostitute. Obviously, with this in mind, the loitering charge is more difficult for a prosecutor to prove, due to the ambiguous language of the statute.