John School

In her presentation, Shawna described how previously in Edmonton many Johns were required to complete a “John School” when they were arrested. In the school, they would learn about various sexually transmitted infections, hear from a survivor of prostitution and from the parent of a murdered woman who had been a sex worker. The approach, in many ways seems to align more with an accountability model than it does a criminal justice model. However, the punishment for Johns has changed, suggesting that it was not effective. There are a number of factors that I think undermined the “John School” approach to prostitution.

An obvious flaw is that the seminar was only a day long, hardly enough time to change the thoughts or behaviour of a John. Secondly, there was a theoretical disconnect between the values of the John school and the law. John school was intended to stop Johns from purchasing sex from workers on the street by scaring them with potential STI risks and creating empathy for victims of prostitution. However, the private exchange of money for sex was and is legal in the Criminal Code, only discussing it is illegal. Instead of teaching legal ways of obtaining sex for money, the John School approach took an almost moral stance against something that was not legally wrong. This disconnect creates a friction between crime and punishment born of hypocrisy.  Finally, the school attempted to facilitate individual change in order to create societal transformation. However, much like the current “Nordic Model,” it was not reinforced by supporting policies or situated in a culture conducive to successful implementation.  Therefore, the meagre attempt to change individuals was not able to accomplish either goal.

A successful accountability model that is initiated by the legal system, must provide the necessary time and space to facilitate meaningful transformation. Has to be supported by values imbedded in the criminal justice system and work to create both individual and societal change.