Slashdot Mirror
Uber Banned In Delhi After Taxi Driver Accused of Rape
RockDoctor writes BBC News is reporting that a 26-year old Indian woman is alleging rape against a driver for the embattled Uber transport-managing company. In a post on the Uber blog, one "Saad Ahmed" implicitly admits that the driver was a Uber driver, that the lift was arranged through Uber's service, and that the full range of Uber's safety mechanisms had been applied to his employment, and by implication, that Uber accepts some culpability for putting this (alleged) rapist into contact with his (alleged) victim. "Our initial investigations have revealed shortcomings of the private cab company which didn't have GPS installed in its cabs and the staff wasn't verified," Delhi Special Commissioner Deepak Mishra said. But Uber says safety was paramount, and added it had GPS traces of all journeys. "We work with licensed driver-partners to provide a safe transportation option, with layers of safeguards such as driver and vehicle information, and ETA-sharing [estimated time of arrival] to ensure there is accountability and traceability of all trips that occur on the Uber platform," its statement added.
Sadly, it appears that rapes are so common in India that they should also ban public parks, buses, trains and Starbucks.
While that may be true, I think that the point being made in this case is that Uber said one thing about their cars/drivers safety, yet post-indicdent it seems that they may not have told the truth.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
yet post-indicdent it seems that they may not have told the truth
Could you then please sketch what an Uber advertorial should like like?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
That's sorted now, no more rapes in India.
Uber. It means super in German. That's misleading. It should be called Rides with Strangers Without Background Checks.
SuddenlyI figure that indian woman is very tough~~~~
In other words, you're victim blaming, and have no clue what you're talking about because you've never been to India and are therefore oversimplifying the problem like a fucking idiot?
Let's take Uber at its word and accept that the "full range of safety mechanisms" was truly applied, and those mechanisms comport with contemporary acceptable standards for background checks in India.
If that is the case, and the guy came up clean but yet still went on to do X, how is Uber any more culpable than a taxi company hiring a cabbie with no record, who subsequently goes out and does X, or a tour company hiring a bus driver with a spotless background, who nonetheless does X?
Nothing posted to
The lack of transparency with Uber leaves one wondering if that in itself will eventually bring a end to the company. The ideal is great, but the sad part is that it leaves to many opportunity for bad people to take advantage of it. We see a rapid expansion of Uber and with that has come distrust, privacy concerns and now potentially hiring people who may have criminal pasts and criminal motives to become a driver for Uber. When you loose trust with the public in a big way. Your not going to survive in business very long. I have yet, to see the upper management at Uber really address any of the concerns. I think, they are too busy counting their profits to care.
Could you then please sketch what an Uber advertorial should like like?
We aim to disrupt public transportation by skirting the law, through predatory price increases when the services are most needed, use drivers that are not bonded or properly insured, and if you dare to say anything we don't like, we'll threaten to harass you and your families.
>No, I am not victim-blaming.
Except when you are.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It should be law that the management of companies who place the lives of others in danger without performing due diligence to screen their subcontractors and employees will be subject to the same punishment as those that they subcontract to to provide services for the crimes their subcontractors or employees commit.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
You are the fucking problem. Where in the goddam TFA did it say the woman simply went limp and let the man have his way?
Fuck you.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
you are an idiot. learning to fight back and defend yourself is not victim blaming. we live in a world where you could get attacked. it only makes sense that people learn to defend themselves asshole. had this victim known how to protect herself, she could have cut off his dick. adapt or die.
Hello and welcome to Uber.
We are going to pretend that we offer you a service like a taxi, you know - licensed and regulated so that we manage to keep whack jobs out of the driving seat and you can feel a measure of safety in your journey.
But instead, for half the price we are going to send you some completely random fucker that we have no real record of. He could be anyone, and probably is. So basically you are hitchhiking with all of the associated risks, but you are paying us for the privilege.
Yay for Uber. Please feel free to call* and ask questions if you survive your trip.
* actually not really, this would push up costs. But you know, it's the thought that counts.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
So we have to work on your problem to the exclusion of all others?
I'm not signing up.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Because it's not like anyone's ever been raped by a 'licensed and regulated' taxi driver.
Being a convicted rapist doesn't even seem to be an impediment to getting a taxi license in the UK:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
If Uber is not a taxi service, what is it? If it's a "ride service", shouldn't there be regulations, statutes, city codes addressing its operation? What liability does Uber accept for the behavior and actions of its drivers?
It's the patriarchal Indian society that gives man the power over woman. The woman has to obey to the man no matter what. They still do the arrange marriage over there too.
Having spent many years living in Asia, I can tell you confidently how to solve *much* of the rape problem in India: Legalize and institutionalize prostitution.
Unlike every nation in Asia, India has a tiny sex-trade per capita. Smaller even than in the United States. Couple poverty with truly intense social mores, highly limited pre-marital sex and a defacto caste system (despite the propaganda) and you have a recipe for pent up male sexuality. The standard modern response mechanism is to demonize said sexuality and hope to preach morality and respect to a seething mass of adolescent male anger and hormones. To say this policy of condemnation has failed is an understatement. When policy fails, pursuing more of it is insane.
Prostitution is a rational free-market solution which carries many additional economic benefits besides reduced sexual violence.
Now cue scores of sexist, white-knight "do-gooders" who will say things like "sex-work endangers women" and other sexist statements that treat women like children. (If you're going to insist, show me the stats please, and then cross reference against miners, fishermen, industrial labor, law enforcement and the military).
Male sexuality is male sexuality. And in societies where it is deprived to hundreds of millions of men (for decades) until said men prove themselves worthy of marriage is an exercise in social disaster.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
While I agree 100% with your statement, there is also the rising problem of false reporting. Now that rape is getting some attention, women in desperate situations are using it as a tool to blackmail men. What it comes down to is that people suck, no matter their gender, nationality, or religion.
Per capita, there are 20 times more rape cases in the US than in India. But rapes sell newspapers so thats all you see on the front pages.
Police needs to be disbanded when policeman makes a violent crime.
Army needs to be disbanded when army people kill a person.
The medical profession and regulations need to be disbanded, when malpractice occurs, for it takes only one mistake to cause harm.
All the regulations need to be disbanded, because they do not make the crime disappear.
Most of the males need to be aborted, using the same logic, for all the males are statistically potential rapists. The remaining pool for the purposes of procreation should be kept all locked in the "Male camps" and used during scheduled conjugal visits.
In a most populous country with more than 1 billion people, statistically there will be all kind of mishaps, accidents and crimes. It is unavoidable.
If truly rapes and strangers are an issue, then most of the progress would be achieved in eliminating this type of crime closing all the night clubs and bar.
Also the night life is when a lot of crime happens, it is safer if all the people would be under curfew during the dark hours.
Actually, it looks like Uber's accountability is so high you can't claim to not have been with the victim at the time of the alleged crime, and therefor you can't get away with this shit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes, because every time a woman cries "rape!" it's true.
Or she just did not have the money to pay the fare. But of course, this is misogynistic. Something like that NEVER happens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
just sitting there and being a victim
That was the part where you are just victim-blaming. You have no idea what happened. For all you know, she was an expert in Krav Maga, which frankly, wouldn't be worth shit if she was a 110 lbs and trapped in a taxi. In any case, it seems they were looking for any excuse at all to ban Uber... considering this *MIGHT* have happened *ONCE* (hasn't even been a trial or arrest), but is still used as justification for an outright ban.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
With a valuation of $40,000,000,000.00 "embattled" is hardly the adjective I'd use.
Best Slashdot Co
Well the I guess we do nothing, since it is impossible to prevent all attacks. Some humans are violent assholes after all. And doing things which only reduce the magnitude of the problem is apparently just a bandaid and hence not worth doing.
Well I guess we could kill all the humans, but that would be attacking said victim and hence not actually solve the problem.
So why don't do the same thing with police officers? Make an app so that people can sign up and when a real police is sick, some random guy gets a gun and a badge for a day. If he makes a mistake, it's not the end of the world, because real police officers also make mistakes. Right?
Hell, we could do it with surgeons too...
Don't know anything about the frequency of various abuses, but it has always been common for Vinnie's brother Tony to do the nightshift or whatever in NY. Regulated? Sort of, but fool proof, safe and above reproach...not so much. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Does the picture of the cabbie on the license match the face of the driver? Often not.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I like this idea. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Because it's not like anyone's ever been raped by a 'licensed and regulated' taxi driver.
Well that's genius logic. Your link demonstrates the need for an even higher standard for background checks and a zero tolerance for drivers with convictions that could be a threat to the public. In this instance it would suggest that the decision should not have been entrusted to the council in the first place - they should be responsible for the paperwork but the police should ensure the driver is of good character and their say should be final.
It also does NOT suggest that we should loosen or do away background checks altogether so that any psychopath, even those with previous convictions, can lure women into their vehicles.
I'd add that if you were to search for high number of court cases involving unlicensed cab drivers (i.e. those illegally operating taxis), that it demonstrates why checks are so necessary in the first place. Not just on the driver, but also the state of the vehicle they are driving in to ensure it is roadworthy and insured.
Further, I'd note that there is no reason that Uber cannot operate within the law. They can require their drivers hold a taxi licence and be in good standing. They just choose not to because interferes with their profits.
Per capita, there are 20 times more rape cases in the US than in India. But rapes sell newspapers so thats all you see on the front pages.
You have to take the law into consideration when looking at those statistics. In the U.S., the law allows for rape charges if a wife is forced to have sex with her husband. In India, the law can only be invoked if the husband and wife are separated.
Also, there are social reasons for underreporting of rape in India. If you file rape charges, then you are considered to have been raped. This can be cause for a future arranged marriage to be terminated, a marriage to be terminated and for the woman to be shunned.
It used to be similar in the U.S., but woman were empowered and encouraged to speak out. There are still a lot of rapes not reported, but there are also a lot of false reports as well.
In all, it is difficult to compare rates of a lawbreaking in countries where the law differs as do also the social implications of reporting the charge,
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
wrong, U.S. has better reporting and higher standards of defining rape than India. Women are shamed and punished and shunned for life when raped in India
Unless you count criminal or legal liability, and then it's really important.
Sorry, but bullshit:
They are the ones making claims which aren't supported in law.
No, I've heard actual Uber spokespeople talking to the media, because they're trying to come into the city where I live.
They keep saying "oh, we don't need commercial licenses" and "we don't need to do that". The problem is that they're full of shit and can't unilaterally decree they're not covered by the law.
Having heard their arguments about why the law doesn't apply to them, or why they're special because they're not a cab company but a software company ... I'm forced to conclude they're willing to operate outside of the law, and seem to think they can be the ones to decide what laws and regulations apply to them.
Sorry, but that's completely delusional. All they are is an app which allows for pirate cabs, which they somehow think exempts them from legal oversight.
That's pretty much bullshit.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So why don't do the same thing with police officers? Make an app so that people can sign up and when a real police is sick, some random guy gets a gun and a badge for a day. If he makes a mistake, it's not the end of the world, because real police officers also make mistakes. Right?
You might have missed the last year or so of police reporting in the US but we're already there. Just sampling from last week:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12...
I could go on...
Do you have ESP?
seems to think the whole world is made of west coast techno-hipsters with Foresters and just a hint of a schedule to stick to.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Yeah, because the "regulated" taxi industry *never* has these problems. Oh, wait.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/ci...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/s...
Note the last one there is a gang rape.
The problem, as always, is that people like you think that "regulation" of the taxi industry has anything to do with the stuff that the regulators claim it's about. Look up "regulatory capture" when you have a spare hour or so. I'll warn you - your world view is about to get a dramatic overhaul.
Do you have ESP?
Sounds good. They'd have to try hard to kill more innocent people than cops do... the last stats I saw on the subject showed cops were about twice as likely to kill an innocent bystander than someone on the scene with a gun was.
The law in India? Oh you mean like 498a? Which has been used *many* times by a wife to falsely accuse her husband or his family of trying to demand dowry from her which led to the husband *and his family* to all be arrested and jailed immediately with zero evidence needed. *Just* the accusation. It was only in June of this year that India's Supreme Court put a stop the mandatory arrest policy.
If you think for a second that the wives in India don't have a *very* strong weapon to use if they get raped (let alone for anything else including just petty revenge) then you're very mistaken.
No, it's the wives in India that hold legal power in the marriages. Not the husbands.
(http://www.498a.org/ for more info about it)
'Our system utterly failed. Therefore we need more of it.'
A private company who intentionally allowed a convicted rapist to work for them in a situation where they could rape people would be sued into oblivion. When the government does it, the Mayor just gets to resign.
Women are shamed and punished and shunned for life when raped in India
If that's true, they are probably a lot more cautious. Impossible to be raped if you aren't within striking distance of the penis.
reality such as busload of jeering spectators while women being gang raped says your notion of reality may be flawed
The already did, see Blackwater (Xe or whatever they are calling themselves now).
Woosh. GP is saying that even though real police officers make mistakes (or intentional transgressions), a random, untrained, unvetted person with a badge and a gun would easily make ten times the number of mistakes. The same applies to cab drivers.
I disagree. Cops have been trained to be violent, rights-abusing assholes who act without fear of repercussion. Cabbies have been trained to be terrible, aggressive, drivers.
A random person in either position would not be as cavalier. You may have fewer arrests and you may not make it to the airport on time, but society as a whole would be much better off.
So why don't do the same thing with police officers? Make an app so that people can sign up and when a real police is sick, some random guy gets a gun and a badge for a day. If he makes a mistake, it's not the end of the world, because real police officers also make mistakes. Right?
Right. He's four times less likely to shoot an innocent, and he's no more likely to commit a crime.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a question that strikes at the heart of how these companies self-identify. If they are just facilitating a relationship between a third-party driver and a user, as they claim they do as "technology companies," then they shouldn't be liable for much, if anything.
That leaves much of the insurance burden on the drivers, who are using their own personal cars and their own personal car insurance (PCI). What these drivers may not know, however, is that their PCI policy may not cover them if they're driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other "ride-sharing" app.
They are the ones making claims which aren't supported in law.
Uber actually provides insurance to drivers (at least in some countries) specifically because their PCI policy may not cover them, which you are conveniently ignoring.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Uber is "ride sharing" the same way hiring a carpenter is "hammer sharing."
predatory price increases when the services are most needed
This is an unfair critisism. When demand is highest (rush hour on a rainy day) the prices should go up. The higher price will give an incentive for more drivers to provide the service. That is the way free markets work. The alternative is to have shortages or rationing when demand is high, and a glut when demand is low (which is how taxis work).
No economic system is going to give you everything you want, at the price you want to pay, but a free market is going to come closest.
I totally agree with you for the reasons why rape is so common in India.
But there's no need to be a white-knight do-gooder to realize that (at least in Europe), many prostitutes aren't so happy about their job, and that many are there because of the mafia.
I never tried prostitution for this reason. Give me a "fair-trade pussy" label and I'd be happy to try it.
BlackPignouf, you're a fair-trade pussy.
But I'm with you on not wanting to support the sex trade, as too many participants would prefer other means of earning a living.
No, I am not. But you simplistic world-view apparently cannot cope with that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Markets are good; free markets are bad. Free markets have never provided any consumer with any benefit that couldn't be enjoyed tenfold with regulation. Predatory pricing is a great example of this. Wow, is it possible to have an economy without price gouging AND without scarcity? Maybe not in your textbook, but look around, we have it today.
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Two separate arguments so keep them separate. First, Uber is fighting lobbyists from large firms that make a fortune paying drivers poor wages and historically not giving a rats ass about consumers. This _IS_ a real issue, and it should take about 2 minutes of investigation to determine that the cab monopolies have been harmful to both consumers and employees. It has only benefited large corporations who can afford the "fee" to Government offices, who have been the other beneficiary.
They are not a cab company, and have never every claimed to be a cab company. They are a ride sharing service which does not do anything like a cab company.
That one out of the way, your second point has some merit. People are not telling the truth on Uber applications, which is leading to some bad things. Worse than you get with a taxi or bus service? Hell no, in fact TFA reports an incident that occurred on the anniversary of a woman getting gang raped on a public bus. The "Uber" issue is played up however, because Uber is not paying off enough politicians. Proof that it's played up is in the same article, because if not for the Uber incident nobody in the US would know about the public bus gang rape incident. Of course most people won't read past the first paragraph either, so there is little harm in them printing the information in the last goddamn line of the story (and watch for this to be redacted in later versions, BBC has a history of doing just this.
On point, the second issue is a concern but it has to be dealt with rationally. Uber has many more benefits than down sides. Introduce legislation and petition Uber to do more checking for background/insurance/ anything else you think they lack.
Consider this: The bus driver that was driving when the woman was gang raped faced no charges, this driver is going to jail. Who is more accountable?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
They should ban penis.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-sev...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Rape is rampant in India. WTF? It's possible that the media is distorting how prevalent it is due to a few of the high profile gang rape cases that have been reported, but still. You don't hear about gang rape of women here in the U.S.. Get your shit together, India.
Woosh. GP is saying that even though real police officers make mistakes (or intentional transgressions), a random, untrained, unvetted person with a badge and a gun would easily make ten times the number of mistakes. The same applies to cab drivers.
Yes, and I disagree. Police work attracts a certain kind of person - the kind who needs to control others. Bringing in random people would actually make for a *better* police force.
Do you have ESP?
Rape isn't even about the sex, it's the thrill some people get from abusing a dominant position. I say they need better mental healthcare, as does the USA for that matter.
Is that the only kind of distinction that exists - the world is purely binary? Or could be that a regulated industry has fewer of these problems. Is that not better to a lesser extent?
So what is a person like me then? Is that something that you are capable of understanding based on a jokey response to a request for a sketch. Wow, your deductive power of reasoning must put the great Sherlock Holmes to shame. Either that or you over-generalise so freely that you are not even aware when you do it. You know, like an idiot.
Perhaps you should spend an hour or two reading about cognitive dissonance, and try to spot the analogy to the point that you were trying to make with Regulatory Capture. I'll warn you - your world view is about to get a dramatic overhaul.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
This is a complete myth invented by proponents of some surrealistic, twisted form of feminism. It has no basis in verifiable facts.
weinersmith
Non-police don't have the training and experience required to allow them to perform the duties of a real police officer - there's substantial risk of donut overdose.
Requiem for the American Dream
I'll throw my mod points away for this response. Because cops and surgeons require special training, whereas you average taxi driver is worse overall at his job than the average punter on the street. It may be different in your town, but here the service is absolute shit, drivers are smelly, don't speak English and don't know where they're going. They fail to show up half the time, refuse to take fares unless it's worth it for them, and are generally the worst service you're ever likely to experience on a day to day basis. Credit card scams and sexual assault are also common, so given the choice, I'll take my chances with the regular man on the street.
Hitchhiking isn't that dangerous. I do it routinely and haven't had a problem since I was 14 (and I scared that guy off before continuing on my way).
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
How long before the Joe Random Person who starts working as a taxi driver has absorbed the culture of the job and become the arsehole that other posters describe as their typical taxi driver?
I must admit, the only aspect of their descriptions that I recognise is the poor to non-existent English. But even that only really applies to the taxi drivers in Benin and Gabon, where English isn't actually an official language and they have to put up with my dodgy French. The Afghan and Polish taxi drivers here often speak more comprehensible English than the native-born and bred Scottish taxi drivers, but that's because they (the Afghans and Poles) have been taught to speak English, not learned it from their parents.
So, what were the benefits of Uber again? I'm still not seeing any reason to vote in favour of their service being allowed in my country.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
So, when you realise this, you call the police and instruct the driver to stop the cab. then wait with the cab to make your case to the police officer and fill out the paperwork for pursuing the case?
Enforcement of regulation does actually require the assistance of the population (that means you). It can't all be done by the police's random flagging down of passing taxis for document checks. Which does, of course, happen ; and is legal - it's a freedom that goes away with getting your taxi license. And that also required the police to do it without getting an ear-full of abuse from the fare.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
OP here.
As I wrote in the ORIGINAL submission (which, contrary to Slash-meme, samzenpus has substantially edited), I'm decidedly dubious about Uber in particular and less than convinced of the need for the entire concept in general. The second paragraph of my submission read :
There do certainly seem to be some complete arseholes in the senior management team of Uber, and I do not see any benefit to allowing companies run by such shit-heads into the taxi service in my country in general, and into my city in particular. I don't make comment about whether other countries may benefit from them - but here the regulations are reasonable, and the enforcement is reasonably effective, so what benefit Uber/ Lyft/ Internet-taxi-ordering-company would actually bring is pretty dubious. Yes, I do get pissed off when a plane lands at the airport, disgorging me and 250 other people out the front doors a few minutes later, and there are only 10 taxis. But that is the problem of 250 people wanting a taxi immediately ; if I wait 20 minutes (a coffee and a cigarette), there are still 10 taxis (a different 10) but only 3 people in the queue so I can then get a taxi home. Or I could just take the bus (every half hour into town), which gets me home just as well and just as comfortably as any taxi.
The investors who own Uber are going to have to seriously ask themselves if the arseholes in charge of the company are actually damaging the company which they (the investors) own.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Even Uber, bunch of shit-heads though they have for management, haven't made that claim. But then again, you're a Torygraph reader, so I don't expect too much from you.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
What is your metric of comparison for definitions of rape that allows you to say, unambiguously, that one definition is "better" than another? "Different" is, I'm sure true (identity is easy to check for ; one comma moved and you're no longer identical), but you claim to have a metric that allows you to determine if one rape definition is "better" than another ; therefore you have a scoring or ranking system more complex than simply "identical" versus "not identical". What is your ranking system?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The problem of rape is more fundamental then possession of a penis. Indeed, there have been cases of people without a penis committing rape against people with a penis.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Oh, you don't like it? Sure, one is not even allowed to think this. Women NEVER lie about rape. And if they do...nooo, they still don't. So better shut up.
Don't like the The Telegraph? There are other examples.... oops... Not a singular case? Must be a conspiracy of the patriarchy.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009...
At least the police acted correctly . But the stupid journalists definitely need another brainwash.
Building off your statement, which I agree with: (American) Football purposefully endangers men, having them slam against each other at higher-than-normal velocities, and yet, despite many recent medical revelations, there's no large trumpeting call to shut the whole thing down.
The only difference between football and prostitution is how they're using their bodies for entertainment. The first is done for physical competition for a public audience; the second is physical excitement amongst private participants. The only real problem with the difference, as far as I can tell, is America's very reserved view of sex.
In addition, legalization has brought down the dangerous aspects of many things. Ending alcohol prohibition severely hurt the mafia. The slow legalization/decriminalization of marijuana appears to be having the same affect on many gangs. Legalizing abortion made a botched or fatal operation extremely rare (AFAIK). If there's a case where legalizing something made it more dangerous, I'm not aware of it. While I don't have data to back me up, I can only assume that legalizing prostitution would be good for prostitutes:
1) Keeping it illegal keeps it in the shadows, so it's hard to see things that are actually bad happening (abuse, theft)
2) Making it legal allows for regulation, so that prostitutes have to receive regular checks for STDs and some health department can make sure the places of business are sanitary and the prostitutes not abused
3) Making it legal might help lower the spread of various STDs; part of it is requiring regular checks of prostitutes, and larger brothels might be able to get scientists to develop a quick and fairly reliable test for various STDs that clients have to use before being allowed in
Also, while not as popular, there are male prostitutes so this helps them as well.