here - Cooperazione Italiana allo Sviluppo

The behaviour sanctioned is that of who “undertakes a vast action ofrecruitment, even coercive, of transport and buying-selling minors” 91 to thedetriment of more minors, of a continuative character and using a minimumorganisational structure: what remains excluded from such a provision is the single,isolated, occasional act of commerce to the detriment of only one minor.The other provision is of particular interest, introduced by the said law againstpaedophiles (l. 269/1998), represented by Art. 600 bis which sanctions, in the firstparagraph, the behaviour of those who “induce to prostitution a person of an ageinferior to that of eighteen years, or who favours or exploits prostitution” withprison sentences from 6 to 12 years, and the fine from 15,493 to 154,937 Eurosand, in the second paragraph, punishes those who commit sexual acts with a minorof between 14 to 16 years in exchange for money or other economically usefulrecompense with the alternative prison sentence (from 6 months to 3 years) or afine (not less than 5,164 Euros). The disposition is interesting for two reasons:because it enucleates the position of a minor as a fact in itself with respect tonumerous other behaviours foreseen by the historical Merlin Law concerningprostitution (l. n.75/1958) and because for the first time the regulation decides topunish the client, who uses the sexual services of a minor of between 14 and 16years.The regulation has notably simplified the behaviour punished, in respect to thatforeseen by Art. 3 and Art. 4 of the Merlin Law, sanctioning exclusively theinduction, aiding, abetting and exploiting, but has reconfirmed the desire,particularly of this legislature of 1958, to punish not only the conduct of whoobtains some benefit, an unjustified advantage from the prostitution of minors, butalso that of those who through the behaviour of aiding the induction 92 andabetting 93 , facilitates such an activity.It is therefore evident that a remarkable amplitude of punished behaviour 94remains and the legislator has chosen to punish apart from the consensus given bythe minor with respect to the activity of prostitution. That is to say without in anyway considering the possibility of a free and informed consent, practicallyassuming the impossibility for the minor to self-determine himself/herself onhis/her sexual freedom and the harmfulness of the activity of prostitution.The only relevance that the legislature has given to the age of the minor whoprostitutes, disregarding the consensus, is within Art. 600 sexies, where anaggravating circumstance for who induces, aids and abets, or exploits theprostitution of a minor of 14 years is foreseen: the increase in the punishment is ofone third to half of the basic punishment.91Santoro (1998, page 51).92For induction to prostitution it is intended the activity of persuasion, determination, reinforcing thedecision to prostitution already thought of by the subject or which emerges because of that activity.93For abetting it is intended whatever activity that in some way would bring about conditions favourableor more favourable for exercising prostitution.94The judicial elaboration on conducting abetting arrived for example at punishing the prostitutes thattogether rented an apartment to exercise professional activities of prostitution, considering that one wasresponsible to abetting the prostitution of the other (Cass, Sez. III, 9 July 1998, No. 2525).