Couple things.
1) I agree about the shaming as puritanical nonsense. Consensual sex work should be legal and regulated because what consenting adults do is really none of anyone's business and inevitably the enforcement isn't uniform.
2) I can understand if the direction of the paper is to expose the sex trafficking trade. That very issue was part of why I turned down that 7 figure plus job.
I had architected the World's first Mac-based modular render farm in early 2000. Prior to that, the only way to get video on the web was to either do an individual render from the editor (batch rendering was available but was problematic due to a host of issues and nearly impossible on Windows as the color was crap) or to run a big Unix box which at that time meant paying big money for the box, the custom code and the administration. Anyway, as happens with many dot.coms, we had an idea for a multi billion dollar company and the guys running it didn't have a clue even when the tech worked and it folded.../shrug. Thing is that they hired a sketchy guy to replace me. And while he didn't have the foggiest clue about tech, he knew sketchy people and I got a soft offer as was SUPER common in those days to build my render farm for them. It was to be an amateur porn site, the FIRST ever on the internet. The offer was around $300K +stock +bonuses which put first year compensation at least in the 7 figures. People forget that Pornhub, the first site to do this didn't open until 2007 and this was to build it in 2000, a full 7 years before. I specifically turned it down because it doesn't take tons of mindfulness to realize that any such venture would quickly be overrun with pimps forcing their pros to perform sex acts on camera, sex slaves being recorded for the purposes of advertising services or sale as well as other instances where the initial mission of allowing people to democratize their personal sexual agency would be subsumed by everything from fake amateur vids to actual sex slaves being recorded. I just couldn't be a part of that even tangentially.
3) These pre-trial diversions are part of how the system walks back from how it used to do business. it's meant to allow someone to not have their lives ruined for what is in most instances a victimless crime. However, since it is still illegal, the defendants have to admit that they would have been guilty (that's important for those who commit the crimes again, especially within the next 12 months) which saves jurisdictions as well as defendants lots of court costs, do community service and the partake in programs to help not commit these crimes in the future.
It's not the same as asking someone to plead where the defendant is underrepresented or not represented at all based on sketchy evidence. Often, with these programs, the proof is overwhelming. Rest assured, if there was ANY way for a billionaire to get out of this, he'd have his TEAMS of lawyers doing that right now. He's guilty and he knows it and no one really wants to take cases like these to trial if it can be helped.
TL;dr Yes, it's puritanical BS, but it's also part of how the legal system is reforming incrementally to go back from how it dealt with this in the past. The shaming isn't being done by the system, but by a particular paper or papers. And that's more of an indictment of the Media Infotainment Complex as opposed to the legal system writ large.
Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.