>women who want to do porn, deserve punishment
The issue is women who have acted in pornography, but who claim to have not wanted to do it, and to have done it only because they thought they could get something else out of it.
So really, it's not the case that they didn't want to do it. They certainly did want to do it, and that's why they did it. They wanted to do it conditional upon the expectation of some special reward. In other words, they miscalculated.
People miscalculate all the time. People adopt all sorts of stupid expectations. Imagine signing a contract to sell your car for $1,000, but expecting to be paid $100,000 because the buyer said he would pay more than the contract says - it's your fault for believing in promises that weren't in the contract. People spend thousands of dollars and years of their lives studying at university, expecting a certain type of job. If they can't get a job, are we going to claim the universities have tricked them?
These women are trying to excuse their involvement by saying they were tricked. Most of them are probably lying. Banning porn clears this up:
Even if being tricked is an excuse for doing filthy, immoral things (I don't think it is),
it's certainly not an excuse for being a criminal.
If pornography is a crime, nobody can use the excuse that they were tricked.
That means the only excuse would be violent coercion. Without that, there would be no excuse.
If they have no excuse, they are at fault.
If they are at fault, of course they deserve punishment.
Whether it's public beheading, a short stint in gaol, or just a slap-on-the-wrist fine, doesn't actually matter. What matters is that it is made clear that pornography and prostitution are unacceptable in society, and that those involved in them are to be held entirely responsible for their choices. If those standards can be re-established, then the social repercussions will be far more effective than any fine would be.