Policy Archives - Page 9 of 11 - Shared Hope International

December 3, 2019 by Sarah Bendtsen

States’ Laws Say “Kids Are Not Prostitutes.” So Why Are They Still Being Punished?

During the 2019 legislative session, nine states passed[1] critical legal reform measures to protect child sex trafficking victims from being prosecuted for prostitution, commonly referred to as “Safe Harbor” laws. However, as first pointed out in 2017, not all “Safe Harbor” laws actually insulate child sex trafficking victims from a punitive response for engaging in commercial sex. States, in an effort to carve out alternative processes for commercially sexually exploited minors, have developed a broad range of responses, ranging from the availability of an affirmative defense to full non-criminalization, with various other legal responses falling somewhere in between. Once again, lawmakers underlined the prevailing conflict between the anti-trafficking community and other stakeholders that regard some commercially sexually exploited minors as consensual actors, needing of reform and punishment.

South Dakota is one such state that complicated the “Safe Harbor” narrative and furthered the disparate legal processes designed to address child sex trafficking victims. Legislators this session passed House Bill 1063, which repealed the previous law that allowed 16 and 17 year old kids to be charged and prosecuted for prostitution. In demonstrating their support for the measure, several lawmakers emphasized the inherent injustice of prosecuting children for prostitution offenses, stating, “prostitute implies consent and that a minor chose,” “the key is getting them the help they need,” and “we need to get [the child victim] help, not treat them as a criminal.”[2]

So why are child victims in South Dakota, like many other states, still vulnerable to arrest and prosecution?

Undoubtedly, House Bill 1063 made an important legal and policy change; yet, in doing so, it amended the state’s Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS) process to include “a child who engages in prostitution by offering to engage in sexual activity for a fee or other compensation.”[3] The intent of the bill was to treat commercially sexually exploited minors as victims, not delinquents; however, as written, South Dakota’s new law will create very little practical change for child victims. Effectively, minors engaged in commercial sex will still be subject to an inherently adversarial process within the juvenile court system.

We strongly disagree. Unlike a protective response, deeming a minor survivor as a “child in need of supervision” denotes culpability and responsibility. Sending a youth survivor into the juvenile justice system, where the CHINS process is housed, commences a punitive process: a child is still taken into custody, charged with an offense, provided a sentence (albeit a “reformative” one), and placed on probation. Should the minor violate the terms of probation,[4] he or she is vulnerable to re-arrest and additional charges. No aspect of this process is trauma-informed or victim-centered.

Unfortunately, South Dakota is not the only state with such conflicted laws and practices. 11 other states have created alternative responses that fail to unequivocally identify and respond to all minors engaged in commercial sex as victims of sex trafficking. Oftentimes, these alternative responses are utilized as a means of ensuring that the child is separated from the exploiter and engaged in services. However, requiring youth survivors to participate in services or refrain from certain behaviors, as all diversion programs do, is a flawed response in the context of sex trafficking victimization. This design is not only incompatible with trauma, it is incompatible with justice.

First, placing requirements on exploited youth ignores the reality that survivors of sex trafficking commonly deny victimization and oftentimes must reach emotional, psychological, physiological, and spiritual stability before they can begin to safely and productively process and treat their exploitation. Secondly, mandatory participation in services fails to recognize that a key element of providing a protective response to survivors is refraining from repeating behaviors that mimic the behaviors of the exploiter, including conditioning protection on a survivor’s compliance with certain expectations or rules. Lastly, requiring satisfactory participation in services negates the integral role that flexibility plays in responding to trafficking victimization. Healing is not linear; it is imperative that service responses allow for setbacks and pauses in order to ensure emotional safety and sustainable recovery. In addition to clashing with a requisite trauma-informed approach, diversion programs designed for commercially sexually exploited minors send mixed messages that survivors are somehow accountable for their own trafficking victimization.

While we acknowledge the legislative intent to protect and serve child survivors, we know there is a better and more developmentally appropriate and victim-centered way. Alongside survivors and ally practitioners in the field, we have been developing and advancing laws and policies that are designed to truly serve and safeguard the child, addressing the many layers of trauma and harm suffered, and equipping the survivor with tools for self-empowerment and freedom from both victimization and juvenile or criminal records.

We urge South Dakota, as well as the remaining 19 states that have limited or no protections, to develop and pass legislation that provides an empathetic, JuST response to youth survivors of sex trafficking.

For more information on protective responses for youth survivors and your state’s efforts to develop non-punitive avenues to services and care, please review the recently updated Stop the InJuSTice 2019 Toolkit and the 2019 Protected Innocence Challenge State Report Cards.

[1] The Texas legislature passed House Bill 1771 on May 27^th which removed criminal liability for minors under 17 for prostitution offenses. Despite strong support from the anti-trafficking community, Governor Abbott vetoed the bill, stating his concern for “unintended consequences.”
[2] February 6, 2019 House Judiciary Committee hearing on House Bill 1063.
[3] S.D. Code Ann. § 26-8B-2.
[4] Research is increasingly demonstrating the cyclical effect of juvenile probation and the seemingly inevitable fate of violating its terms due to relentless scrutiny and stringent requirements that run can conflict with behaviors that are an inherent part of healthy adolescent development.

March 13, 2019 by Guest

Child Victims of Sex Trafficking Receive Mixed Messages: If We Aren’t ‘Aggressors’ Then Why are We Arrested?

In February, Kansas Judge Michael Gibbens came under fire in national news for claiming that two girls, ages 13 and 14, acted as “aggressors” in a situation of exploitation in which a 67-year-old male, Eugene Soden, paid them to have sex. While public reaction to Gibbens ruling was appropriately harsh, the reality is that his decision is reflective of a much larger societal and legal paradox.

Informing his ruling, Gibbens made multiple statements that less harm was done to the girls because he felt they had acted “voluntarily” and were paid. In speaking of the 13-year-old, Gibbens questioned:

“So, she’s uncomfortable for something that she voluntarily went to, voluntarily took her top off for, and was paid for?”

“I wonder, what kind of trauma there really was to this victim under those peculiar circumstances?”

As a society, we must ask, why did money sanitize what, in any other circumstance, would be considered child rape? And more concerning, how did the exchange of money shift the narrative so dramatically so as to characterize children as aggressors in the crime of which they were victims?

The answers lie in the paradox in which victims of child sex trafficking are legally apprehended and consequently, socially stigmatized. Twenty-five states, including Kansas, still allow commercially sexually exploited minors to be charged and prosecuted for prostitution and human trafficking offenses despite federal and state laws that recognize these same minors as victims of child sex trafficking. This paradox still exists despite an increase in awareness, and specific laws to protect children from such offenses over the last couple of decades.

As recently as 2018, Shared Hope International scored Kansas an “A” for having strong laws to address child sex trafficking. Yet, even within a state that has received an “A” rating, more than 79 minor human trafficking victims between 2013 and 2018 were detained in a juvenile detention center, sentenced to an average of 33 days. Criminalizing youth who have experienced the horrors of commercial sexual exploitation, and oftentimes survived traumatic experiences that predate the exploitation, is not only the gravest of injustices but also prevents survivors from receiving critical services and ongoing, specialized care.

Laws, and the manner in which they are applied, should reflect a community’s attitudes and beliefs.

The law in Kansas fixes the age of consent at 16 in apparent recognition that sexual contact between an adult and a minor is not consensual. Despite this long-standing law and an increased understanding of the damaging effects of sexual violence, victim-blaming toward sex trafficking survivors remains. Gibbens’ comments towards the children in this case, reflect a culture that seeks to diminish or justify the harm of buyers and abusers by placing responsibility within the victims. The reactions of citizens, in which nearly half of the comments on social media placed blame on the minors and used terms such as “delinquent,” “out of control,” “promiscuous,” “prostitute,” and “choice” illuminate the reality of this disconnect. Illustrating this further, in response to Gibbens’ ruling, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt proposed a new law that would prevent judges from reducing sentences for adult sex offenders because a child was labeled the “aggressor.” Kansas lawmakers rejected the bill.

Thus, amidst anti-trafficking awareness campaigns and fancy fundraisers, as Kansans we must ask ourselves: How do we really view individuals who have been victimized by and survived human trafficking? If we truly care, how do we shift our culture to recognize all survivors of sexual violence, including child sex trafficking, as unequivocally blameless in the conduct that constitutes their very victimization? How do we ensure that individuals victimized are afforded services, protection, and responses free of judgement and injustice, while simultaneously developing modes of accountability for offenders?

We must put an end to the paradigms, practices, and policies that allow survivors to be criminalized for surviving their victimization while perpetrators get a pass. Instead, we must believe the experiences of child victims of commercial sexual exploitation, and hold forth the truth of their innocence. We must protect survivors and provide access to holistic services. We must demand justice.

For more information, please visit the Center for Combating Human Trafficking (CCHT) and Shared Hope International.

About the Authors:

Linda Smith served as state legislator and Member of Congress from Washington (1983-1998). She founded Shared Hope in 1998.

Dr. Karen Countryman-Roswurm is the Founding Executive Director of the Center for Combating Human Trafficking (CCHT) as well as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Wichita State University. Grounded in her own life experiences of overcoming streets and systems, Dr. Roswurm has over two decades of personal, professional practice, and community-based research expertise in the Anti-Trafficking Movement.

February 13, 2019 by Guest

Survivors of Child Sex Trafficking are Never the Aggressor

Joint Statement by Shared Hope International and Center for Combating Human Trafficking on Sentencing by Kansas Judge Michael Gibbens

Under Federal and Kansas state law, persons who purchase sex from minors commit child sex trafficking; in fact, Kansas law specifically criminalizes such conduct as “Aggravated Human Trafficking.” Therefore, by definition, minors who are purchased for commercial sex are victims of sex trafficking. Yet, in 25 states, including Kansas, an alarming legal paradox exists that oftentimes prevents child sex trafficking victims from being identified and treated as victims of the heinous crime.

A February 3, 2019 sentencing by Kansas Judge Michael Gibbens has once again reminded us of the detrimental status of our nation’s non-criminalization laws. In reducing the sentence of a 67-year-old buyer, and referencing the 13 and 14-year-old victims, Judge Gibbens stated,

“So, she’s uncomfortable for something that she voluntarily went to, voluntarily took her top off for, and was paid for? . . . . I do find that the victims in this case in particular were more an aggressor . . . [t]hey were certainly selling things monetarily that it’s against the law for even an adult to sell. . . . Normally, I would think that the harm that would have been done by this kind of conduct would very, very substantial. I’m not convinced that that is so in this case.”

This case illuminates a culture that allows half of the country’s laws to regard minors engaged in commercial sex as offenders of prostitution, despite their status as victims of sex trafficking. Shared Hope International and the Center for Combating Human Trafficking at Wichita State University adamantly and unequivocally assert that survivors of child sex trafficking are never the aggressors or blameworthy for their own victimization. Together, we challenge the laws and culture that support penalizing, rather than protecting, youth who have experienced and survived commercial sexual exploitation.

We share the collective outrage for the reduction in the buyer’s sentence while daring the conversation to go further; we must amend our laws and shift our beliefs to ensure that no child is deemed a “prostitute” and prevented from receiving imperative protections and specialized services. We believe that when laws, practices, and beliefs are transformed in tandem, true perpetrators will be held accountable and survivors will be appropriately identified and protected; justice will be served.

Be part of a movement that seeks genuine change to both the laws and practices that address exploited youth; together, we can ensure that youth survivors of sex trafficking are protected, not punished:

Education: The Center for Combating Human Trafficking offers training and technical assistance and also has a significant amount of free resources available.
Action: Sign Shared Hope International’s petition to Stop the Injustice and end the criminalization of child sex trafficking victims.
Continued Contribution:
- Slow down, pay attention, think critically, and seek solutions that move beyond technical, short-term responses and address the more complex root causes of trafficking.
- As states across the country, including Kansas, continue to develop their anti-trafficking and child sexual exploitation laws this legislative session, support legislation that offers true “Safe Harbor” protections for minors, ensuring youth survivors of sex trafficking are protected from criminalization and have access to critical forms of post-conviction or post-adjudication relief, including vacatur and records expungement.
- Many state laws, including Kansas, ensure that there is increased training for law enforcement officers and commercial truck drivers who might assist in identifying individuals who are trafficked. However, without adequate and accessible resources, increased identification can lead to increased criminalization of the very victims we seek to assist. Thus, improved legislation should consider training for those who are charged with determining outcomes and trajectories for youth survivors, especially stakeholders within the justice system, including prosecutors, probation officers, and public defenders.
- Hold elected officials accountable in applying the law as it was intended. This requires all of us to invest through time, talent, and treasure in our own local communities.

June 13, 2018 by Sarah Bendtsen

Progress Without Protection: How State Laws Are Punishing Child Sex Trafficking Victims

Over the past 7 years of the Protected Innocence Challenge, states have made substantial progress – 47 states have raised their grade, and while the majority of states were failing in 2011, there are no longer any states with a failing grade and 30 states now have an “A” or “B” grade. By closing gaps in state laws, this progress has also shown a light on where the most substantial gaps remain – unfortunately, those gaps primarily impact protections for child victims, specifically, laws that allow a child sex trafficking victim to be criminalized for their own victimization.

[easy-tweet tweet=”Gaps remaining in our state laws unfortunately primarily impact protections for child victims, specifically, laws that criminalize child sex trafficking victims for their own victimization. ” user=”SharedHope” hashtags=”#stoptheinjustice”]

Since the beginning of 2017, fifteen states have sought to pass laws to prohibit the criminalization of youth survivors of sex trafficking for prostitution and other offenses. Despite a growing consensus that children cannot be “prostitutes,” only four of the fifteen states have been successful in changing their laws. In fact, a majority of states still allow children to be arrested, detained, and prosecuted for prostitution, despite conflicting federal and state law that deems such children victims of child sex trafficking.

[easy-tweet tweet=”Since 2017, 15 states sought to pass laws to end the criminalization of youth survivors of sex trafficking for prostitution, only 4 of 15 were successful. ” user=”SharedHope” hashtags=”#stoptheinjustice”]

During this legislative session alone, twelve states introduced legislation to create new or strengthen existing protections for youth survivors of sex trafficking. By trying to stop the prosecution of minors for prostitution, these states embarked on a multi-state effort to demand protection, not punishment for child victims. Despite strong support among survivors, service providers, and anti-child sex trafficking stakeholders, all 12 bills have been unsuccessful so far.

In order to address the legal conflicts and mobilize states to enact non-criminalization laws that adequately protect and provide comprehensive services for survivors of child sex trafficking, Shared Hope International is launching the Stop the InJuSTice campaign. Complementing the campaign launch, Shared Hope’s Center for Justice and Advocacy will release a video and e-learning training series to promote a better understanding of defining, implementing and developing a JuST (Juvenile Sex Trafficking) Response. These resources bring together the voices of survivors, service providers and advocates from around the country to weigh in on this issue.

Why do states face challenges in making progress?

Developing and providing a specialized, non-punitive response to juvenile sex trafficking victims remains a complex challenge for most states. Because of this, the passage of non-criminalization legislation has plateaued over the last two years. Throughout the course of providing technical assistance to stakeholders and state policymakers, Shared Hope’s Center for Justice and Advocacy has identified three common challenges in adopting and implementing protective responses for youth survivors:

A lingering misconception that some minors can be “prostitutes.” Despite laws in all 50 states and D.C. that recognize the sale and purchase of minors for sex as a form of human trafficking, and thus the minor a victim of child sex trafficking, many people believe that some children can willingly and consensually engage in commercial sex. Because of this, several states have been reluctant to pass non-criminalization laws so that prosecutors and law enforcement can retain discretion in determining which children are deserving of punishment instead of services. This misperception is frequently fueled by a widespread misunderstanding of sex trafficking victimization and the ways in which resulting or underlying trauma can present in youth survivors.
A lack of alternative and appropriate placement options and services. All states, including those that have passed non-criminalization laws, are faced with the challenge of developing and utilizing safe and appropriate placement options for youth survivors. With far more survivors than available therapeutic homes or facilities, states may depend on detention centers to hold victims until alternative placements are identified, if ever. Additionally, some argue that detention facilities remain the safest placement option for survivors, despite evidence that placement in such facilities can be traumatizing and not conducive to healing.
Diverging opinions regarding the best way to engage youth survivors in long-term services. Some stakeholders argue that, without the threat of charges or discipline for non-compliance, many minors are unwilling to engage in their service plan or make decisions that are in their best interests. While some youth survivors present run risks and may not consistently participate in services, this oftentimes reflects underlying trauma that needs to be addressed outside of a punitive system. A non-punitive approach allows minors to engage in the development of their own individualized service plan, free of timelines or coercive delinquency charges, exhibit an increased ability to trust their service team, regain confidence and a sense of control, and heal on their own timeline.

[easy-tweet tweet=”3 Reasons why states face challenges in making progress to end the criminalization of child sex trafficking survivors. Read here about all three. ” user=”SharedHope” hashtags=”stoptheinjustice”]

Additionally, some law enforcement and prosecutors oppose removing criminal liability for youth survivors due to the belief that charging a survivor is an effective strategy in getting the minor to flip and testify against his or her exploiter. This strategy is detrimental and treats the minor as a prosecutorial pawn; it also goes against the evidence that a survivor’s cooperation in an investigation actually improves when the survivor, instead of being criminalized, is able to access services and build rapport with law enforcement and prosecutors.

The consequence of inaction

Arresting, detaining, and prosecuting minors for prostitution is inherently unjust and creates a legal contradiction—state law recognizes the minor as a crime victim yet simultaneously punishes the child for the same conduct that creates their victim status.

[easy-tweet tweet=”Arresting, detaining, and prosecuting minors for prostitution is inherently unjust.” user=”SharedHope” hashtags=”stoptheinjustice”]

The criminal justice and delinquency systems are not designed to appropriately respond to juvenile sex trafficking victims. Treating child victims of sexual exploitation as criminals has serious long-term consequences. The process of being arrested, detained and prosecuted oftentimes creates an entirely new traumatic experience in the child’s life. It can strengthen a child’s attachment to their trafficker, while simultaneously fueling distrust in the systems that are there to serve the child. Delinquency charges can prevent the youth survivor from forming healthy and trusting relationships with persons in positions of authority who can assist and support the minor. Additionally, funneling youth survivors through the juvenile justice system can impair access to vital holistic support and care to address the trauma that accompanies and oftentimes precedes the exploitation. Charging exploited youth with prostitution and other offenses committed as a direct result of being trafficked has a long-term impact on their lives. Minors with juvenile records can be disqualified for employment and higher education opportunities, can be suspended or expelled from school, and can lose access to safe and affordable housing.

[easy-tweet tweet=”Treating child victims of sexual exploitation as criminals has serious long-term consequences.” user=”SharedHope” hashtags=”stoptheinjustice”]

Take action and join the mission!

Shared Hope International is committed to ending the practice of criminalizing juvenile survivors for their trafficking victimization. To mobilize change, the Center for Justice and Advocacy is launching Stop the InJuSTice, a campaign to seek advancements in both policy and practice. Here’s how you can get involved!

Sign up for our Thunderclap! To kick off the Campaign, on June 22^nd we will be releasing our new video, “Stopping the InJuSTice” on our campaign page and via Thunderclap. This new video amplifies both the voices of youth survivors who have experienced criminalization for their trafficking victimization and solutions for change. Sign up for the Thunderclap to automatically share this important message and the new video when it is released on June 22!

Take our training On June 22 we will also release Just Response, a free webinar training program to advance non-punitive, protective responses for youth survivors.

[easy-tweet tweet=”Take action to end the criminalization of child sex trafficking victims. Read this blog to find out how!” user=”SharedHope” hashtags=”stoptheinjustice”]

April 24, 2017 by Susanna Bean

Shared Hope to Oppose California AB 1402

Tomorrow morning, Tuesday, April 25th the Public Safety committee of the California Assembly will hold a hearing on Assembly Bill 1402. You can listen to the hearing here live, beginning at 8:30 AM PT.

California’s SB 1322 went into effect on January 1. This bill not only sparked a fiery discussion centered on one op-ed, it also led Assemblyman Travis Allen to introduce AB 1402 for purposes of repealing SB 1322.

Contrary to sensational statements that SB 1322 “legalized child prostitution,” the 2016 bill clarified that children engaged in commercial sex are victims of sex trafficking, deserving of a protective, not punitive, response.

Shared Hope is opposed to California AB 1402, and is working to protect the new law (SB 1322) ensuring that California children who have been exploited are treated as victims of a crime, not as criminals.

We have submitted opposition testimony for the hearing tomorrow. The full text can be found here.