South Dakota is not the place one expects to find fourteen-year-old girls being sold for sex on the internet. The grim reality, however, is that sex trafficking is a growth industry and it has taken root even here in rural America. I became the United States Attorney for South Dakota in 2009, and at that time there had never been a case of sex trafficking prosecuted in the history of our state. Over the past four years in South Dakota, three men have received life sentences for sex trafficking in federal court, two more were sentenced to thirty years or more in prison, and more than a dozen men were prosecuted federally for attempting to purchase sex from a trafficking victim.

The economics of sex trafficking provide a clear illustration of the law of supply and demand. The traffickers profit from selling their victims to an eager market. Law enforcement has aggressively prosecuted the supply side of this equation, the traffickers, and in some areas this effort has produced significant results. But it is also important to address the demand side of the sex trafficking equation. In my experience, those who seek to purchase sex from trafficking victims often have a great deal to lose if they are caught by law enforcement, and thus we can significantly reduce the demand for trafficking victims in a community by also aggressively prosecuting these individuals. This article is a brief overview of our efforts to prosecute those seeking to purchase sex from trafficking victims in South Dakota.

The First Sting:

In 2011, South Dakota law enforcement set up an internet sting operation targeting men purchasing sex from children on the internet. Fictitious twin fourteen-year-old girls and an eleven-year-old girl were advertised on the internet as being available to perform sex acts for money. Three men responded to the advertisements and exchanged numerous emails and phone calls with an undercover agent, describing in great detail the sex acts they wanted to perform on the young girls. When they arrived at a local house with money in hand expecting to meet the trafficked children, the men were instead greeted by law enforcement.

Two of the defendants went to trial and were convicted by separate juries. The defendants subsequently filed motions with the trial court, asking that the convictions be dismissed. They argued that the federal sex trafficking statute they were charged with violating, 18 U.S.C. Section 1591, did not apply to “customers”. The district court was persuaded by the defendants’ arguments that the federal statute did not apply because the legislative history showed that Congress had failed to discuss the importance of prosecuting the demand side of a human trafficking enterprise. In fact, the legislative history revealed that Congress paid little attention not only to the demand side of human trafficking, but even to domestic sex trafficking generally when they passed the law in 2000. My office appealed the judgments of acquittal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. We argued that the plain language of the statute included those who seek to obtain sex from a trafficking victim, and that criminal trafficking enterprises cannot exist without both supply and demand. In a landmark decision released in January 2013, the appellate court reversed the district court and reinstated the convictions. This decision was a victory for law enforcement, as it is now clear under federal law that if you attempt to purchase sex with a trafficking victim that you are also a human trafficker.

Prosecuting Demand at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally:

The South Dakota decision from the Eighth Circuit provided my office with an additional weapon to attack sex trafficking. Armed with this new tool, South Dakota law enforcement turned their focus to the 2013 Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota. A coordinated team of state and federal authorities once again set up a sting operation targeting individuals interested in purchasing sex with children. Many men responded to the ads, nine men of whom we charged in federal court for responding to internet advertisements offering sex with girls between the ages of twelve and fifteen. One of the men even asked for a ten-year-old girl but settled for a twelve-year-old on the condition that he could take photos and did not have to use a condom. When this individual arrived at a gas station parking lot on his 2012 Harley Davidson expecting to pick up a child for sex, he was instead met by agents from the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation and arrested. He now faces a federal mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years.

We conducted a similar law enforcement operation last month during the 2014 Sturgis Rally. The number of individuals who responded to the ads were down significantly, a good result, but we are still prosecuting five individuals in federal court who responded to the advertisements. It should also be noted that South Dakota law enforcement conducts these operations not only during the Rally, but throughout the year. Our federal prosecutions have included prominent members of the community, such as a physician and an air traffic controller. Our citizens are now well aware of the dramatic ramifications for trying to purchase sex from a trafficked child.

Conclusion:

There are good people deeply committed to ending sex trafficking who disagree with our approach in South Dakota. I want to be clear that we do not seek 10-year mandatory minimum sentences in all of our cases. In every case, we look at the criminal history of the defendant and the nature of his conduct during the commission of the crime to determine whether a mandatory minimum sentence is appropriate. I also recognize that other prosecutors, in areas much larger than mine, are devoting all of their resources to rescuing children from actual sex trafficking operations. I appreciate their budget constraints and commend the important work they are doing with limited resources.

I do not, however, accept the criticism that I often hear about South Dakota federal prosecutors acting like “vice cops”. Let me be clear, we prosecute individuals who are on the internet looking to pay money to a stranger in order to have sex with a young child in their care. I offer no apology for prosecuting that type of trafficker to the fullest extent of the law. This strategy works in South Dakota and it can work elsewhere.

The issue of law enforcement and sex trafficking is complex and bears much consideration. Outwardly, the relationship seems simple: Police enforce the laws. Invariably, the victim comes under scrutiny in a sex crime and in some cases is blamed.

For many it seems troubling. After all, do we blame the store clerk for the armed robbery? He or she is never deemed complicit in the crime. Do we blame the home owner who forgot to lock a window and gave a burglar easy entry into his house? Was this really an invitation to all would-be-thieves to come into his house and help themselves to his valuables? Of course not.

Why, then do we assign blame to sex crime victims? Child sex trafficking differs from the “average” sex crime because it’s a sex crime that is demand-driven.

These complexities bring us to two fundamental questions: What perceptions does society have that influence enforcing laws that combat demand and how can society influence law enforcement’s prosecutorial priorities?

Let’s take the first question and examine the perceptions that society currently holds that influence the enforcement against demand. Let’s consider “demand” the desire and willingness of men and women to purchase human beings for sexual experiences. The commonly used false adage that prostitution is “the oldest profession in the world” lends credibility to sexual transactions and makes prostitution seem like a valid career choice. Many argue that a woman has the right to sell her body despite illegality in all but one state. Media influence suggests that we are all sexual beings, “sex sells”, and “nothing is wrong with a little porn.”

All of these societal perceptions place road blocks in the way of law enforcement when we try to enforce the laws that criminalize deviant and abusive sexual experiences. No gender, race, socioeconomic status, zip code, or profession is immune from this desire to purchase another person for sex. Sexual deviance knows no boundaries.

Historically, law enforcement focus was on the arrest of prostitutes, to a lesser extent pimps, and to an even lesser extent, the purchasers. It begs the question: Would there be a supply if there wasn’t a demand?

The concept of supply and demand is at the core of all economic principles. In any free market society, demand always drives supply and the price associated with any goods or services relates to the amount of supply in the marketplace. In other words, as demand increases, so too does supply. The supply of children is a reusable, resalable commodity and people are not illegal in and of themselves to possess. For a person with criminal intent, buying sex with a child is a low risk, high reward proposition. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to understand that.

It is undeniable that there is demand for sex with children. A quick glance at any state’s sex offender registry reveals that there is a great demand for children; the number of offenders that are registered as sex offenders for sex offenses against children is astonishing. The number of images of children forced into the commercial sexual industry is equally staggering. Has this always been the case or is something driving that increase in demand? The internet has certainly contributed to the anonymous distribution of pornographic images of children. Experts assert that child pornography increases the desire for children by individuals who are sexually attracted to kids. Permissive societal attitudes toward deviant sexuality allows demand to thrive.

Finally, how can society influence law enforcement’s prosecutorial priorities? More than twenty years ago, society changed its perceptions of what constituted domestic violence. Society is now undergoing a paradigm shift on the issue of human trafficking as well, yet because prostitution and child sex trafficking are increasingly electronic crimes, they have disappeared from the public reality. The crime is no longer visible to the eye as you drive up and down the street in the seedier parts of town. The “track” in any given city can now be found in the new 21st century geography–the internet. There is no longer a call from the community to “clean up” that bad part of town. That part of your community may still appear run down and dirty, but there are no longer scores of women and men trolling for a “date” where everybody can see them. And everybody could see the men who drive that track looking for a “date.” So, if there is no call to law enforcement to take action, no action is taken. Certainly, if members of the community saw children walking up and down the “track” police departments would be flooded with calls for action.

Bottom line: In order for criminalization of the purchasing of sex with children to become a priority for law enforcement, there must be a call to action, an outrage, a community swell, an overwhelming public opinion that the sale of human beings is a bad thing for everybody involved. Whether the good members of a community can see it or not, it’s happening right beneath their noses. And no one is immune.

Purchasing sex is now a well-accepted pastime in the United States. It’s not uncommon for men to visit strip clubs for a bachelor party or speak openly about consumption of pornography. Commercially depicted sexualization is so normal that in one study investigating the effects on men who view pornography, social scientists were unable to find a negative control group, meaning that the researchers were unable to find men who never consumed pornography to interview as a baseline for research results (Lajeunesse – 2009). Demand for commercial sex is now an unquestioned component of American culture and interference with an individual’s sexual preferences in this area is viewed as a violation of autonomy.

These societal norms do not exist in a vacuum and without consequences; they extend into law enforcement and judicial perspectives as well. In a culture where everything can be bought and sold, why does demand enforcement matter?

1. Buyers must be exposed.

Men are able to purchase sex with children because no one is watching them or holding them accountable. Right now, buyers have little to fear. The game changes when law enforcement and prosecutors apply strong laws with substantial penalties against buyers. A $10,000 fine for soliciting a minor for prostitution means the married buyer has to explain to his wife why their savings account is depleted. Asset seizure of the buyer’s vehicle will result in questions from the buyer’s employer when the buyer struggles to arrive to work on time the next week. The buyer’s registration on the sex offender registry means he has to explain to his family why they can’t live within 1000 feet of a school zone. When buyers are incapable of hiding their crimes, enforcement rises to a deterrent level and men stop buying out of fear of being caught.

2. If no one is buying, then traffickers won’t sell children for sex.

Human trafficking is an economic crime and is the destructive, profit-maximizing form of prostitution. Psychological factors influencing motives of traffickers are varied, but money is at the top. When a trafficker sells a child for sex, the trafficker receives all the proceeds from the exchange. The buyer’s participation in a human trafficking offense supplies the trafficker with money and encourages the trafficker to maintain control over victims through manipulation, force, and violence in order to keep selling that child victim. Enforcing laws against buying sex with minors dismantles trafficking enterprises by eroding the trafficker’s financial gain.

3. Stop the victim blaming.

Imagine that you’re a 16 year old girl from a broken home in a poor neighborhood and you meet a man who claims to love you, promises you freedom, and lavishes you with gifts. Before you know it, he flips the switch. He may be abusive and force you to walk the street or advertise on the internet for sex acts with strangers. Or he may manipulate you into believing he needs you to sell sex acts in order to support him so he can continue to love you. After months of this, you’re alone in a hotel room with yet another man who is renting you for a half hour from your trafficker and you’re interrupted by the forceful knock of the local VICE unit on your hotel room door. Your nightmare is over, right?

Wrong. The buyer claims he didn’t know you are 16 and is sent home to his wife and kids instead of jail. But you’re charged with prostitution, facing punishment. When laws against buying sex with minors are enforced, law enforcement see the true criminals and the child victims are steered away from punishment and toward healing.

4. Buying sex with children is a crime of human trafficking.

Demand enforcement makes sense from an economic and criminal justice perspective. Traffickers know that a thriving market exists for sex with children so they operate as procurers of the supply – child victims. Unlike commercial goods which have a 1:1 ratio of sale to consumption, trafficking victims can be sold repeatedly to thousands of buyers. The buyers, or the demand, are the driving force behind sex trafficking and should be punished accordingly. Enforcement of demand laws like those which criminalize purchasing sex with a child directly supports the underlying policy goal of identifying buyers as the fuel behind the sex trade.

5. When there’s no demand, sex trafficking vanishes.

Men who buy sex with children spend their money in conventional ways just like everyone else. Their purchasing decisions include things like rent, gasoline, and groceries. However, these goods are different from commercial sex in that they are inelastic– the person will continue to buy these goods or make payments on them even if the price of the good increases significantly. In other words, the person’s buying habits remain the same even though these goods are now much more expensive.

However, a buyer’s purchasing habits will change or stop altogether when the price of an elastic commodity becomes too expensive. The question becomes, how do we make it so expensive for the buyer to purchase sex with a child that the cost makes an impact on his purchasing decision? Enforcing strong demand laws and aggressively prosecuting buyer offenses will produce a chilling effect on the market for commercial sex. Basic economics teaches us that when demand (buyers) for a commodity decreases, the supply (victims) also decreases. When demand drops to zero, sex trafficking vanishes.