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.