sex trafficking Archives - Page 10 of 11 - Shared Hope International

December 23, 2010 by Guest

S. 2925 Falls Through in the Final Hour

Last night, the Senate adjourned without passing S.2925, the Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010. After passing in the Senate and the House with bipartisan support, the Senate failed to act on behalf of children exploited through prostitution and suffering–without the shelter, services and access to justice this bill promised.

It is terribly unfortunate we could not get the much-needed funding and resources for our children; however we have been heard on Capitol Hill. Advocacy throughout 2010 led to three Congressional briefings and two committee hearings on the issue of domestic minor sex trafficking. Congressional offices were flooded with emails and calls, including Change.org petitions that gathered more than 3,000 signatures, in support of this bill. This issue was noticed!

We extend our sincerest thanks to all the champions in Congress and the advocates around the country! We will continue to fight for the rights of the young victims of sex trafficking in our nation, and we ask you to continue to join us in 2011 and beyond.

November 18, 2010 by Guest

From Pimpin’ to Prison

Shelby’s Sentence
Shelby Shaandor Lewis, born April 4, 1967, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for prostitution and human trafficking during an intensive sentencing hearing with Judge Sullivan in DC Federal District Court yesterday. Lewis’ family, children, and two out of four of his victims were present, along with numerous other individuals. Lewis’ attorney, Christopher Davis, began his opening statements by asking for the judge to sentence Lewis on the ‘low-end’ of the sentencing guidelines, therefore asking for 180 months (15 years) instead of the recommended and suggested 200 months (20 years). Davis argued that Lewis “stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility to this issue.” Davis introduced previous cases (relating to different charges not including human trafficking or prostitution) for “equally egregious conduct” where defendants received only 96, 100, and 110 months. Furthermore, he tried to convince Judge Sullivan that Lewis would be “well into his 50s” before he would get out of prison. This, he assured us, would cause Lewis to change his behavior and leave this lifestyle of prostituting minors for commercial purposes. Davis also tried to minimize Lewis’ over 25 previous arrests for charges such as battery, assault, theft, solicitation for lewd purposes, impersonating a police officer, and use of handguns.

The hearing then took a spin when Lewis began saying he was sorry for his actions and for the situation he got himself and his family into. He said he was trying to “help” the girls he victimized, take them under his wing, provide for them, and be a father figure. Judge Sullivan jumped on these statements and immediately confronted Lewis. “You weren’t helping anyone out. You were gaining money from using those young girls and helping yourself.”

Life sentence for a victim
Bridgette Tillman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, read from a victim impact statement written by one of the young girls. When asked how the victim felt about herself she answered “angry, embarrassed, and self-pity.” When asked what the pimp (Lewis) should know about her, she said that the experience and abuse made her “angry and stronger.” Tillman went on to say that Lewis took advantage of the unsettled lives of these girls and promised them a home life, food, clothes, and shelter. Instead he put them on the street and made them work for him while he drove the streets looking for more vulnerable girls. Tillman argued that it made no sense for Lewis to serve only a 15 year sentence when these victims would be living a life sentence of shame, hurt, and pain, never able to get the years of life back that he violated them.

A helping pimp?
Judge Sullivan offered Lewis time to reconcile himself and say what he wished in regards to the hearing. Lewis again tried to convince the judge and audience that he was helping these girls and “never used or abused” any of them despite when the written plea clearly stated that he was an appointed guardian over four minors ages 12, 13, 14, and 16, of whom he prostituted. Each of these girls was living in his house alongside his own children. He transported them in his black, Ford Mustang and champagne, Chevy Tahoe between Temple Hills, M.D. and Washington, D.C., where he forced them to engage in street prostitution. They were required to give him all the money they earned.

After Lewis alleged that he never used or abused the victims, Judge Sullivan inquired whether Lewis pled guilty because he was guilty or rather to get the trial over with. Judge Sullivan appeared slightly confused and asked Davis and Lewis whether the plea of guilty still stood or whether Lewis was suddenly changing his mind and wanting to plead not guilty. Lewis declined answering some questions and instead motioned for the hearing to continue with the plea agreement of guilty.

20 years enough?
Judge Sullivan handed down a sentence of 200 months (20 years) to be served concurrently in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He signed the sentence after Lewis voluntarily waived his right to attend his upcoming restitution hearing scheduled for December 16, 2010. In addition to the 20 years, Lewis must provide a DNA specimen for the sex offender registry, which he is required to register for life. He is to have no contact with children under age 18 (including his own children) or with the victims. Lewis must also attend sex offender treatment and abide to corresponding employment restrictions.

Lewis’ last words before leaving the courtroom were “I’m ready to go.” He appeared distressed, shook his head, and took his wedding band off. Judge Sullivan concluded his statements by telling Lewis that if he could make the sentence consecutive he would do so, extending the sentence of 20 years to 80 years.

Court discernment
During the sentencing the atmosphere was tense as the audience wondered whose arguments would carry more weight in influencing the judge’s decision. Occasionally the victims got up and left the courtroom; one girl left crying, overwhelmed by the situation. Some news reporters took opportunities to interview others present in the courtroom. By the end of the sentencing, the audience seemed to be in a damper mood, recognizing the consequences imposed on Lewis. However, most of the audience seemed pleased with Judge Sullivan’s decision, perhaps even wishing that he could have sentenced Lewis consecutively.

A pimp’s consequences
This case is monumental in fighting against human trafficking specifically in the United States. Judge Sullivan did a great job sentencing Lewis, as well as being true to the law. Those in attendance saw the concerned side of Sullivan when he encouraged the family to have Lewis’ four-year-old son leave the courtroom, stating due to the nature of the case it would be unwise for the boy to be present. In the end, is it fair that Lewis only received 20 years due to the type of plea agreement when in fact these four victims—all of whom were minors at the time of the offenses—will live with these memories for the rest of their lives? Is it true that Lewis will mellow and get away from this behavior once he is in his 50s and out of prison? The case and sentence provide ample deterrence factors to other pimps. Lewis will not only spend the next 20 years locked away, he will also potentially lose relationships with his children and family.

October 23, 2010 by Guest

“We doin’ big pimpin, spending G’s…”: Why is this Crime Glamorized?

Disclaimer: The examples and references given in this post in no way suggest that Shared Hope is promoting the below types of memorabilia. We understand curiosity and investigating on behalf of interest; however, we do not recommend the purchase of such items, which could in turn endorse the commercial sex industry.

Jay-Z’s catchy hit from 2000, hasn’t lost any novelty during its ten year run in the music industry. It even costs $1.29 on iTunes—the price reserved for only the most popular songs within the virtual-jukebox—instead of the standard $.99. In a culture where pimps are idealized as wearing bright orange top-hats, luxurious furs and sporting fancy canes, who wouldn’t want to be “doin’ big pimpin’ up in NYC”? I offer two basic reasons why becoming a pimp can be so appealing in 2010, but please remember, my rudimentary analysis is by no means exhaustive. I simply suggest that the promise of being cool and making lots of money can be a deadly combination that has created an enticing outlet for the up-and-coming commercial sex entrepreneur.

It’s bad (that means good)!
The pimp culture doesn’t achieve all of its glorification just from Hip-Hop charts in the music world; the message is pervasive. From books to movies and video games, there is a never-ending list of media promoting the “ghetto-fab” lifestyle. Just ask Border’s bookstore sales representative Margaret Rhatican about her experiences working in a place where you are sure to find the story of A Pimp’s Life within a series of books about “working the streets.” Just in case one needs a little extra guidance, Amazon offers The Pimp Game: Instructional Guide for pimps in training. In the world of cinema, movies like Pimp (2010) and American Pimp (2000) have received rave reviews on IMDd (theInternet Movie Database), and video games like Grand Theft Auto, which allows gamers to virtually beat prostitutes, are top-ranked editors’ picks.

The word pimp in today’s vernacular has come to denote the improvement of just about anything. The growing world of social networks has been enhanced by a plethora of Websites dedicated to the simple pimping of one’s profile on MySpace. The hit MTV show “Pimp My Ride” is often thought of in this context, because who doesn’t want their car equipped with the ability to act as an amphitheater and circus-ride simultaneously? Pimping or to be pimped is merely the process of making something bigger, better, and brighter in our daily jargon. What’s wrong with that? You can even pimp your name on playerappreciate.com. I always thought Rachel was a little boring and needed some spice so I gave it a try. Ghetto Fabulous Rachel Shizzle, Master Fly Moore Loco, Crazy Eyes Rachel Flex, and Vicious D. R. Dogg were just a few of the names I found most interesting. It may seem harmless and exciting to take advantage of these flashy “improvements,” but when pimping is indicated by ridiculousness or flamboyance, it is very easy to forget the darker realities associated with the true connotations of this term.

You make bank (lots of G’s)!

A pimp is not only a member of the “awesome-elite,” he’s rolling in the dough. It’s the most secure job in an un-secure economy. It’s “recession proof,” says Linda Smith in her bookRenting Lacy, because “commercial sex turns out to be one of the few U.S. products produced cheaply.” Why would someone import from elsewhere what they can find right in their own backyard? The product is even more profitable when it can be recycled. In the recent Congressional DMST Hearing, Rep. Carolyn Maloney said it best when she described trafficking humans as heinously convenient. People can be sold over and over and over again, unlike the commodities of the gun or drug trades, which are only one-time sales.

There is no denying that pimping is a lucrative business. This is arguably what makes a pimp so glamorous. “The money is too good. It will never stop. It’s like stopping people from eating. This game will never stop,” were the words of one of the ex-pimps interviewed by DePaul University researcher Jody Raphael and Brenda Myers, Chief Operating Officer of The Dreamcatcher Foundation, in their study, “From Victims to Victimizers: Interviews with 25 Ex-Pimps in Chicago“. Their research estimated that the yearly income for pimps is roughly $150,000-$500,000 a year. That’s just chump change right? Tell that to the trafficker who was making $40,000 a week selling women to satisfy the demands of the gluttonous consumers of sex. Money—the root of all evil according to 1 Timothy 6:10—continues to fuel the fire of this ever-growing market, and doesn’t everyone want to be a millionaire?.

Make it whack! (that means not right)

What can be done to take the glitter and glamor out of the pimp-life? Change the vernacular. Searching the words trafficker, rapist, or abuser does not elicit the same Google images of fur, hats, and fancy canes as the pimp search, but instead, reveals truer depictions of the atrocity associated with each term. This necessary shift will take time and a complete transformation in society’s ingrained perceptions. Would a different approach that could act as a catalyst for such a change be more effective? Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher think it’s possible. They have started a trend focusing on positive reinforcement with the“Real Men Don’t Buy Sex” campaign. The Demi & Ashton Foundation (DNA) wishes to eradicate sex on the Internet in the hopes of rehabilitating the cyber-world to act as a weapon against sex trafficking.

Additionally, is it possible to formulate a pre-emptive strike? If so, education is key, and “by specifically educating and empowering young men, it is possible to decrease the number of people who patronize the commercial sex trade,” according to Allison Dunn Burque of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE). That is why she created a curriculum that has the potential of “increasing the number of men who are allies in understanding and challenging the harms of commercial sexual exploitation.” Both the DNA and CAASE realize that society will not end the demand in this industry without the strong and crucial role of men who need to say, “Buying sex is wrong, and even more so, it destroys dignity.”

Make them pay (lots of G’s)
The unfortunate reality is pimps exist, and more often than not, they are not wearing ridiculous costumes, and they most certainly are not interested in upgrading your Toyota. It is also crucial to remember that this role is not restricted to men. A Florida woman was sentenced last week to 2 ½ years for trafficking young girls, and her male accomplice may face 20 years and a $250,000 fine (a mere fraction of their income). Also last week, a Massachusetts woman and her 18-year-old son plead guilty to inducing a child into prostitution. As I said, the “cool reputation” and assurance of wealth aren’t the only incentives in becoming the big pimp that Jay-Z advertises. Familial ties to the life, the history of abuse, and coercion can all be added or tangential factors that lead to one assuming the pimp role.

However, pimping today is attractive and immensely profitable. Many of the Facebook fans of Shared Hope recommend sentencing the sellers of domestic minor sex trafficking victims to a minimum of a life sentence. Is that sufficient? Would that create the necessary cultural shift needed to amend society’s perceptions? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I know it couldn’t hurt. It would definitely be a step in the right direction, because no oneshould be “doin’ big pimpin’.”

August 23, 2010 by SHI Staff

Political Asylum for Trafficking Victims in the TVPA: Rule or Exception?

Full of hopes and aspirations, thousands of women and children end up trafficked into the United States each year by false promises of a better opportunity, school or the fulfillment of a vocational dream, only to later realize that they have been forced into sex slavery. This is a story we hear too often, but what legal action has been put in place to prevent these foreign victims from being trafficked? The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) has helped numerous trafficking victims, domestically and internationally, however, I believe this Act could be revised to generate more aid and programs for international trafficking victims. The TVPA allows immigrant women and children to report crimes committed against them to law enforcement and grants political asylum to victims of trafficking through a temporary T-VISA. This T-VISA allows the trafficked persons to receive aid from the Federal government. There are several limitations within the TVPA that facilitate the revolving door for trafficking victims; when they are deported it is most likely they will inevitably be subjected to human trafficking and sexual exploitation again in their home country.

The most prevalent critiques of the TVPA are:

1. Victims must qualify as a, “victim of severe trafficking.”

2. The victims must testify against their traffickers to receive asylum.

3. If the victim is not deemed eligible for the T-VISA they receive no protection, safe housing, and are ultimately deported.

To be considered a victim of severe trafficking, adult victims must prove they were coerced by fraud or force into sex trafficking. Language and education barriers prevent many trafficked victims from being able to convey their specific situation. The Honorable Mark P. Lagon states the specific shortfall of the differentiation between severely trafficked victims and trafficked women in the hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Out of the Shadows: The Global Fight Against Human Trafficking. Lagon asserts, “Despite global trafficking foci and flashpoints, there are no “lesser” victims of trafficking. Since TIP’s essence is groups denied equal dignity, let us not in our anti-TIP policy privilege some victims over others. They are all of equal value in humankind.”

Testifying for trafficking victims can be dangerous. In most circumstances traffickers threaten to kill victims’ families if they tell authorities about their captivity, so most remain silent. This also draws a clear distinction between international victims and domestic victims in that they are unable to receive assistance for their sexual exploitation through organizations who provide safe housing, protection from traffickers, medical and psychological attention, and training so victims can become functioning members of society.

When a victim of human trafficking has been determined a “severe trafficking victim,” or a prostitute, the care provided is drastically different. If a victim is unwilling to cooperate with the prosecution of the trafficker or is determined a prostitute by the Attorney General only after cooperating with federal and local law enforcement officials, deportation is most often their fate. But at what point does a victim of severe trafficking and prostitution cross? Is it only minors that are victims of trafficking?

During the “Out of the Shadows” hearing Mark Lagon states, “First of all, if lured into the sex trade as a minor, does it suddenly become a choice the day someone turns 18? Moreover, we know that numerous adult females in the global sex trade are subject to force, fraud, or coercion – including subtle psychological terror and trickery – making them trafficking victims even under the strict standards of the Palermo Protocol.” Yet this standard does not extend to the TVPA.

Ambassador at large, Luis CdeBaca, from the Office to Monitor & Combat Trafficking in Persons of the U.S. State Department, declares the Office’s goal is to, “Strengthen trafficking victims’ protection and assistance by encouraging cooperation between governments and NGOs, and enhancing the capacity of civil society organizations so they might provide comprehensive services that fully address the needs of victims. We will support evidence-based research to evaluate the impact of our programs and fill core data gaps. We will partner with the private sector to leverage resources and expertise to develop innovative solutions to this age old problem.” To echo the advice of CdeBaca, Lagon also insists the utilization of services such as, “NGOs and more efficacious international organizations – like the International Organization of Migration (IOM)” to aid in the support and protection of sex trafficking victims.

To mirror the suggestions of the anti-sex trafficking movement, there needs to be more services available to victims of this tragedy. Turning away victims because they do not fit into specific criteria is counter-productive. The greatest majority of women and children do not choose this life; they are virtually always thrown into this situation by force, coercion, or economic disparities they cannot overcome. Currently, political asylum is not the rule it is the exception; this should be altered so we treat every sexually exploited human as a victim.

August 23, 2010 by Guest

Anti-trafficking report: Jamaica

When most people think of Jamaica, they think of sitting on a beach with clear water, white sand, palm trees, and reggae music playing in the background. Few people would think of a 13 year old girl living in poverty, being forced into prostitution by her brother. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in Jamaica where sex tourism, poverty and unemployment fuel the forced prostitution of minors. In June the U.S. State Department released the 2010 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report. The report ranks countries as Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2 Watch List, or Tier 3 (more info). This year, Jamaica was ranked Tier 2. Due to a high economic dependance on sex tourism, Jamaica will have a difficult time attempting to reduce their human trafficking problem.

History of Trafficking in Jamaica

In the beginning stages of formulating a plan for dealing with sex trafficking and child prostitution, Jamaica was ranked Tier 2 in 2003. The Ministry of Health began inspecting sex clubs and other places where minors were suspected to be employed. The Child Care and Protection Act (CCPA) passed in 2004, however trafficking was only in one section of the legislation. Because of this Jamaica was placed on the Tier 2 Watch List due to the lack of implementation by the government to combat human trafficking. In 2005 Jamaica was ranked Tier 3, because there was “no discernable action taken.” In light of being placed in Tier 3 and under pressure from the U.S., Jamaica conducted public awareness campaigns, created a task force, and increased law enforcement efforts. In 2007 Jamaica passed a comprehensive act called the Trafficking Act of Jamaica, which prohibited the trafficking of persons, including minors, for commercial sexual exploitation. Due to this legislation, Jamaica returned to Tier 2 and has maintained the rank for the past four years.There are many problems in Jamaica that make combating sex trafficking difficult. Jamaica’s garrison communities are not effectively controlled by the government, instead crime bosses or “Dons,” rule these poverty stricken areas and violently promote their criminal agendas. The Jamaican government has difficulty enforcing laws in these areas as many people fear the Dons more than the government. Jamaica also suffers from extreme poverty and over 14.5% unemployment. In 2007 a report on Jamaica identified poverty and unemployment as the main causes of sexual exploitation in Jamaica. Shared Hope International’s (SHI) 2007 “DEMAND” report stated that Jamaica’s heavy economic reliance on tourism fuels demand for commercial sex.

TIP Report Evaluation

The 2010 TIP report ranked Jamaica a Tier 2 country. Jamaica is a source, transit, and destination country for women and children specifically for forced prostitution. Poor women, girls, and increasingly boys, are being forced into prostitution in mostly urban and tourist areas due to the popularity of sex tourism.

Prosecution– No progress. In 2009, few traffickers were prosecuted, none were confirmed to be convicted, and many disappear on bail.

Protection– Some progress. In partnership with an NGO, the Jamaican government plans to partially fund three new shelters. Victims were generally not punished for trafficking related violations.

Prevention– Some progress. The government funded anti-trafficking campaigns in schools and libraries and funded one NGO to raise awareness among youth in rural communities.

Reactions and Responses

The government of Jamaica has not made a negative statement about the report or ranking, however there have been some comments made from newspapers and other sources about whether America has the authority to grade others’ progress. A commentary in the Jamaica Gleaner stated, “…I find it counterproductive for the US to stand in judgment of the world when the very evil it purports to eradicate is happening in abundance in its backyard.”(Quill). Although the U.S., like other countries, could always do more, the U.S. is doing a great deal to comply with the UN protocol to prevent, protect, and prosecute. For most countries this data may be useful in creating a strategy to combat human trafficking, or could serve as a wake up call to speed up policy formation. The report is not perfect, and politics guided the ranking of some countries. However, in the case of Jamaica, the ranking seems fair given the undeniable trafficking problem due to poverty, unemployment, and demand from the sex tourism industry.

Shared Hope International Efforts in Jamaica

Jamaica was one of the four countries investigated for SHI’s 2007 “Demand.” report on trafficking markets. Information from this report was submitted to Jamaica’s Constabulary Force which resulted in the rescue of a 14 year old girl.

Two partners in Jamaica currently provide shelter and services for victims. Theodora House and Project in Negril includes a shelter and a computer center to help provide vocational training. Additionally, SHI supports Hebron House, which is a home-like shelter which serves sexually exploited girls.

What Now?

p1010644 — SHI staff take advantage of the skills learned by the WIN students!

With the release of the report and the ranking for Jamaica remaining the same for the 4^thyear now, I hope that more will be done to combat this exploitive practice. Police must be trained in trafficking recognition, vigorously pursue traffickers, and conduct thorough investigations into suspected cases. Increased public awareness programs are necessary not only for residents but also sex tourists who come to Jamaica year round and and create demand for commercial sex with young girls. However, with extreme poverty, crime, limited resources, and increasing demand, these changes are going to be no easy task. That is why non-profits, NGOs, politicians, and grassroots organizations can not stop advocating for and supporting these women and children who can not speak for themselves.

If we do not stand up and defend them, then who will?