EDITORIAL: California just fully decriminalized child prostitution. Activists spent years working to eradicate this term as there is no such thing as a child prostitute. They are all sex trafficking victims. But by California removing all laws without taking the following steps to enforce stronger punishments and sentences for traffickers and johns, California just left children out on the streets with no protections!
DO YOUR RESEARCH: California sets precedent for our entire country whether we like it or not. California just legalized the selling and buying any child of any age who can make it to their state. Read the difference between full decriminalization and Safe Harbor Laws.
It is the difference between pimping out our children and giving them a second chance!
Un-Safe Harbor: Why U.S. State Legislation is Ineffectively Addressing Sex Trafficking of Minors
As a response to growing concerns about the domestic sex trafficking of minors, U.S. states have adopted Safe Harbor laws. These laws intend to protect minors who have been trafficked or experienced sexual exploitation. Safe Harbor laws have been fully implemented in twelve states and partially implemented insix. However, they have proven to be largely ineffective in most cases due to their incompleteness, poor implementation, and lack of resources and need to be strengthened.
Safe Harbor laws are based on the premise that minors lack agency and are unable to consent to sexual activities with adults and therefore require protection as victims. Safe Harbor laws seek to bridge laws on consent to sex and laws on statutory rape. These state laws complement federal law, which decriminalizes prostitution for individuals under the age of 18 by reclassifying minors as victims of human trafficking. This keeps states from arresting and charging them with the crimes of solicitation or prostitution. Many states have replicated federal statutes by decriminalizing prostitution for minors, while others have adopted the “diversion” method, which gives judges and prosecutors full discretion to either bring prostitution charges or divert minors to victim services.
Although new Safe Harbor laws continue to be passed in various states, evidence indicates they have been ineffective. In examining arrest records in the nine states that passed Safe Harbor laws prior to 2012, I find that only Illinois, New York and Tennessee were providing legal immunity for minors from prostitution charges. Yet these three states still reported 10, 20 and five arrests of minors for prostitution, respectively. These arrests indicate state laws are not necessarily providing safe harbor for minors involved in commercial sex — an inconsistency between the law as it is written and implementation of law by law enforcement.
- Decriminalization or diversion: Minors must not be held criminally liable for prostitution but rather reclassified as victims (decriminalization), or there must be mandated rehabilitative services for minors, with criminal charges of prostitution based on the discretion of a judge or prosecutor (diversion).
- Training: All officials who might encounter minors involved in prostitution must have adequate training on identification and interviewing of minors and available rehabilitative services to understand the culture and trauma associated with the sex trafficking of minors.
- Task Forces: Interagency collaboration should be emphasized to exchange information, share resources and connect victims to services for complete recovery.
- Victim Services: Mental, physical, emotional, familial, educational and recreational rehabilitation measures must be available to victims.
- Penalties: There should be increased sentences and punishments for traffickers and buyers of sex to deter future exploitation.
- Funding: There must be adequate funding to implement legislation and properly protect minors experiencing sexual exploitation.
I classify implementation of these parameters for the nine states that enacted Safe Harbor laws before 2012 (Figure 1). Only Massachusetts mandates all six parameters in its legislation. Because Massachusetts uses diversion, five minors were arrested for prostitution in 2012 at the discretion of law enforcement and a judge or prosecutor. While these arrests might indicate Safe Harbor laws are ineffective, they may be justified by the need to detain minors at flight risk or who may return to abusive situations. Any arrests, however, must be carefully considered to ensure detention of the minor is truly in his or her best interest.
This analysis suggests there is still much legislative work to do to make Safe Harbor a reality. Incomplete Safe Harbor laws will not adequately protect minor victims of sex trafficking. Legislators considering establishing Safe Harbor provisions should therefore enact comprehensive laws and allocate adequate resources toward law enforcement training, collaborative task forces and victim services. Without these laws and resources, Safe Harbor will not assist its intended population but rather result in arrests of misidentified victims.
Figure 1: Safe Harbor Legal Parameters and Arrests by State
*Blue box indicates successful mandated legislation