shopify stats
Human Trafficking Center

Un-Safe Harbor: Why U.S. State Legislation is Ineffectively Addressing Sex Trafficking of Minors

safe harbor denver capitol building

10

Mar 2014

7

by Lauren Jekowsky, HTC associate

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 in sixHowever, 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[1] 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. 

Existing policy analyses assert that effective implementation of Safe Harbor Laws must include six key parameters:

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. Task Forces: Interagency collaboration should be emphasized to exchange information, share resources and connect victims to services for complete recovery.
  4. Victim Services: Mental, physical, emotional, familial, educational and recreational rehabilitation measures must be available to victims.
  5. Penalties: There should be increased sentences and punishments for traffickers and buyers of sex to deter future exploitation.
  6. 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

*Arrests by local law enforcement for 2012

 lauren's chart

 

 

*The views and opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the position of the HTC 


[1] I only examine these states (Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Washington) since the Uniformed Crime Report (UCR) arrest records are only available through 2012. The UCR database is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which analyzes arrest records from more than 18,000 state, local, municipal and federal agencies in the United States.

7 Responses to “Un-Safe Harbor: Why U.S. State Legislation is Ineffectively Addressing Sex Trafficking of Minors”

  1. Fremont domestic violence

    What a Useful Post and great article. Thanks author your Useful Tropic and Excellent Content. Truly I like it ….. Fremont domestic violence

  2. Don’t Believe Fake News Networks: California Democrats Absolutely Legalized Child Prostitution – If It’s Not Illegal, It’s Legal! – The bunny ranch insider

    […] YOUR RESEARCH: Read how Safe Harbor Laws work and full decriminalization does NOT. 12 states have fully enacted Safe Harbor Laws and 6 have implemented at least partial laws. California chose to legalize the sex trafficking of […]

  3. 8 Things to do Instead of Worrying about the Super Bowl Sex Trafficking Myth » True Freedom Foundation

    […]  Even Safe Harbor laws that prevent victims of sex trafficking being charged with crimes don’t necessarily provide victim support, and when they do, states can mandate it against a survivor’s wishes or actual […]

  4. 8 Things to do Instead of Worrying about the Super Bowl Sex Trafficking Myth | Human Trafficking Center

    […] victims.  Even Safe Harbor laws that prevent victims of sex trafficking being charged with crimes don’t necessarily provide victim support, and when they do, states can mandate it against a survivor’s wishes or actual […]

  5. The controversies behind Safe Harbor Laws - Human Trafficking Center

    […] HTC Associate Lauren Jekowsky pointed out in an earlier blog post, many state Safe Harbors laws are insufficiently funded, rendering them feeble or ineffective. […]

  6. Weaknesses in the Current Counter-Trafficking Public Policy Literature - Human Trafficking Center

    […] others, dominate the literature at the expense of analyses of subnational jurisdictions such as US states. This is surprising because, as pointed out by Stephanie Mariconda, Shashi Irani Kara, Melynda […]

Leave a comment