Do you support protecting pedophiles or protecting children?
It may seem a bit obvious, but the California legislature stooped to that level of debate this week as they brawled over a bill that would increase criminal penalties for sex trafficking of minors. I was there.
According to the logic that has been ruling the Capitol these past few days, I would have fallen into the camp that supposedly protects pedophiles.
Now, just to be clear, I do not support pedophiles or sex traffickers.
But I do not support new laws with old problems, nor do I support subversive arguments based on conservative oversimplifications.
The bill in question is Senate Bill 14 by Republican Shannon Grove, who represents the Central Valley, which stretches almost from Fresno to Bakersfield to the desert.
The bill makes sex trafficking of minors a felony and is subject to the “Three Strikes” Act by California’s designation. This means 25 years to live if you fall for the third applicable crime. Selling children for sex seems too reasonable. Sounds good.
But the devil is always in the details, and Mr. Grove’s proposal raised two major concerns for those who make criminal justice reform a priority, especially Rep. Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles).
Jones-Sawyer runs the influential Public Safety Commission in Congress, and although the bill passed the Senate unanimously (although many changes were made to narrow the bill), The bill was flagged at a public hearing this week, essentially blocking the bill from moving forward. .
Confusion ensued, with some of the bill’s supporters accusing him and other opponents of the bill of protecting pedophiles. The cultural incendiary was meant to thwart all dissent.
Leaders of the Freedom Angels, who opposed vaccines a few years ago and later became notorious for Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempted recall, have also launched attacks. Many people who believed in the Qanon-related conspiracy theories claimed by Democrats also launched attacks. And the “elite” traffics children.
Calls and emails from Jones Sawyer and other lawmakers who did not vote in favor of the bill have been flooded with death threats and threats from people who want their children to be kidnapped and raped.
Mr. Grove, whom I spoke to Thursday, made it clear that he does not condone such tactics “in any way, in any way.”
She notes that threatening public officials is a crime in California, and although her colleagues may disagree, she favors turning such threats over to law enforcement for investigation.
But the pressure paid off. After Republicans threatened to force a vote on the bill, Democrats in Congress (still figuring out how to get along with each other, with a new leader named Robert Rivas from Hollister) took the bill to the Jones Sawyer Commission. and save face. This time, it passed after a tense two-minute debate, with two influential Democrats stepping out of the seat after declining to vote, and one Republican raising his fist to win.
What happens next is uncertain, but the concerns raised by Jones Sawyer and others need to be addressed. Because even if the Senate does pass the bill, we have legitimate concerns, and the nuanced scrutiny we should expect from elected officials is justified.
The big problem is that the bill leaves the possibility — albeit small — that prosecutors could charge sex trafficking victims with felony charges and hold them incarcerated for decades.
As I have written before, women and children who have been trafficked and are subjected to horrific abuse and terror sometimes cooperate with traffickers. In some cases, it also involves helping traffickers control other victims. It’s mostly a means of survival, a coercion.
Grove also acknowledges this.
“This is like slavery,” she told me. “The traffickers control every move there.”
But their cooperation has resulted in women being convicted of human trafficking, and Jones Sawyer and others said despite Senate amendments to the bill aimed at addressing the issue. We are concerned that this bill leaves the possibility that human trafficking will continue to occur. Victims’ fates are largely at the discretion of prosecutors, and the view that California considers sex trafficking victims to be voluntarily “prostitutes,” regardless of age, makes them people worthy of protection. Most prosecutors have become more informed in recent years because of the switch. But you never know when that discretion will turn ugly.
“Normally, laws that are tough on these crimes are like a shotgun effect of going out and arresting everyone,” Jones-Sawyer told me. “Then they trap some innocent people. It is very important not to criminalize these victims.”
There are also concerns that the already controversial Three Strikes Act will cause further problems. Many who support criminal justice reform want the 1994 law, enacted in the midst of the failed drug war, off the books.
Three strikes contributed to the over-imprisonment of blacks and browns. Blacks make up 6% of California’s population, but according to the paper, they make up “about 30% of the state’s prison population, 25% of the prison population, and 26% of the state’s probation population.” 2021 Penal Code Revision Committee Report.
Should I care what race a child sex trafficker is? However, many of the crimes that have caused people to strike have nothing to do with human trafficking and may seem rather petty. Vanessa Russell, founding executive director of the trafficking advocacy group Love Never Fails, said stealing a wallet on a bus is a strikeworthy crime. That’s why she initially opposed Senate Bill 14, saying she didn’t want to link these misdemeanors with human trafficking.
” [three-strikes] This list is completely flawed and that’s why I had issues with it,” she told me.
She supports this bill now because, like all of us, she wants her children protected and she feels some of her concerns have been addressed. But she said Senate Bill 14 would have avoided three strikes and instead made sex trafficking a separate crime, requiring longer prison terms, and the possibility of early release for good conduct and the like. said it would be nice
“Why can’t we create a separate language for minor trafficking that requires us to serve 80% of the time?”
good question. Let’s hear.
But the biggest reason Senate Bill 14 deserves further discussion is that it does not directly help victims. California has made significant strides in addressing human trafficking in recent years, with a focus on stopping trafficking before it starts and helping victims find meaningful havens to recover and move on. has achieved
The bill may keep victims safe by keeping pimps locked up, but there will always be more pimps. The bill puts victims at the center and focuses California on reducing human trafficking by reducing the number of women and children looted and protecting those who are already victims. Being is missing.
For example, it may address the fact that women remain imprisoned for crimes related to trafficking. How about setting up a mechanism to reexamine such cases? Why do we not fully fund programs that help women find housing and financial security when they flee? Why can’t we avoid using the threat of prosecution to coerce victims into testifying, as is so often the case?
“It’s good to have penalties for child traffickers, but it’s equally important to focus on the needs of survivors,” Maggie Krell told me.
Krell is a prosecutor who specializes in human trafficking and has put some pimps in jail. She is running for Congress on behalf of parts of Sacramento and supports Senate Bill 14. But she also said it was important to focus on victim support.
“If I win the election, the bill I push will be one centered around the needs of survivors, not defendants,” she told me. A bill that provides investment in disadvantaged communities, a bill that removes barriers to medical care and housing for victims, and a bill that helps victims recover from trauma.
That means she’ll likely join a legislator like Jones Sawyer, who wants to rid the streets of “monsters,” as he puts it, while at the same time uncovering the root causes of human trafficking. is.
Yes, because underage trafficking should be a serious felony.
But stopping human trafficking should also be a serious discussion, not one choked with enthusiasm and intimidation.
