Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Satisfied Sex Worker or Domestic Trafficking Victim?

By Kari Lydersen, AlterNet. Posted May 8, 2008.


New legislation could expand the definition of trafficking to treat many sex workers as crime victims instead of criminals.
Advertisement

A teenage girl from Chicago is being sexually abused by her mother's string of boyfriends. So she flees home with a boyfriend of her own. They hit the road but run out of money, so the boyfriend shows her how to work the truck stops, and she becomes a prostitute. Several years later, she is working for a pimp who forces her to serve 10 or more customers a night, driving her to different locations in the city and suburbs, and keeps almost all the money himself. She wants to leave prostitution, but is emotionally and financially dependent on the pimp and afraid he will physically harm her if she tries to leave.

This story is a composite of very common situations, according to a groundbreaking study of 100 young prostitutes and their relationships with pimps released by DePaul University's College of Law and the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority on May 7.

Public and governmental attention has been increasingly focused on victims of international sex trafficking over the past few years, with immigration visas and social services offered to victims. By current legal and social definitions, the girl described above has not been trafficked. But advocates argue the DePaul study shows U.S.-born prostitutes working in the United States should, in many cases, be defined as trafficking victims, exploited and trapped in situations beyond their control. The House version of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA, also HR 3887), passed overwhelming in December 2007, redefines trafficking to include many domestic prostitutes. If a similar bill is passed in the Senate and becomes law, it will mean that women -- and some men -- in this situation would be treated as crime victims deserving of resources and institutional support, rather than as criminals. And their pimps and traffickers would face increased criminal penalties.

Among other things, the legislation widens the U.S. Department of Justice's definition of trafficking, which currently hinges on the presence of "force, fraud or coercion." The House bill designates trafficking involving force, fraud or coercion as "aggravated trafficking" and expands simple trafficking to include other forms of deceit, manipulation and control including threats, verbal abuse and withholding of support. It also makes sexual tourism to foreign countries a crime akin to importing people to the U.S. for sexual servitude.

Major women’s groups including the National Organization of Women and Feminist Majority support the HR 3887 language (also known as the Wilberforce Act).

In coming weeks, Sen. Joe Biden is expected to introduce the Senate version of the TVPRA, which also includes provisions on slavery and child soldiers. Some advocates of HR 3887 are afraid the Senate version will be introduced without the expanded definition of trafficking, based on internal conversations with politicians. (Policy staff for Biden's office were not available to comment for this story.)

Samir Goswami, outreach and policy director of the legal advocacy firm Justice Partners Against Sexual Harm, said the DOJ is likely loathe to expand the trafficking definition because it would give them the responsibility to investigate and prosecute many more trafficking situations in the U.S. And it would bring more attention to the extent of commercial sexual exploitation in the U.S. even as the country is gaining accolades for its fight against global sex trafficking. Goswami said HR 3887 mirrors the treatment of trafficking in the United Nations' Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, which was ratified by the United States.

"This federal bill just catches us up with the rest of the world," he said.

The federal Mann Act of 1910, which received attention during the Eliot Spitzer scandal, does criminalize interstate trafficking. But it is rarely used; it was left out of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA); and it is associated with politically and racially motivated prosecutions such as that of boxer Jack Johnson for "transporting" his white girlfriend across state lines.

In Illinois, state legislation addressing domestic trafficking passed in 2005 but has not resulted in any prosecutions. If the language in HR 3887 becomes law, prostitutes arrested on city streets or in Internet sting operations would be questioned by law enforcement to determine whether they are trafficked or being forced to work against their will. "That's what they do for cases of international trafficking now," said Goswami. "Say someone goes to a Greyhound station, sees a 14-year old girl who has been abused and run away, he offers her a ride, shelter, affection and attention and she falls for him. He then sometimes uses force and the threat of rape to prostitute her, and even transports her to clients -- that's trafficking."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: legalization, prostitution, sex work, sex workers, trafficking victims prote, hr 3887

Kari Lydersen is a Chicago-based journalist writing for publications including The Washington Post, In These Times and ColorLines, and is the author of two books. www.karilydersen.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the oldest profession
Posted by: solrev on May 8, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sounds like a good law because it creates a loophole for any prostitutes to get out of jail free. The law would do little to help anyone wanting to escape prostitution. They would still have very few life opportunities. It will not be hard for a pimp, who has more aliases than a cat has lives, to adapt. The law would essentially legalize prostitution. We should go all the way, legalize and unionize prostitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the oldest profession Posted by: Crazy H
Only mid & upperclass Housewives are willing sex workers
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 8, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there ahs been a trend toward upperclass wives running a little prostituion ring after hubby goes off to work. surely not fro survival- but for the thrill or personal satisfaction she's not getting from Hubby. these are the only Free 'Sex workers' and frankly I could careless. Honestly many woman stay in disfunctional relationships for the monetary security -Isn't that as much a prostitional situation. I knw a woman who stayed with her physically abusive husband becaseu of th elifestyle he afforded her. Not even taking into consideration the real detrimental effects on her tow children- criminally self centered.
As for those who work the 'oldest profession' they have no real choice- all they can do to make ends meet, all they have as a 'trade' or are physically and emotionally being held hostage and forced to work as a Product for their captors.
By legalizing the 'Trade' the underground abuse, profiteering and health concerns will end. It will be out in the open and exposed to the light- disinfecting the scum that have been allowed to run this underground criminal organization.We'll put the 'Pimps' out of business and allow woman (and men) to be their own free agents or the ability to get out.
both Prostitution and Drugs have been allowed to remain areas for unbridled Violence. it's time to end these instituionalized (validated)Underworlds. Bring it out regulate it and tax it- then we no longer must pay for costs of victimless crimes( vast incarcerations, enforcement and legal costs). I fthose worker commit a crime then charge them for those particular crimes( abuse/neglect, sell to children, DUI's etc)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the Empowerment group
Posted by: BreeMass on May 8, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think legalizing and regulating the sex trade will go much further to providing security and safety for sex workers. If it is legal and regulated, it would be pretty much a given that forced prostitution would be illegal, it would remove the idea of pimps from the scene and give women control over their own wages, health and work. This system works pretty well in the Netherlands where women can act freely as prostitutes and they are regulated for everything from wages to HIV/STD tests. It seems this would go further towards protecting woman than weak legislation to better define trafficking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lock `em up!
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 8, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another AlterNet article which makes a strong case for women not being allowed out of the house without a chaperone (or a chastity belt), because they seem to be entirely unable to do so on their own without instantly turning into dupes and getting victimized. Poor babies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jobs, Housing, Health Care
Posted by: pangolin on May 8, 2008 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If women had some kind of universal right to jobs, housing and health care maybe fewer of them would feel trapped. As is some "ladies" are faced with the choice of turning some tricks to pay the motel or sleep on the streets.

That's the whole point of allowing homelessness isn't it? It forces people to do work that they otherwise wouldn't do. Declaring some people as "illegal" just makes the whole problem worse. How can it be illegal to be a person?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Decriminalize Prostitution in San Francisco
Posted by: slava222 on May 9, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are working on a ballot initiative to decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco. We need help! Check out http://www.espu-ca.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it should be legal... but..
Posted by: cyr3n on May 9, 2008 6:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you hire a lawyer for his/her brain and knowledge. you hire movers for their muscle and brawn. you can buy sperm and ovum. we even outsource pregnancy to surrogate mothers. why is borrowing someone romantically illegal?

Personally I think if prostitution were legal, it would give way to much power to women from the patriarchy's point of view. Think about it. When currency is scarce, people go back to bartering. Women ALWAYS have something men want. Sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Lydersen
Posted by: susnow on May 11, 2008 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, this teenage runaway from Chicago cannot be classified as a "satisfied sex worker". Duh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so if you're a WHITE PROFESSIONAL who whores around...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 12, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by being a 'face girl' or 'marketing whore' ... would that be illegal?
what if you're just one of those girls who can't make the rent & takes 'expensive gifts' or 'small cash gifts' for screwing around?? ...what if you just whore with your boss or co-workers because you can't keep a 'corporate' job otherwise?

no, its just when you're actually taking money instead of a paycheque, right?

...but if you're a BOXER who uses their body & takes damage for a paycheque, that's an athletic career, right?

Vice
.
.
.
Think about it...

The Thieves of Virtue: legislating morality undermines representative government.

really, VICE is contextual:
* gender
* ethnicity
* age
* race...

all pay a part in morals. but VICE, should never be *criminalized*, especially in a nation where PRIVACY has been abolished.

Who is PERFECT ENOUGH to represent THE PEOPLE or a populist reform when there is neither privacy nor the Will to preserve privacy in society?
Who stands *for the People* when Money & Power exert corrosive controls to extend their oppression & corruption?

You've been *had*

Nobody is immune to *vice* as VICE is about how ONE PERSON privately & personally determines *how to enjoy their own body*...

Naked Truth: Civil Rights & CNN coverage of "F.B.I. biometric database - 'Server in the Sky'"
...& THAT is how THE MORAL MAJORITY ensured Money & Power will kill representative government for The Peoples who seek JUSTICE, Freedom & Human Rights.

"corruption is why we win":
"Yell Fire!": Bush to freeze peace activist assets? - Executive Order to "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq"

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data

Diamond Age? - Kids, RFID Chips... & Minority Reporting?!: thoughts on the new US Project Hostile Intent (PHI)

Watching the "Ownership Society": follow-ups on Shareholder Surveillance...


~~~ Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Article is Sloppy and WRONG
Posted by: carolleigh on May 14, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is just plain wrong and sloppy. In one glaring example below, where she writes "Though the new definition does decriminalize prostitution for many women, since it increases criminalization of the pimps involved..."

The new legislation does nothing to decriminalize prostitution! This interpretation is bizarre. She needs to do her homework.

This link is a critique of the legislation by human rights activists around the country. Sex worker rights activists are not the only ones who have objected, although that is not clear from her article.
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1582/49/


The additions to the Mann Act are quite disturbing.

"Sex Trafficking" would be a federal crime under the Mann Act. Those categories are very broad. Persuading and enticing does not constitute deception. Much behavior can be interpreted as "enticing or persuading." For example, if I tell the truth about my own experience as a prostitute, this could conceivably be charged as 'persuading.'

Although this broad stroked criminalization may sound practical to some, these laws are easily used against sex workers.

Charges against 'living off the avails of prostitution' (pimping) which is a felony are consistently used against voluntary prostitution participants. The new TVPA creates the same foundation for arrests under the auspices of the DOJ.

It's very difficult to work as a prostitute without ever giving a fellow prostitute a phone number of a client. In fact, prostitutes do this regularly, forming groups for safety. Police very often charge these workers with 'pimping.'

In the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, "Sex Trafficking" is defined as involving commercial sex with no reference to persuasion or enticement. That discrepancy of definition is highly problematic and also point towards use of the law in voluntary prostitution contexts.

The FBI would be targeting the sex industry's collective business arrangements that many workers have to protect themselves. Even the DOJ objects to this use of their resources.

Prostitution businesses should be legal as they are in New Zealand where prostitution is decriminalized and regulated just as other businesses are.

Recourse in cases against those who abuse prostitutes is important, but not at the expense of the well being and safety of prostitutes in general, which is what this legal strategy is all about.

Those who promote these strategies do so in the name of women's (and girl's) safety, but behind these strategies if the idea that one cannot consent to prostitution, that it is inherently exploitative.

To further this notion, they construct laws that punish all who even claim this work is voluntary, and their right to practice.

From HR 3887

(1) NEW OFFENSE- Chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
`Sec. 2430. Sex trafficking
`Whoever knowingly, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or in any territory or possession of the United States, persuades, induces, or entices any individual to engage in prostitution for which any person can be charged with an offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both'.

Visit my site, Trafficking Policy Research Project.

http://www.bayswan.org/traffick

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Article is Sloppy and WRONG Posted by: carolleigh