Human trafficking is very complex subject, and the response to human trafficking is even more complex. It is the very complexity that makes discussing Prop 35 so difficult, especially in limited news bites: to really understand the impacts of Prop 35 (whether you consider them positive or negative), you must first understand the complexity of human trafficking and the work of anti-trafficking experts. Voting in favor of Prop 35 simply because, for example, it raises prison sentencing and this will reduce the incident of trafficking (in the opinion of Prop 35 supporters) does an injustice to both the victims, and those who assist victims. If you really care about this issue, there are opportunities to learn more.
We owe it to the victims of slavery to really understand this complex dynamic, and to vote with knowledge as well as passion.
John, thanks for your excellent presentation at the panel at Stanford. These are some preliminary notes and a question (probably best asked of a criminal attorney) that I asked Kathleen Kim.
I attended a panel/debate on Prop 35 during with those who opposed the measure were from the Anti-Human Trafficking Advocates group…or maybe just the website. It occurs to me that none of the opponents were criminal attorneys (not absolutely sure). I realized that they had completely omitted the issues that Greg Diamond and Nedra Ruiz have brought up: the former and broadened definitions of coercion, combined with new penalties, renders new dangers for sex workers and young people who engage in sex trade particularly in the context of pressure to plead guilty to lesser crimes in the context of plea bargaining.
It was actually quite odd that issues for youth and sex workers were not included in the discussion, although the opponents did a remarkable job, since there are so many problems with Prop 35 which they dissected quite well. Former Police Lt. Vanek was particularly focused, strong and methodical. There are so many other problems with Prop 35 which he enumerated. Fortunately Veronica Monet and I had lobbied them to include her as a respondent. She made one of the most astounding and courageous speeches I have ever heard by a sex worker activist at the podium.
During the Q and A I asked attorney and opponent Kathleen Kim about our vulnerability regarding these new serious penalties and potential pressure regarding plea-bargains, but she asked the District Attorney (Prop 35 supporter) to answer instead. (I hadn’t remember that Kathleen wasn’t a criminal lawyer, so perhaps could not speak to this so easily) Of course the District Attorney explained that (I paraphrase or, rather, interpret) plea bargains are only used the most fair ways, when there is evidence of the crime. I think we all understand that the way the District Attorneys are able to overcharge to obtain pleas for lesser crimes is quite controversial, but I was not able to respond. My understanding is that this is the heart of the concern expressed by attorneys Diamond, Ruiz, et al in regard to this issue.
I also asked Kathleen Kim a question that she told me she had to think about, so I look forward to this answer:
“It seems to me that all people are very vulnerable if they have any friendships with young people, including other young people, which might include any support like letting them stay at their house. This is not only about over 18 year old sex workers, but anyone. Should we now warn everyone to throw people who even look young out on the street, break off all relationships to protect our own safety, because Prop 35 says that even if we don’t know how old they are, or that they engage in sex trade VERY broadly defined (does it say that also?), even WITHOUT and force, coercion or knowledge, we could be accused of trafficking. Our communities that are already targeted by police are in special danger. Prop 35 also highlights substance use, like marijuana use which is prevalent in my community. I am not seriously suggesting that we make young people more isolated and vulnerable, but that Prop 35 does that.”
As Black Women for Wellness explains in their opposition to Prop 35:
“…because of the broad definitions of this law, many young black and brown women and men are at risk for unnecessarily being targeted. How? Because of the loose definitions of trafficking, under this proposition, an 18 year old who take his/her partner out for dinner and a movie and then engages in sex could be seen as a trafficker. In addition, it could punish anyone who associates with minor sex workers, even if their only intent was to buy him/her food or give he/she a ride to the store. Yes the odds of this seem rare, but knowing many communities of color relationships with law enforcement, it’s not much of a reach to imagine a California in which this happen if prop 35 passes.”
I didn’t mention Cindy Liou, from API Legal Outreach. Her analysis was profound, and from my perspective, she highlighted the more fundamental problems with Prop 35 as well as the discourses, but I am afraid that the audience did not quite understand the ramifications of her suggestions. They were quite a departure from the usual criminal justice centered approach.