Prop 35: The tragedy of what could have been

Last week I was one of three guests on this KCBS radio program.  It was prerecorded, with all of us interviewed separately, so none of us had a chance to reply to the others’ comments.  But when Chris Kelly (the major financial backer of the initiative, with approximately $2 million donated) commented that to his knowledge no trafficking survivor in California has received a civil award from their trafficker, I was perplexed to say the least.  Kelly repeated his statement during a panel discussion at USC last Tuesday, and this issue of civil judgements also appeared in this article where Kelly states, “I wish they could point to a case where a victim has sued a trafficker.  I haven’t seen one.”

Also quoted in this article, Nola Brantley, executive director of Oakland-based Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting and Serving Sexually Exploited Youth (MISSSEY) stated, “I’ve never met one girl that was able to sue her exploiter and get restitution, never.”  This is indeed sad since MISSSEY has served over 700 sexually-exploited girls.

But civil awards to survivors of trafficking are not that rare; my colleagues representing trafficking survivors have collected wages-owed, restitution, and additional damages for clients in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.  Mr. Kelly would have known this if he had just sat down with these attorneys and service providers.

I don’t blame Kelly so much for not knowing the status of anti-trafficking efforts, I blame him for not asking!  This issue of civil remedies is just one example of what can occur when we don’t invest our time and effort in a collaborative approach to a complex issue like human trafficking, and this is the real tragedy of Proposition 35.  If the initiative passes next week, attorneys and legislators will go to work in an attempt to undo the elements of Prop 35 which will inhibit survivors from collecting everything they are due from their traffickers, and fighting the challenges created by Prop 35′s changes to the evidence code.  Human trafficking will remain a crime for which prison time is not mandatory; prosecutors and judges (the other two legs of the tripod, along with law enforcement, which is responsible for the justice system response) will still not receive the training they need; and other meaningful changes will remain, well, unchanged.

California Against Slavery and Chris Kelly could have invited a broad cross-section of anti-trafficking professionals and asked, as a multidisciplinary group, what changes to current law would be most productive to aid survivors, prosecute offenders, train all elements of the justice system, and raise public awareness.  But they chose not to.  This collaborative process is not new to anti-trafficking professionals; it is promoted by the U.S. Department of State as the 4 P Paradigm for responding to human trafficking: Prevention, Protection, Prosecution, Partnership.

How hard is it to get a large cross-section of anti-trafficking professionals in one room?  Pretty easy; this year California Attorney General Kamala Harris put together a Human Trafficking Word Group and held three day-long meetings, one each in Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  I attended the first two, where over 40 individuals attended.  The list of subject matter experts involved in the work group has over 100 names.  It should be noted, the attendees and their organizations paid their own expenses to be part of this work group.  With a budget over $2 million, CAS and Chris Kelly could have held similar meetings if they had chosen.

If they had done so, Prop 35 might be endorsed by agencies like CAST (Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking), Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, Polaris Project, ATEST (Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking), the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the Not For Sale Campaign; all organizations active in providing direct assistance to victims, advocating for legislative change, or both.  Community Solutions, a provider of services to survivors in the South Bay Area is publicly opposed to the initiative.

And if CAS and Chris Kelly had asked for broader and informed input, maybe organizations like the SAGE Project and Chab Dai USA would still be endorsing Prop 35.  Instead, both organizations have rescinded their endorsements.  The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Examiner, Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Riverside Press-Enterprise all oppose Prop 35, a result of their concerns over the way the initiative is written.

All of the organizations and newspapers mentioned oppose human trafficking.  The reasons they do not support Prop 35 is because of the unintended consequences – all of which could have been avoided.

CAS (and, in particular, their founder and executive director, Daphne Phung) brought passion and commitment to the cause.  Chris Kelly brought $2 million and the ability to hire signature gathers to get the initiative on the ballot.  But they forgot to bring together the people who could have made Prop 35 both powerful and consequential.  They brought financial capital, but forgot the social capital.  They had the resources at hand, but made the decision not to use them.  Now the issue is in the hands of the public, most of whom have very little, if any, understanding of the complexity of human trafficking in California.

If Prop 35 passes the damage will have to be undone.  The best we can hope for is that it will fail, and nothing will have changed.  Which is very sad.  CAS and Chris Kelly had a great opportunity to make real impact but have missed it.  And that is tragic.

SAGE Project & Chab Dai USA RESCIND their endorsements of Prop 35!

This past week two organizations, each with a long history of working with survivors of human trafficking RESCINDED their prior endorsement of Prop 35!

The SAGE Project (Standing Against Global Exploitation) last Monday informed California Against Slavery / Prop 35 campaign that their board of directors was rescinding their endorsement and requesting that their name be removed from the CAS website.  SAGE has a long history of work assisting victims of human trafficking and was founded in 1992 by Norma Hotaling, herself a survivor of human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation.

Chab Dai (“joining hands”) was founded in Cambodia in 2005, and now works also in Canada and the United States to address human trafficking and exploitation through coalition building, advocacy and research.  This past Wednesday I received word of their decision to rescind their endorsement and of their request to have their name removed from the CAS website.

When two organizations of this caliber rescind – take back – their endorsements, we must take notice!  What possible agenda could they have, if not simply being concerned about the potential negative impacts of Prop 35?  Both of these organizations deserve great respect for taking a courageous stance.

We also need to understand that due to the emotional nature of this proposition, a non-endorsement (or taking “no position”) can be a very powerful statement.  We must ask ourselves, “Why are some organizations not endorsing Prop 35?”

I cannot speak to these organizations’ reasons for not endorsing, but I do ask myself, why?

CAST (Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking), which has supported prior legislation addressing human trafficking.  (CAST is quoted in this article as having concerns about unintended consequences.)

Polaris Project, a national organization, but which also works on legislation and training at the state level.

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, and California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, collaborative groups which are involved in supporting legislative efforts.

Community Solutions, another long-time provider of assistance to survivors and deeply involved in collaboration with a host of other anti-trafficking organizations has publicly stated their opposition.

Food for thought…

And also this past week, the San Jose City Council decided to take “no position” on Prop 35, when three weeks ago they were prepared to endorse the initiative.  They changed their mind after receiving input from anti-trafficking experts with experience in providing services to survivors, civil and immigration assistance to trafficking survivors, and the need for a multidisciplinary, collaborative response.

Finally, as we get closer to election day more newspapers are opposing Prop 35.  Again, ask why?  Could it be that by waiting to take a closer examination and by reaching out to experienced anti-trafficking organizations for input they realized the harmful consequences buried beneath the emotional response of higher prison sentencing?  You decide.  (Click here for editorials.)

There can be no agenda in opposing Prop 35.  It is opposed because it is NOT a good initiative.  Vote NO on Prop 35.

Opposition to Prop 35 Growing

Why are we seeing more opposition to Prop 35 among media outlets?

Recently the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Examiner, and Santa Cruz Sentinel have all recommended voting NO on Prop 35.  (You can find links to all of these editorials here.)  Others who oppose Prop 35 include: the Vacaville Reporter, Merced Sun-Star, Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Riverside Press-Enterprise, and Ventura County Star.

Could it be that these newspapers took the time to closely examine Prop 35, and maybe even realized that experts in the anti-trafficking field have concerns about the potential for unintended or unforeseen consequences?

The fact that this many news agencies have concerns means voters need to take a closer look.  Prop 35 will cause more harm than good for California’s victims of human trafficking.  Vote No on Prop 35.

Proposition 35: A shotgun approach to a complex issue

(This commentary was simultaneously posted at the No on Prop 35 Blog.  To read commentary from anti-trafficking practitioners click here.)

Let’s compare California’s history addressing human trafficking-related law with the approach taken by California Against Slavery and their CASE Act initiative.

Including 2005′s Assembly Bill 22 (Lieber), which established the crime of human trafficking in the state, there have been seventeen trafficking-related bills passed by the legislature.  With the exception of the 2007 bill which established Human Trafficking Day, the others each address specific areas affecting California’s response to this heinous crime.  Seventeen bills passed within seven years should be evidence enough that the legislature is paying attention to human trafficking, and to those who are working to assist victims and reduce in the incidence of trafficking in California, by carefully expanding the laws.  This approach takes into account that human trafficking (both the driving factors and the areas of response) are filled with complexity.  It is a thoughtful and collaborative approach that so far has avoided unintended consequences harmful to trafficking victims or the broader response.

California Against Slavery clearly wants to reduce the incidence of trafficking in California, but their initiative is so broad, touching on so many elements, the potential for unintended or unforeseen consequences is tremendous.

Examining the CASE Act, we find:

• Two different changes to the California Evidence Code which, in the opinion of some prosecutors, could make charging PC 236.1 more difficult, and open ground for court challenges upon appealing any conviction.
• A change to, and broadening of, the definition of human trafficking which conflates human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
• Increases the sentencing structure upon conviction for human trafficking, but does not place human trafficking on the list of non-probation eligible offenses, meaning, those convicted of human trafficking could still avoid prison.  (This comes as a surprise to many supporters of the CASE Act.)
• Give the courts authority to fine those convicted of human trafficking up to $1,000,000, with 30% going to the law enforcement agencies prosecuting the offense and the remainder to the State for funding victim-services providers, making these funds unavailable for the victims to receive as wages-owed, restitution, or damages.
• Mandates those convicted of human trafficking for sex exploitation register as Sex Offenders.  This conflates sex predators and those who exploit for commercial gain; both terrible acts, but two very different things.
• Adds to the list of information sex registrants must report to police, information related to their internet service providers, internet identifiers, and any additions or changes.
• Mandates training for law enforcement.

This last element, frankly, has me shaking my head.  The CASE Act imposes “a minimum of two hours of training in the course or courses of instruction…as described in subdivision (a)…“  (This is referring to the subdivision, passed as part of California’s initial human trafficking law, which addressed the training law enforcement should receive on human trafficking.  The initial law did not impose the length of training, only the content.)

Subdivision (a) states the courses of instruction, “…shall stress the dynamics and manifestations of human trafficking, identifying and communicating with victims, providing documentation…required by federal law, collaboration with federal law enforcement officials, therapeutically appropriate investigative techniques, the availability of civil and immigration remedies and community resources, and protection of the victim.“  That is a lot of complex information to put into that “minimum of two hours”!  While I am a huge supporter of training, Californians must also realize that law enforcement staffing is critically low in many areas of the state, and imposing this structure will be very costly and could prove counter-productive.  (There are other, better, training options, including the Human Trafficking of Minors course; an 8-hour course offered 18 times a year across the state.  It is free for attendees (funded by a grant from CalEMA), is taught by a cadre of experienced practitioners, and has proven effective for both detectives working on human trafficking cases and patrol officers.)

So there are eight different ways (at least) Prop 35 impacts the multidimensional response to human trafficking in California, each with the potential for harmful unintended or unforeseen consequences.  This shotgun approach to a complex dynamic is the wrong way to improve our response to human trafficking.

Daphne Phung, the executive director and founder of California Against Slavery, likes to say Prop 35 is, “Just the start”, and that the law can be changed in the future.

Perhaps.  But why create bad law in the first place?

No on Prop 35 – CASE Act: A Detailed Examination of the Initiative

If you care to read a detailed examination of the CASE Act, I recommend this article from the Orange Juice Blog, Orange County’s Political Mosh Pit.

John

No on Prop 35: A Comment on the Official Opposition

One aspect of the anti-human trafficking movement which has always fascinated me it the diversity of individuals who come together in their opposition to slavery.  From small community meetings to conferences attended by hundreds of individuals, you can find many dedicated abolitionists who, frankly, will not agree on many other social or political issues.  That is not merely an observation, but recognition that those with diverse opinions can work together, and that their work can benefit those we work to protect.  I present this bit of background, because when you have diversity some times you also find surprises.  More than once, while speaking about human trafficking and the response to slavery, I’ve had audience members tell me that they were engaged in commercial sex professions, and that they were not coerced into their chosen line of work.  My usual response is, “Then you are not a victim of human trafficking as defined by law.  Thank you for your comment.”  In these situations, I choose not to engage in debates about their profession, but instead focus on those that are enslaved, regardless of what type of labor they are forced to perform.

In the case of Prop 35, a notable surprise for some is learning the official ballot opposition to the CASE initiative was written primarily by representatives from the Exotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project.  If you visit this ballotpedia website you will find all of the official information on Prop 35.  Why is there no other official opposition statement from those who actually respond to human trafficking?   Well, we just didn’t get organized soon enough!  It is as simple as that.

In late-July I went searching to learn how to submit an argument in opposition to Prop 35, and found this press release from the Secretary of State.  Released on July 6, this announcement asked for any for or against arguments to be delivered by July 10 – a mere four days later!  Rebuttals to any arguments were due July 19th.  I was simply too late.  As were any others, apparently, from the anti-trafficking community.

I oppose Prop 35 for the reasons I’ve previously stated, and for reasons I will address in future blog posts.  But the reasons I oppose Prop 35 are very different from the reasons cited by those who wrote the official opposition.  Please judge the merit of Prop 35 on the arguments (both pro and con) offered by those who are in the field, working to assist victims and prosecute offenders, and are knowledgeable about the response to human trafficking.

I oppose slavery, and believe the discussion should be about slavery.  I am in favor of identifying and rescuing victims, and helping the professionals who aid these victims in their transition to becoming a survivor of trafficking.  I am in favor of arresting offenders and prosecuting them with tools that work, but don’t make life more difficult for law enforcement and prosecutors.  I am in favor of the multidisciplinary model which is proven as the only successful way to combat trafficking and assist victims.  Prop 35 is NOT the correct course of action.  Vote NO on Prop 35.

John

No on Prop 35 – CASE Act: Why Law Enforcement Endorsements Need to be Examined

California Against Slavery has obtained many endorsements for its Prop 35 initiative, also known as the CASE (Californians Against Sexual Exploitation) Act, including endorsements from a variety of law enforcement-related organizations.  But there is a potential problem here; law enforcement agencies are not very well informed when it comes to the complexities of human trafficking!  With 25-years of experince with the San Jose Police Department, and having spent the better part of the past six years focused on the training of law enforcement officers in an effort to increase identification of trafficking victims and prosecution of offenders, I have seen the challenges and the irony.

First the irony: In 2010 Daphne Phung, Founder of CAS asked me to assist her in contacting the San Jose Police Officers Association (POA) in order to obtain an endorsement.  Not feeling it was my place to reject the idea based on my personal opinion (I’ve never supported the language of the CAS initiative, nor the use of the proposition process to change laws regarding human trafficking) I put her in contact with a member of the POA board.  I told the board member that due to the complexity of human trafficking (and the response to trafficking) I would be happy to offer my input on the potential impacts of the initiative if they decided to consider Daphne’s request.  But here is the problem; most law enforcement agencies will support any legislation that raises prison sentencing, since being “tough of crime” is part of the ethos of law enforcement!  I cannot speak to exactly how the POA’s endorsement was obtained, but I know they never asked me to present my thoughts – even though I had been responsible for our federally-funded anti-human trafficking task force since 2006!  The POA board endorsed the initiative.

Perhaps the greatest impediment to unearthing incidents of all forms of trafficking (i.e., sex and labor exploitation) is the general lack of awareness among law enforcement executives, and line officers and investigators.  This challenge has been well recognized by the federal government since the creation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, and by the State of California as documented in their 2007 report on trafficking.  Creating and providing training has been a goal of both the U.S. Department of Justice Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force program and, since 2009, the California Emergency Management Agency which has funded a Human Trafficking of Minors course offered through the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force.  But while the hard work of training police, service providers, and other potential identifiers of trafficking continues, exceptionally few law enforcement leaders (and certainly law enforcement labor organization leaders) truly understand the complexity of trafficking, and the potential unforeseen and unintended consequences of Prop 35.

If you want to have a balanced analysis of Prop 35 you must go to those who are the experts; the prosecutors who work trafficking cases, and the service-providers who aid the victims, and the civil attorneys who hold specific expertise in anti-trafficking law and the implications of any changes to existing law – whether through the initiative or the legislative process.  A multidisciplinary analysis is what is required.  Anything less means ignoring those who have the experience responding to the complexities of human trafficking in California, and across our nation.

In their desire to protect the citizens of California, law enforcement organizations are unequaled!  But that does not make them experts in anti-trafficking efforts, and certainly not experts in recognizing how Prop 35 could actually harm the response to trafficking in our state.  Enhancing trafficking laws should be created via the legislative process, not the initiative process.  I urge you to vote NO on Prop 35.

No on Prop 35: CASE Act Does Not Treat All Victims Equally

Proposition 35 (aka: the CASE Act) has several flaws, including proposing different sentencing standards for offenders who exploit victims for labor or services, as opposed to commercial sex offenses.  This is an insult to every victim forced to work in domestic service, agricultural fields, sweat shops, restaurants, or other forms of slavery that do not include sex.  The CASE Act even neglects to address the difference between minor victims (i.e., under age 18) and adults in labor cases!

Here is a quick rundown on sentencing as proposed in the CASE Act which modifies the current human trafficking Penal Code section, 236.1: “Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, is guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for five, eight, or twelve years and a fine of not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).”

(Note, the wording “shall be punished by imprisonment…” implies the CASE Act sends every offender convicted of PC 236.1 to prison: NOT TRUE!  These offenses are still probation eligible, meaning, those convicted could be given probation instead of being sent to prison.  Most supporters of the CASE Act do not realize this critical point.  I’ll explain more in a coming blog post.)

The CASE Act then proposes the following sentencing standards for sexual exploitation: 8, 14, or 20 years if the victim is an adult; 5, 8, or 12 years with a minor victim – a seeming disparity with the sentencing risk for an offender being less with a minor victim than an adult.  But, if the case involves a minor victim and, …”when the offense involves force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person”, sentencing can range from 15 years to life!  And this section of the law includes “attempts” at sex trafficking – not even a completed act!

Human trafficking does not occur in isolation, meaning, a good investigator will find several different criminal acts and the prosecutor can choose what is most appropriate to charge, but the CASE Act places different values on victimization, stating that a minor (under age 18) who is enslaved in, for example domestic servitude, could see their offender sentenced to only 5, 8, or 12 years, while a minor victim of commercial sexual exploitation (more accurately, where even an “attempt” occurs) may see the offender sentenced from 15 years to life.

The authors of Assembly Bill 22, and legislators who introduced the bill (which established California’s first human trafficking laws in 2006), got it right in their belief that all victims of modern-day slavery should be viewed equally as victims – which is why current sentencing standards do not treat victims of labor and sex trafficking differently.  Prosecutors can choose to include additional, appropriate charges which can lead to higher sentencing based on the severity of the particular incident.  This is how the justice system should work.

The organization behind Prop 35 purports to be, as the organization is named, California Against Slavery.  But Prop 35 shows an ideological bias in favor of sex trafficking victims which is apparent in the title of that act, which they chose: Californians Against Sexual Exploitation.

Prop 35 places different values on the victimization of slaves; an insult to victims of crime!  Victimization is a another complex issue which varies from individual to individual, and incident to incident, and this should be evaluated by the criminal justice system (including those who counsel and support victims of crime).  To codify victims of human trafficking into two categories is hubris, and displays a lack of compassion for those whose nightmare does not include an act of sex.

John Vanek retired in the rank of Lieutenant from the San Jose Police Department in October 2011.  John managed the SJPD Human Trafficking Task Force from 2006-2011, sits on a variety of state- and national-level advisory boards, and currently works as a consultant on anti-human trafficking, collaboration, and leadership-related topics.

Vote “NO” on Prop.35? CASE Act Requires Careful Consideration

Are all anti-trafficking laws good laws?  Should we blindly support any law simply based on its anti-slavery stance?  California voters have the opportunity to consider these questions this November when they vote on California Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) act.  Careful examination of the proposition, and some thoughtful analysis of how the CASE act may impact anti-trafficking efforts is in order.

The CASE act is the fruition of the dedicated efforts of California Against Slavery (CAS), which has been working since 2009 to place an anti-human trafficking proposition on the California ballot.  (For non-Californians; our proposition system allows anyone who obtains the required number of petition signatures to place a proposition on the ballot.  The proposition passes and becomes law if it receives more “Yes” than “No” votes on election day.  In theory, since only “Yes” and “No” votes are counted, a proposition can be passed without the majority of California voters even being involved in the vote – just one of the quirks of the system which we need to keep in mind.)

Visiting the CAS website will give you the background on CAS, and its founder, Daphne Phung.  I first met Daphne at the Not For Sale Campaign’s Global Forum on Human Trafficking in 2009, and I spent some time talking with her and her staff.  I was immediately impressed by their passion and determination, and I continue to be impressed as they have expanded their following, obtained endorsements and, failing to obtain enough petition signatures in 2011, held steady in their vision.  Partnering with Chris Kelly (former Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook, who offered sizable financial support) and the Safer California Foundation, earlier this year CAS amassed the required petition signatures, and the CASE act became a reality.

Daphne Phung launched CAS with a simple point of view: that current California laws for human trafficking do not have strong enough sentencing standards, and that raising those sentencing standards will reduce the occurrence of trafficking in our state.  From this initial viewpoint, the CASE act has become a virtual re-write of Penal Code 236.1.  In the coming weeks I’ll be examining several aspects of the CASE act in detail, analyzing the act so we can know whether Prop 35 will truly be an asset to California’s anti-trafficking response, or not.  But for now, let’s examine two points.

First, weak sentencing standards have been touted for years as one of the reasons the enslavement of humans exploded in the late 20th century.  But weak sentencing – while perhaps not a disincentive – does not cause one person to enslave another.  For that we must examine a complex list of push/pull factors, including the effects of globalization, increased migration, conflict (including wars, and in-home conflict leading to increased runaways and homelessness among teenagers), elements of culture, and that most basic of needs – a job.  Also, when examining the breadth of slavery situations we can place offenders into two broad categories: those who fully realize they are breaking the law, and those who don’t view themselves as criminals so much as just exploiting situations, relationships, and cultural nuances that make it – in their mind at least – okay to have an unpaid domestic servant, or other type of worker who is “lucky” to have the opportunity provided by the offender.  All offenders are equally guilty in my mind, but my point is two-fold: in my twenty-five years of law enforcement experience I have yet to meet any criminal who examined the penal code to determine the sentencing standard for a crime before they committed the crime and, two; trafficking violations typically do not occur by themselves, meaning, there are other crimes happening at the same time.  Prosecutors can then charge multiple offenses against an offender, increasing the potential number of years the offender risks being imprisoned.

The second point which must be understood is that California’s anti-trafficking law has only been in effect since 2006, and while six years may seem like a long time, it isn’t: to date, approximately 90 PC236.1 convictions have been obtained statewide!  This number is lower than we would like, but we cannot really argue that California’s enforcement of anti-trafficking laws would be higher with stiffer sentencing!  The low number of convictions is more closely related to other factors, such as the lack of awareness and training among police and prosecutors, low public awareness which prevents reporting of trafficking, and lack of dedicated resources among law enforcement and victim-services providers who work in tandem to identify victims who are originally identified as being victims of other types of crime.

Human trafficking is an extremely complex issue, both in terms of what drives traffickers to enslave others, and how we as a society (and as anti-trafficking professionals) respond!  This interdependent system of identifying victims, prosecuting offenders, elevating the knowledge and skills among law enforcement investigators and prosecutors, building public awareness so we have the potential for informed jurors, mitigating the true causes of slavery, etc. is, well, complex.  No single “fix” will shift the paradigm of slavery, no single passage of law will, by itself, prevent enslavement.

So before we embrace the CASE act we owe it to the enslaved to examine it closely, to make sure it has their best interests at heart, and that it fits into the anti-trafficking systems so many have worked so hard to build.  More to follow!

John

Human Trafficking Victims Trafficking Drugs: How Can Law Enforcement Respond?

“Cartels scheme to get noncriminals to do their dirty work”, written by ALFREDO CORCHADO, appeared in the Dallas Morning News on December 30, 2011.  This is an interesting article outlining how drug traffickers in Mexico use threats of violence to enlist unwilling smugglers into the drug trade, yet another example of how human traffickers exploit others.  Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, labor or services obtained through force, fraud, or coercion is human trafficking.  Corchado mentions a woman, currently in custody, who was told by drug traffickers her family would be harmed if she did not transport marijuana across the border into El Paso.  This type of coercion, threats to harm someone’s family, is often used by traffickers who exploit their victims through the commercial sex trade, or other forms of involuntary labor.  But this particular situation places victims is a terrible position where they have no one to turn to for help.  Corchado quotes the mother of one victim, “We’re innocent people, but no one believes our story in the United States, or in Mexico.  …it’s like it never happened because we don’t speak up; we don’t complain.  Complain to Whom?  We don’t trust Mexican authorities, and the Americans see everything in black and white.”

Speaking from the perspective of American law enforcement, this type of situation is exceedingly difficult to investigate!  If I arrest an individual possessing drugs in California (my home state) after they have crossed the border from Mexico, how can I verify their version of events when I would need to conduct my investigation in Mexico?  This heinous use of innocent victims as human mules not only places all of the risk of transport on the enslaved (for slaves is exactly what these people are), but at the same time it shelters the drug cartels and their minions, placing a border, lack of law enforcement cooperation, language, and other barriers between those who are responsible for protecting victims of crimes and the true criminals in this situation.

As an investigator, I have on occasion initially suspected a particular individual of committing a crime, only to change my mind later on.  My job then is to not only determine who did commit the crime, but often to find evidence to support the alibi of the person initially suspected.  Imagine this situation: working as a patrol officer I make contact with a man and his friend who are walking down the street, and through a legal search I find a envelop of cocaine in his pocket.  He professes the cocaine is not his, but belongs to his friend who is walking with him.  I can either take the easy route and arrest the man for possession or, if I am diligent in my work, I question both parties to determine if the story is true.  But if I only have the suspect to interview, and no way to investigate and verify their statement, my options are nil; I cannot simply release an individual, even if I believe their story.  I must have exculpatory evidence which I can take to my prosecutor, who has the authority to drop any charges against the suspect.

Of course, those individuals who are forced to transport drugs are in the minority; most drug smuggling is performed by willing participants.  This makes the decision too easy for most law enforcement officers: arrest the person holding the drugs and let the attorneys and the court system figure out the details from there, after all, possession is 99 percent of the law.

In the midst of the drug trade, and especially the violence embraced by the Mexican cartels, there are many innocent victims.  Those of us combating human trafficking must see this element of the cartel’s business for exactly what it is: another form of slavery.  This type of exploitation will be immensely difficult to prevent or solve, but the first step in defeating any problem is recognition.  I applaud Alfredo Corchado for his work.