|
Abstract
|
Response to ATR Debate Proposition: 'Prosecuting trafficking deflects attention from much more important responses and is anyway a waste of time and money'
Some prosecutions of human trafficking crimes are a waste of time and money. The trick is to make them count. Those who assert that prosecution wastes resources that are better spent elsewhere would generally divert them into protection and prevention efforts, namely the other 'Ps' in the 'three P' distillation of that neat trio of answers to questions of trafficking. Butallowing traffickers to remain at large fails to prevent trafficking and inadequately protects victims. Prosecution, protection and prevention are not mutually exclusive. The question is not which of them should take priority, but how they can be pursued in a way that is mutually reinforcing.
In the myopic pro-prosecution camp are those who equate more prosecutions with greater success against trafficking. Those familiar with the United States Department of State Trafficking in Persons ReporTrafficking in Persons Reportt know that its tier ranking has attracted ire. Its methodology includes an assessment of 'implementation of human trafficking laws through vigorous prosecution of the prevalent forms of trafficking in the country and sentencing of offenders'.1 But quantitative measures of prosecution and conviction rates make simple what is necessarily complex, and compare what is essentially incomparable. What does it meanor instance, that there are few trafficking prosecutions in a country where even murder goes largely unpursued? In a country where there are severalprosecutions for trafficking, how can we know whether those convictions served to disrupt trafficking operations? Did trial processes respect the rights of the parties involved? Did convictions lead to compensation and restitution for victims, or are they now worse off? In assessing trafficking response, prosecutions "warts and all"can only offer quantitative insight.2
Those adverse to prosecution raise valid concerns. Victim participation in criminal justice processes can result in their re-victimisation wherevictim-centred approaches are lacking.3 In worst-case scenarios, victims' protection needs may escalate as a result of their participation in trial processes, with little discernible benefit for them. Heavy reliance on victim testimony means that cases can fall apart, and can often mean that only low levelcriminals who victims come into contact with see the inside of a court room.4 Indeed, prosecutions achieve little towards protection or prevention where the best scenario is a successful conviction of replaceable components in a large and complex exploitation machine. These concerns underscore the need to weigh protection and prevention gains in setting prosecutorial priorities...
Language: en |