|
Abstract
|
Response to ATR Debate Proposition: 'Prosecuting trafficking deflects attention from much more important responses and is anyway a waste of time and money'
This statement by the editors of this issue on the place of prosecution in ending human trafficking is of course hyperbolic, but it points to a basic truth about different strategies to protect human rights around the world. The ultimate goal in any anti-trafficking work should be twofold: preventing trafficking from happening in the first place; and helping survivors reclaim their voices and their lives so they can define how they want to move forward. Engaged audiences care about trafficking as a global issue and find it horrifying because it violates a shared hope--dignity for all people--andthe communal belief that everyone deserves a chance to thrive and seek opportunity in life.
Prosecutors and law enforcement do have a role to play in addressing trafficking, in those instances where victims and survivors affirmatively decide they want a criminal justice intervention. But victims and survivors of trafficking, as with people who have survived other violent crimes like domestic violence,1 have very mixed views2 on whether they want law enforcement involvement in their situations, viewing the police themselves as dangerous. Survivors rarely prioritise jailing of abusers over the opportunity to move on, seeking economic stability and protection of their own human rights. In fact, in the arena of anti-trafficking efforts, law enforcement has a history of engaging in raids that are not properly investigated.Instead, the raids focus on sex work and prostitution without evidence of coercion, making unfounded assumptions about the prevalence of trafficking.3
Law enforcement interventions do, at times, help survivors leave a dangerous situation. And if police and prosecutors work closely with communities affected by trafficking, they can close down some trafficking networks and help survivors connect with social workers and lawyers. But 'help' is not always well directed and the results can be disappointing, lacking in quality, or even dangerous. In the United States, some sectors of the criminal justice system also seek to provide services and job training for people believed to be survivors of trafficking. For example, in New York, specific courts are designated as Human Trafficking Intervention Courts, where people arrested on prostitution-related charges are referred to support programmes of varying quality and success.4 However, it is not clear at all that the people arrested are actually trafficked, or that they welcome this help being offered. This approach rarely leads to long-term economic opportunity for survivors, as the criminal justice system is poorly situated to enhance job opportunities for victims and survivors of abuse, and has never developed a strong track record in this area. This means that without significant financial investment from other sectors of government and from civil society, survivors and their families are left in precarious economic conditions, leaving them in vulnerable situations where they are at risk of being trafficked yet again, or at a minimum, going on to work in exploitative conditions...
Language: en |