Responding to
Sex Trafcking
Victim-Offender
Intersectionality
A Guide for Criminal Justice Stakeholders
THE INSTITUTE TO ADDRESS
COMMERCIAL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
Shared Hope International’s JuST Response Council represents some of the most innovative
and informed experts in the country. These members help assure that JuST Response products are
informed by diverse perspectives and experiences. Council members share the goals of preventing
juveniles from becoming sex trafcking victims and ensuring that youth who have been trafcked have
access to the tools and support necessary to heal from the trauma they have endured and the skills to
create and sustain a life away from trafcking. Members include policy advocates, government ofcials,
medical professionals, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, academics and service providers, many
of whom are themselves survivors of juvenile sex trafcking, and hail from diverse geographic areas of
the nation.
This eld guidance is a joint report by Shared Hope International and Villanova Law Institute to
Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation and was informed by Shared Hope’s JuST Response Council.
It follows three years of collaborative research on sex trafcking victim-offender intersectionality—the
phenomenon of sex trafcking survivors who are alleged to have engaged in sex trafcking conduct.
e information and links provided in this report are solely for educational and informational purposes and do not
constitute legal advice. Shared Hope International grants permission for copies of the information in this report to
be made, in whole or in part, by not-for-prot organizations and individuals, provided that the use is for educational,
informational, noncommercial purposes only, and provided that each copy includes this statement in its entirety in the
legend, “Reprinted by permission of Shared Hope International.”
© 2020 Shared Hope International
Executive Summary
i
Introduction
2
Guiding Principles
3
Methodology
4
Definitions
7
Trauma Impact on the Sex Trafficking Victim-Offender
8
Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool
12
Considerations Pertaining to Current Sex Trafficking Conduct
16
Considerations Pertaining to Past Sex Trafficking Victimization
22
Considerations Pertaining to History and Other Related Factors
25
Key Stages of the Criminal Justice Process
30
Case Studies
33
Recommendations for Next Steps
46
Legal and Scholarly Resources Related to
Victim-Offender Intersectionality
48
Shared Hope International’s JuST Response Council
57
Acknowledgements
58
CONTENTS
iv
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
It has also been increasingly impacting human tracking policy development. While there is a spectrum of possible
responses to this complex issue, many cases involving ST-VOI have resulted in tracking victims being charged with
tracking oenses. is approach reects a narrow appreciation of the complex nature of ST-VOI, where past tracking
victimization is not considered or loses its relevance once a tracking survivor has engaged in behavior that could fall
under anti-tracking statutes. e Council recognized the injustice inherent in this response; it is inconsistent with the
actual dynamics of how tracking occurs, the nature and extent of control exerted by sex trackers, and the inuence of
trauma on the decision-making process and behavior of sex tracking survivors. is demonstrated trend of charging sex
tracking victims as oenders without considering their underlying victimization as well as requests from the criminal
justice system to provide guidance motivated the development of this resource. It is the Council’s hope that this guide will
support criminal justice stakeholders to improve their identication of ST-VOI and promote a more fair and just response
once ST-VOI is identied.
PURPOSE, GOALS & PARAMETERS OF THIS FIELD GUIDANCE
e purpose of this eld guidance is to support a shift in the criminal justice response to ST-VOI. e goal is to move away
from a narrow, retributive approach and toward a holistic approach. is eld guidance encourages stakeholders to consider
and apply a sex tracking-informed lens to cases involving ST-VOI. To accomplish that goal, the resources and tools in
this eld guidance were developed with three primary objectives:
Improve identication of sex trafcking victim-offenders who have come into
contact with the criminal justice system at any stage of the process
Enhance understanding of victim-offenders’ conduct through a sex trafcking- and
trauma-informed lens
Identify alternative responses to victim-offenders that take into account the impact
of their own victimization on their potential involvement in sex trafcking conduct
1
2
3
Over three years ago, the JuST Response Council began to discuss an emerging
issue that was challenging the eld: sex trafcking victim-offender intersectionality
(hereafter ST-VOI) – the phenomenon of sex trafcking victims facing sex trafcking
charges. The response to this issue has varied greatly among jurisdictions, inuencing
how and when sex trafcking survivors are treated as victims of a crime and when
they are treated as equal offenders alongside their exploiter without recognition of
their own victimization.
ii
With these objectives in mind, the following resources were developed for criminal justice stakeholders, which include any-
one involved in the criminal justice process, ranging from law enforcement and prosecutors to judges to criminal defense
attorneys to probation ocers to victim-witness advocates:
A Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool
is tool is meant to be a practical resource for anyone interacting with a sex tracking victim-oender who intersects
with, or is proceeding through, the criminal justice system. It is designed to help criminal justice stakeholders identify the
multitude of factors that commonly arise in ST-VOI cases and provide guidance on how these factors can be appropriately
taken into consideration as these cases proceed through the criminal justice system.
Case Studies
Six anonymized case studies are reviewed using the Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool in order to demonstrate how
application of the tool could potentially have shifted the response to cases with ST-VOI. e case studies are drawn from
federal criminal cases involving an adult charged with sex tracking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. e court records in these
cases contained information indicating that the defendant had experienced sex tracking victimization. While all of the
cases identied for purposes of the report involved female victim-oenders, this should not be interpreted as a nding that
male and gender-nonconforming cases do not exist. Instead, this reects the ongoing need to improve identication of
male and gender-nonconforming sex tracking victims and ensure the criminal justice process is informed and equipped
to recognize and respond to sex tracking victims regardless of their gender identity.
Legal and Scholarly Resources Related to
Victim-Offender Intersectionality
is collection of scholarship is a review of court opinions and scholarly
articles that highlights some current literature on the phenomenon of
ST-VOI. It also provides an analysis of related criminological theories
that may be applicable in the ST-VOI context.
While this eld guidance was designed for criminal justice
stakeholders, it has relevance for anyone working with sex tracking
victim-oenders. Similarly, the resources provided in this eld
guidance may also have application to cases involving tracking
victims charged with other serious crimes that are not tracking but
are nevertheless related to tracking victimization.
e JuST Response Council recognizes that service providers also
face challenges as a result of ST-VOI; however, this eld guidance
focuses on informing criminal justice stakeholders for several
reasons.
This eld guidance report addresses
the intersection of sex trafcking
victimization and criminalization of sex
trafcking victims under sex trafcking
laws without relying on derogatory
labels that are sometimes used to
describe sex trafcking victims who
have been charged with sex trafcking
offenses.
While the term “bottom,” and
similar iterations, are often used in this
context, the term “bottom” has been
created and perpetuated by the trafckers
who exploit victim-offenders. Due to this
genesis of the term, this report uses the
term “victim-offender” or “victim-offender
intersectionality,” with the exception of the
legal and scholarly resources section, which
addresses how the term “bottom” has been
dened by the courts.
THE IMPORTANCE
OF MOVING AWAY
FROM THE TERM
“BOTTOM”
iii
Proactive identication is key.
Tracking victimization is often challenging to identify. As such, proactive steps should be taken throughout the criminal
justice process to identify evidence that an individual suspected of or charged with tracking has experienced, or is
currently experiencing, tracking victimization. Close assessment and quick identication of ST-VOI can help distinguish
the role of a victim-oender from the role of a tracker. Once ST-VOI is suspected, it is imperative that stakeholders adopt
a trauma-informed response.
Trauma response to trafcking victimization is a critical factor at all stages of the
criminal justice process.
Either past or concurrent tracking victimization can lead to a trauma response that inuences a victim-oender’s alleged
involvement in tracking conduct. e impact of past and/or concurrent tracking victimization on a victim-oender’s
understanding of, and response to, their circumstances should be considered throughout the criminal justice process. For
example, ST-VOI should be considered in the decisions of whether to arrest and charge, whether to prosecute and on what
charges and whether to convict. If convicted, ST-VOI should be considered in determining what sentence is appropriate,
including how the sentence could be mitigated to reect the impact of sex tracking victimization on the defendant’s
conduct.
Coercion of a trafcking victim may look different than coercion of other types of
crime victims.
Tracking victimization and the resulting trauma response can uniquely impact a victim’s susceptibility to coercion, not
only in the context of being coerced into commercial sex, but also in the context of being coerced to commit other crimes.
Consistent with general principles of criminal law and justice, acts committed under coercion or duress are not as culpable
as acts committed willingly or knowingly in the absence of coercion or duress. Understanding the nature and power of the
coercion that trackers exert over victims to cause them to engage in tracking conduct is fundamentally important and
must be considered at every stage of the criminal justice process.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FIELD
e resources compiled in this eld guidance are informed by three guiding principles identied by the JuST Response
Council as broadly applicable to responding to ST-VOI:
1
2
3
e failure to identify ST-VOI in the criminal justice system can interrupt avenues to needed services that would address
a victim-oender’s trauma, and failure to recognize and respond to ST-VOI in the criminal justice system perpetuates the
perception that victim-oenders are not entitled to a service-based response, regardless of whether they enter the criminal or
juvenile justice system. An uninformed criminal justice response to ST-VOI can create serious barriers for victim-oenders
to access needed services. It also poses urgent questions of fairness in the enforcement of criminal laws to address tracking
and can undermine larger eorts to strengthen anti-tracking policy. As a result, this eld guidance was developed to begin
to provide the issue of ST-VOI the focused attention it requires.
iv
NEXT STEPS RECOMMENDATIONS
One of the primary goals of this eld guidance is to bring attention to ST-VOI and start a dialogue about how this
challenging issue can be addressed in a way that balances potentially competing priorities of victim-centered justice, victims’
rights and public safety concerns. e JuST Response Council also recognizes that this eld guidance will not address every
circumstance of ST-VOI. More research and learning are needed to identify comprehensive solutions, both in policy and
practice, for responding in a fair and just way to ST-VOI. To encourage that ongoing process, this report recommends the
following next steps for the eld:
Provide broad-based training for criminal justice stakeholders on identifying and responding to
ST-VOI.
Consider impact of, and potential alternatives to, coercive tactics to gain victim cooperation
and testimony. Research can help identify strategies for improving trafcking investigations and
prosecutions that reduce or eliminate reliance on victim-witness testimony.
Ensure that there is a strong service-based component embedded within the criminal justice
response to sex trafcking. Strong partnerships with service providers can help break the cycle of
exploitation and address the vulnerabilities of trafcking victims before they potentially lead to
later offending.
Conduct in-depth research on treatment approaches for sex trafcking victim-offenders, including
how to provide specialized trauma-informed services to sex trafcking victim-offenders without risk
to non-offending victims.
Conduct further research on what causes ST-VOI, how ST-VOI impacts a victim-offender, how those
harmed by sex trafcking victim-offenders are impacted, and what resilience and protective factors
could help prevent ST-VOI and coercion to commit other offenses.
Engage in an ongoing dialogue with a diverse range of stakeholders on how to balance competing
priorities of victim-centered justice, victims’ rights and public safety concerns.
Seek and incorporate survivor engagement in development of responses, protocols, research
strategies, and any next steps toward understanding and improving responses to ST-VOI.
Explore legal and practical alternatives to implementing a traditional criminal justice response in ST-
VOI cases, including opportunities to prevent criminalization at the outset of the case.
Open avenues for sex trafcking victim-offenders who have been convicted of crimes related to
their trafcking victimization to seek relief from the long-term consequences of those convictions.
v
v
2
INTRODUCTION
However, the eld is increasingly seeing that the nature of sex tracking victimization and the control and coercion
exerted by those who prot from the exploitation of sex tracking victims, means that prostitution is not the only
crime that tracking victims may be charged and prosecuted for in the course of their victimization. Increasingly, law
enforcement, prosecutors, judges and victim advocates are being confronted with the complex question of whether a sex
tracking victim should be charged as an oender when that victim engages in conduct that violates the sex tracking law.
is question does not have clear or easy answers. As the circumstances
vary widely from case to case, outcomes in these cases also vary widely,
with the victim-oender’s tracking victimization often being excluded
from consideration as they proceed through the criminal justice system.
Over three years ago, the JuST Response Council began to discuss
the issue of ST-VOI. Given the complexity of these cases, the Council
recognized the injustice inherent in charging sex tracking victims as
oenders without consideration for their own victimization. Victim-
oenders not only deserve, but require, a just, trauma-informed and
victim-centered response. e Council also understood that when the
intersection of victimization and tracking conduct brings a victim-
oender into the criminal justice system, a just response can be achieved
if the relevant stakeholders in the process are informed about the
phenomenon of ST-VOI and commit to both identifying victimization
and responding holistically once it has been identied.
Acknowledging the need to improve awareness and response to ST-
VOI, the Council developed this eld guidance. is eld guidance
seeks to provide criminal justice stakeholders with resources and a guide
to promoting more just and victim-centered approaches when they
encounter the intersection of sex tracking crimes that are alleged to
have been committed by sex tracking victims. e guide is designed to
foster a case-by-case approach that considers the unique circumstances
of the charged conduct alongside the circumstances of the oender’s
tracking victimization and how that victimization may have inuenced
the oending conduct.
Lurking at the edges of almost two decades of progress in combatting sex trafcking
in the United States is the problem of victim-offender intersectionality (ST-VOI). Indeed,
the phenomenon of trafcking victims committing criminal acts is largely unavoidable
in the sex trafcking victimization process. Consensus has grown within the anti-
trafcking movement that charging sex trafcking victims with prostitution can be
harmful and retraumatizing, giving rise to specialized human trafcking courts, diversion
programs, and “safe harbor”
1
and vacatur laws that seek to mitigate the harm caused
by criminalizing sex trafcking victims.
NOTE ON
FOCUS OF THIS
FIELD GUIDANCE
While the Council recognizes that
victim-offender intersectionality
has an impact on access to services,
housing and therapeutic treatment,
this eld guidance focuses on the
criminal justice response to VOI
for several reasons.
Not only does an
uninformed criminal justice response to VOI
create serious barriers for victim-offenders
to access needed services, but it also
poses urgent questions of fairness in the
enforcement of criminal laws to address
trafcking. As a result, inappropriate
responses to VOI can undermine larger
efforts to strengthen anti-trafcking policy.
Further, the complexity of addressing
this issue in the criminal justice system
warranted focused attention in order to
address the issue more broadly.
3
1
2
3
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Proactive identication is key. Tracking victimization is rarely easy to identify. As such, proactive steps
should be taken throughout the criminal justice process to identify evidence that an individual suspected of or charged with
tracking has experienced, or is currently experiencing, tracking victimization. Social factors that make an individual
vulnerable to tracking can also make them vulnerable to being coerced into committing tracking oenses; however,
despite similarity in underlying vulnerabilities, evidence that victim-oenders were subjected to tracking victimization
may not be as easy to identify as the victimization of individuals who are not also charged with oending conduct.
erefore, close assessment and quick identication of ST-VOI can help distinguish the role of a victim-oender from the
role of a tracker. Once ST-VOI is identied, it is imperative that stakeholders adopt a trauma-informed response.
Trauma response to trafcking victimization is a critical factor at all stages of the
criminal justice process.
Either past or concurrent tracking victimization can lead to a trauma response that
inuences a victim-oender’s alleged involvement in tracking conduct. e impact of past and/or concurrent tracking
victimization on a victim-oender’s understanding of, and response to, their circumstances should be considered to
determine the impact that the victimization had on the victim-oender’s ability (or perceived ability) to choose to act
otherwise. e existence of tracking victimization, concurrent or otherwise, is a crucial starting point for distinguishing
intentional conduct from conduct that lacked choice. Since trauma response is not limited to immediate responses to
trauma, the impact of trauma must be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process. For example, ST-VOI should
be considered in decisions of whether to arrest and charge, whether to prosecute and on what charges, and whether to
convict. If convicted, ST-VOI should be considered in determining what sentence is appropriate, including how the
sentence could be mitigated to reect the impact of sex tracking victimization on the defendant’s conduct.
Coercion of a sex trafcking victim may look different than coercion of other types
of crime victims.
Sex tracking victimization and the resulting trauma response can uniquely impact a victim’s
susceptibility to coercion, not only in the context of being coerced into commercial sex, but also in the context of being
coerced to commit other crimes. Consistent with general principles of criminal law and justice, acts committed under
coercion or duress are not as culpable as acts committed willingly or knowingly in the absence of coercion or duress.
Understanding the nature and power of the coercion that trackers exert over victims to cause them to engage in tracking
conduct is fundamentally important and must be considered at every stage of the criminal justice process.
e resources compiled in this eld guidance are informed by three guiding principles identied by the JuST Response
Council as broadly applicable to responding to ST-VOI:
4
METHODOLOGY
e process of developing this eld guidance spanned three years of work by the JuST Response Council and was guided
by the knowledge and expertise of the Council members.
2
e collective professional and lived expertise of the Council
members ensured that this eld guidance was informed by the perspectives of criminal justice stakeholders, including
prosecution, law enforcement, probation, judiciary, victim advocates and sex tracking survivors. e Council developed
this eld guidance following extensive discussion and debate, legal and scholarly research, review of over 150 federal case
records and analysis of state and federal laws impacting sex tracking survivors. roughout this process, the Council
identied the overarching need to change how the criminal justice system responds to ST-VOI and identied the specic
goal of supporting criminal justice stakeholders in making a systemic shift from a narrow, retributive response to a holistic
approach.
Given the impact of language on perceptions and cultural attitudes, part of shifting the criminal justice response also ne-
cessitates a shift in language. For this reason, the Council concluded that it was necessary to reject use of the term “bottom”
and its other iterations as an appropriate way to dene or describe a sex tracking survivor alleged to have committed a sex
tracking oense. e term “sex tracking victim-oender intersectionality” reects the broader criminal justice concept
of victim-oender overlap
3
while limiting it to the context of sex tracking cases. Additionally, use of the term “intersec-
tionality” in lieu of “overlap” was important because temporal overlap does not accurately reect the nexus of victimization
and alleged oending that may occur in sex tracking cases. Instead, these cases require a holistic understanding of a broad
range of factors in order to accurately understand the circumstances that led to ST-VOI and enable a just response.
us, in order to support criminal justice stakeholders in shifting the response to ST-VOI, this eld guidance encourages
stakeholders to apply a sex tracking-informed lens to cases involving ST-VOI, enabling consideration of the facts and
circumstances of these cases through that lens. Recognizing the real challenges that criminal justice stakeholders encounter,
the Council chose to focus its eorts on developing tools and resources that would support criminal justice stakeholders
who are on the front lines of tackling this challenging issue.
e resources and tools in this eld guidance were developed to support criminal justice stakeholders with achieving three
primary objectives:
Improve identication of sex trafcking victim-offenders who have come into
contact with the criminal justice system at any stage of the process
Enhance understanding of victim-offenders’ conduct through a sex trafcking-
informed lens
Identify alternative responses to victim-offenders that account for the impact of
their own victimization on their potential involvement in sex trafcking conduct
1
2
3
5
With these objectives in mind, the following resources were developed for criminal justice stakeholders:
A Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool
is tool is meant to be a practical resource for anyone interacting with a sex tracking victim-oender who intersects
with, or is proceeding through, the criminal justice system. It is designed to help criminal justice stakeholders identify the
multitude of factors that commonly arise in ST-VOI cases and provide guidance on how those factors can appropriately be
taken into consideration as these cases proceed through the criminal justice system.
Case Studies
Six anonymized case studies are reviewed using the Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool in order to demonstrate how
application of the tool could have potentially shifted the response to cases with ST-VOI. e case studies are drawn from
federal criminal cases involving an adult charged with sex tracking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
4
e court records in these
cases contained information indicating that the defendant had experienced sex tracking victimization. While all of the
cases identied for purposes of the report involved female victim-oenders, this should not be interpreted as a nding that
male and gender-nonconforming cases do not exist. Instead, this reects the ongoing need to improve identication of
male and gender-nonconforming sex tracking victims and ensure the criminal justice process is informed and equipped
to recognize and respond to sex tracking victims regardless of their gender identity.
None of the case studies involve a minor charged with sex tracking or prosecution under state law. Cases involving minors
were not included because of the condential nature of juvenile court records and because many of the cases involving
minors charged as adults have been publicized, making it dicult to eectively anonymize the cases. State cases were not
included because the dierences in law, procedure and practice vary considerably from state to state, making it dicult
to accurately assess the factors that inuenced the outcomes in the cases. Federal cases were more suitable for purposes of
comparison because of the consistency in laws and procedures applied in these cases. us, the fact that state cases and cases
involving minors were not included as case studies should not be interpreted as a nding that these cases do not exist or
are more limited. Indeed, news reports of minors charged with serious oenses alongside their trackers are increasingly
prevalent, and many of these cases are being charged at the state level.
5
Legal and Scholarly Resources Related to Victim-Offender Intersectionality
is collection of scholarship is a review of court opinions and scholarly articles addressing the phenomenon of ST-VOI. It
also provides an analysis of related criminological theories that may be applicable in the ST-VOI context.
6
While this eld guidance was designed for criminal justice stakeholders, it has relevance for anyone working with sex traf-
cking victim-oenders. Similarly, the resources provided in this eld guidance may also have application to cases involv-
ing tracking victims charged with other serious crimes that are not tracking but are nevertheless related to tracking
victimization.
e JuST Response Council recognizes that service providers also face challenges as a result of ST-VOI; however, this eld
guidance focuses on informing the criminal justice process for several reasons. e failure to identify ST-VOI in the crim-
inal justice process can interrupt avenues to needed services that would address a victim-oender’s trauma, and failure to
recognize and respond to ST-VOI in the criminal justice process perpetuates the perception that victim-oenders are not
entitled to a service-based response, regardless of whether they enter the criminal or juvenile justice system.
An uninformed criminal justice response to ST-VOI can create serious barriers for victim-oenders to access needed ser-
vices. It also poses urgent questions of fairness in the enforcement of criminal laws to address tracking and can undermine
larger eorts to strengthen anti-tracking policy. As a result, this eld guidance was developed to begin to provide the issue
of ST-VOI the focused attention it requires.
7
DEFINITIONS
VICTIM-OFFENDER INTERSECTIONALITY (VOI):
For purposes of this report, this term refers to the phenomenon of sex tracking victims alleged to have engaged in
conduct that violates the federal denition of sex tracking under 22 U.S.C. 7102 (Denitions).
6
Under this denition,
the tracking violation could involve a broad range of conduct, including recruitment, transportation, advertising and
harboring, and could involve tracking of adults by means of force, fraud or coercion or children without regard to
whether force, fraud or coercion was involved.
VICTIM-OFFENDER (VO):
For purposes of this report, victim-oender, or VO, is used to refer to an individual who has experienced, or is currently
experiencing, sex tracking victimization and is alleged to have engaged in conduct that violates the federal sex tracking
law. As previously discussed, while all of the cases identied for this report involved female victim-oenders, this should
not be interpreted as a nding that male and gender-nonconforming cases do not exist. Instead, this reects the ongoing
need to improve identication of male and gender-nonconforming sex tracking victims and ensure the criminal justice
process is informed and equipped to recognize and respond to sex tracking victims regardless of their gender identity.
SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM/SURVIVOR:
A sex tracking victim/survivor is any person who has been
victimized by/survived victimization of conduct that violates the
federal sex tracking law. is report uses “victim” and “survivor”
interchangeably to provide consistency and align with statutory
language and cross-agency terminology. e Council recognizes
that individuals who have experienced tracking are survivors at
all stages of their abuse and recovery and are not dened by their
victimization. e Council also recognizes that people with lived
experience with tracking may refer to themselves in many ways,
which may or may not include the terms “victim” and/or “survivor.”
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STAKEHOLDER:
is term refers to any professional or volunteer participating in the
criminal justice system in a manner that involves interaction with
individuals who are or could be charged with a crime.
This eld guidance report addresses
the intersection of sex trafcking
victimization and criminalization of
sex trafcking victims under sex
trafcking laws without relying on
derogatory labels that are sometimes
used to describe sex trafcking
victims who have been charged with
sex trafcking offenses.
While the term
“bottom,” and similar iterations, are often
used in this context, the term “bottom”
has been created and perpetuated by the
trafckers who exploit victim-offenders. Due
to this genesis of the term, this report uses
the term victim-offender or victim-offender
intersectionality with the exception of the
legal and scholarly resources section, which
examines how the term “bottom” has been
used in legal and scholarly contexts.
NOTE ON
LANGUAGE
8
TRAUMA IMPACT ON THE SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM-OFFENDER
WHAT IS TRAUMA?
Trauma is the unique individual experience of an event or enduring condition in which either the individual’s ability to
integrate his or her emotions are overwhelmed or the individual experiences a threat to his or her life, bodily integrity, or
sanity.
8
Trauma can be either a singular event, such as a rape, or chronic events, like sex tracking.
9
THE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF TRAUMA
e toxic stress associated with traumatic events has far reaching eects. Studies have revealed that the brains of people who
have been victims of trauma are dierent when compared with the brains of people who have not experienced trauma.
10
Anytime that an individual experiences a traumatic event, the body’s stress response system is activated.
11
Overactivity
of that system (primarily the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus) can inuence not only the physiological
makeup of those areas of the brain but, through that, the individual’s behavior and decision-making abilities.
12
Research
has consistently shown that victims of trauma have smaller amygdalae, which can result in hypersensitivity.
13
When the
amygdala is engaged, it sends a signal to speed heart rate, raise blood pressure and release hormones such as adrenaline
and cortisol.
14
e engagement of the amygdala also inhibits the prefrontal cortex, which controls judgment and impulse
control, and the hippocampus, which aids in eective recollection of events.
15
An individual attempting to recollect
their trauma may only have access to it in fragmented, non-sequential memories.
16
Without buers from healthy social
relationships and/or stable environments, these changes may lead to short and long-term diculties in physical and mental
health.
17
In addition to the impact on neurological functioning, trauma has a powerful and long-term impact on physiological
functioning and physical health. Toxic stress, which is experienced by repeated heightened stress responses, can impair the
nervous, cardiac, endocrine and immune systems, increasing the likelihood of chronic health conditions.
18
It is important
to note, however, that many of these negative changes are reversible with proper physical and mental health care, nutrition,
and supportive relationships, thus highlighting the need for service-based, rather than punitive responses.
19
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF TRAUMA
e psychological impact of the trauma one endures from being sex tracked depends on the individual and their subjective
experience of the traumatic event.
20
For some, trauma may lead to a sense of hopelessness, anger, inability to recall,
It is essential to view the actions and behaviors of sex trafcking victim-offenders
through the lens of trauma. Though an “ideal victim is expected to react to their
aggressors and to their [victimization] in socially accepted ways,” such traditional
notions of victimhood “do[] not account for the coping techniques that trafcked
[persons] may have adopted in order to survive their ordeal” or for their potentially
“unconventional reactions to their victimization.”
7
Therefore, understanding trauma
and how trauma can affect sex trafcking victim-offenders will shed light on how
and why victims may transform into victim-offenders.
9
loss of sleep, distrustfulness, disassociation or diculty concentrating.
21
For others, trauma may lead to an exaggerated
startle response, hypervigilance, eorts to avoid any reminders of the traumatic event, self-mutilation, suicidal behaviors
or increased risk taking.
22
Sex tracking victim-oenders are at a high risk for experiencing multiple mental health and behavioral problems because
of the nature of their trauma.
23
A 2010 study, which interviewed 204 tracked girls and women in seven post-tracking
service settings, revealed that 57% of participants were comorbid for three mental health outcomes: depression, anxiety
and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
24
Additionally, 55% of the study’s participants met the criteria for high levels
of depression, 48% met the criteria for high levels of anxiety and 77% met the criteria for PTSD.
25
ose three mental
health diagnoses are not comprehensive though; victim-oenders may also suer from panic disorder, substance abuse and
eating disorders as well.
26
Co-occurring substance use issues are especially common among those who have experienced sex
tracking because these substances may be used as a coping mechanism, as a method of dissociation or may have been used
as a means of coercion by trackers or buyers.
27
THE IMPACT OF COMPLEX TRAUMA
Children and adolescents exposed to multiple traumatic events experience a unique form of trauma known as “complex
trauma.”
28
e term “complex trauma” also refers to the immediate and long-term consequences of these traumatic
experiences.
29
“Children exposed to complex trauma often experience lifelong problems that place them at risk for
additional trauma exposure and other diculties, including psychiatric and addictive disorders, chronic mental illness
and legal, vocational, and family problems.
ese diculties may extend from childhood through adolescence and into
adulthood.”
30
Additionally, research indicates that complex trauma is not isolated to childhood traumatic experiences. Instances of
community violence (i.e. domestic violence, interpersonal violence, sexual exploitation/tracking, refugee/asylee trauma
and family violence) all categorize as complex due to the prolonged and repetitive nature of the trauma.
31
Complex trauma
is typically interpersonal and involves circumstances that seem inescapable to the victim.
32
While childhood trauma can
be indicative of an individual’s likelihood to experience complex trauma in adulthood, it is not a requirement.
33
ese
traumatic experiences are most often found in circumstances that involve severe exploitation, direct harm or maltreatment.
34
For individuals with adult complex trauma, these events typically occur in positions of disempowerment or dependency.
35
THE TRAUMA-RESPONSE OF A SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM-OFFENDER
Scholars describe a crime victim’s reaction to a crime as “the crisis reaction.”
36
Depending on a victim’s “level of personal
violation they experience and their state of equilibrium at the time of victimization,” victims will have dierent crisis
reactions.
37
Many sex tracking victims have experienced violence and trauma in the past, prior to their sex tracking
victimization. erefore, they may already have an altered state of equilibrium at the time of their sex tracking
victimization. is, along with the nature of the oense, may lead to a seemingly unconventional crisis reaction, which
involves a victim engaging in behaviors that may violate the law or lead to criminal justice system contact.
For some people who have experienced trauma, behaviors that were protective during the trauma become the default
and can be maladaptive or damaging when displayed in other situations. For example, a 2012 study, which surveyed 217
trauma-exposed female undergraduate students, revealed that “high levels of trauma exposure corresponded with anger as
10
well as both verbal and physical aggression.”
38
e study revealed that trauma was a signicant predicator of verbal and
physical aggression with individuals who experienced more trauma exhibiting higher levels of such aggression.
39
Also, the
study showed “a signicant total eect of cumulative trauma on anger with higher cumulative trauma predicting greater
anger.”
40
Furthermore, there is a link between unresolved trauma and criminal behavior.
41
Chronic trauma may evolve into a
“dysfunctional routine,” creating a link between experiences of trauma as a victim and later experiences of trauma as
perpetrators.
42
Trauma may actually “urge individuals to engage in greater risk taking behavior or in seeking out dangerous
and sensational situations as part of compulsive re-exposure to trauma and as an attempt to heal unresolved traumatization
through re-enactments of their early experiences.”
43
Such re-enactments of trauma are “mirrored [in] . . . ‘acting out’
behaviours [sic], such as harm to others and criminal activity” and that phenomenon is known as “compulsion to the
trauma.”
44
Trauma can also lead tracking victims to engage in behaviors that violate the law for other reasons. As discussed in the
“Legal and Scholarly Resources” section below, people who have experienced tracking often feel trauma bonds with their
trackers wherein they develop positive, loving or loyal feelings toward the very people who are hurting and exploiting
them. Especially for individuals who have had past experiences of trauma, abuse or neglect, they may view the tracker
as the only person who has cared for them and loved them. Such a relationship can lead a victim to engage in criminal
behavior out of loyalty or through emotional coercion from their tracker. In other situations, victims may determine that
engaging in criminal behavior is actually protective for them—the better of two evils. For example, if they recruit or force
others to engage in tracking, they may avoid violence from a tracker or have a lower quota themselves, meaning that
they may be prostituted less and, therefore, face less exposure to disease and violence.
11
12
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
PURPOSE
For Identifying and Responding to Sex Trafcking Victim-Offender Intersectionality
e Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool examines some of the common factors in cases involving sex tracking victim-of-
fender intersectionality (ST-VOI) and applies a tracking-informed lens to promote identication of victim-oender
(VO) status and more fair and just responses once ST-VOI is identied.
e tool also identies concrete steps that can be taken to avoid or mitigate potential injustice for VOs in the criminal
justice system. For example, prosecutors can mitigate harm by exercising their discretion to not prosecute or electing to
prosecute charges that do not carry serious collateral consequences in addition to lengthy sentences that include incarcer-
ation. In addition, prosecutors may decline to treat the VO as a co-conspirator, including not charging the VO alongside
the tracker as a co-defendant. e tool can also be employed by criminal defense attorneys who play a critical role in
advocating for a fair process through mounting defenses at trial, such as coercion or duress, or, if available, a tracking-spe-
cic arma tive defense. Law enforcement can identify ST-VOI early on in the case and connect VOs with services, as
opposed to arresting and charging them. Connecting VOs to services may facilitate their willingness to participate in the
investigation and prosecution of their trackers. If the VO is arrested, law enforcement can reduce harm by not targeting
this population as trackers or as co-conspirators to tracking. Victim advocates, judges, probation ocers and other
criminal justice stakeholders who are trained on the nature of sex tracking and ST-VOI can also inuence the process by
considering all of the facts and identifying evidence that the VO was acting under coercion and/or the inuence of trauma
resulting from tracking victimization.
13
By considering the factors that often lie under the surface in these cases, criminal justice stakeholders can better identify
solutions to the complexity inherent to cases involving ST-VOI. e Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool examines common
factors that fall under the following categories:
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
CURRENT SEX TRAFFICKING CONDUCT
is section addresses the complex intersection between a VO’s own victimization and the
sex tracking conduct that the VO engaged in themselves. ese considerations are critical
to (1) identifying when an individual charged with tracking may themselves be a victim
of sex tracking and (2) understanding how a VO’s conduct is impacted by their current
victimization, their trauma response and the unique operation of control and coercion that
exists within sex tracking victimization.
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
PAST SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
is section addresses the factors indicating that an individual charged with sex tracking-
related oenses may also be a victim of past sex tracking and how that victimization may
shape a VO’s current behavior. ese considerations are critical to (1) identifying when an
individual charged with tracking may have a history of sex tracking victimization and
(2) understanding whether the charged conduct was the result of the victim-oender’s own
history of sex tracking victimization.
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
HISTORY AND OTHER RELATED FACTORS
is section addresses the non-tracking related history of an individual that may inuence
vulnerability to tracking exploitation as well as susceptibility to coercion that could impact
their likelihood of engaging in related criminal conduct as a result of tracking victimization,
including conduct that violates the tracking law.
14
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
CURRENT SEX TRAFFICKING CONDUCT
Trafcker’s Use of Harm or Threats of Harm as a Form of Control
• Did the VO come under the control of their tracker through violence or threats of violence?
• Did the tracker use violence or threats of violence to control the VO and/or other victims?
• Did the tracker use or threaten to use other forms of harm to control the VO and/or other victims?
• Were the VO and/or the other victims afraid of the tracker?
• Did the tracker isolate the VO from other victims by punishing the other victims if the VO violated the tracker’s rules?
• Did the VO avoid harm by engaging in criminal conduct directed by the tracker?
• Did the tracker initiate or exploit the VO’s substance use disorder as part of their tracking?
Impact of Trauma and Trauma-Bonding
• Has the VO attempted to protect their tracker in the criminal investigation or prosecution?
• Is/was the VO afraid to testify against their tracker or participate in the investigation?
• Was the VO under the control of the tracker for a longer period of time than the tracker’s other victims?
• Is the VO emotionally bonded to the tracker?
Role of Relationship with the Trafcker
• Is the VO’s tracker a family member?
• Does the VO perceive a romantic relationship with their tracker?
• Does the VO have a child with the tracker?
• Has the VO’s child or another close relative been used as leverage to control the VO?
• Was the VO a minor at the time of their alleged tracking conduct or at the time their tracker began tracking them?
VO’s Conduct Toward Other Victims--Holistic Assessment
• If the VO directed the tracking related activities of other victims, did the VO also have to engage in commercial sex?
• If the VO used violence against, or otherwise exerted control over, other victims, was the VO instructed to do so by the tracker?
• If the VO recruited other victims, did that allow the VO to avoid or limit their own exposure to violence, exploitation or other
abuse by the tracker?
• Did the VO attempt to help other victims or try to reduce the harm they suered? If so, how?
VO’s Apparent or Actual Autonomy--Holistic Assessment
• What degree of autonomy did the VO have in relation to other victims?
• If the VO had autonomy or access to a phone/car, was it monitored, limited or restricted by the tracker?
• If the VO collected money from other victims, did the VO turn over all or the majority of the money collected from other
victims to the tracker?
• If the VO helped “run the business,” did the VO avoid or limit their exposure to violence, exploitation or other abuse by
assisting the tracker?
CASE CONSIDERATIONS
OVERVIEW
15
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
PAST SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
HISTORY AND OTHER RELATED FACTORS
History of Sex Trafcking Victimization as a Child
• Does the VO have a juvenile history of homelessness, running away or being forced to leave their home or placement?
• Has the VO engaged in survival sex (trading sex to meet basic needs, such as shelter, food or clothing) as a minor?
• Was the VO tracked as a minor by a third party, regardless of force, fraud or coercion?
Context of Past Sex Trafcking Victimization
• Did a previous tracker use violence or threats of violence to control the VO?
• Was the VO isolated from the community and/or moved too often to develop connections with anyone outside of their
tracking situation?
• Was the VO trauma-bonded to their tracker as a result of abuse and/or untreated trauma?
• Has the VO had an opportunity to address, receive support for or heal from the trauma that resulted from their tracking
victimization?
• Did the tracker exploit the VO’s drug use/addiction as part of their tracking?
• Has the VO experienced more than one tracking situation? If so, did the VO’s trackers know one another, work together
in a larger operation, or have gang aliation?
History of Abuse and Child Welfare Involvement
• Does the VO have a history of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual abuse or neglect?
• Was the VO involved in the child welfare system as a child?
• Did the VO’s child welfare system involvement reduce or increase the VO’s exposure to abuse/neglect?
• Did the VO’s familial background involve intergenerational trauma and abuse? If so, did the VO’s family background include
intergenerational tracking?
History of Mental Illness and Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities
• Does the VO have any vulnerabilities related to intellectual/developmental disabilities?
• Does the VO currently have, or have they in the past suered from, mental illness?
• Did the VO have access to and/or receive treatment for mental illness/accommodations for intellectual/developmental
disabilities?
Role of Substance Use and Addiction
• Does the VO have a history of or are they currently using drugs or other substances?
• Does the VO have a history of or are they currently dealing with addiction or other substance abuse issues?
• Did the VO’s substance abuse play a role in their tracking victimization?
Intersectional Background Factors Inuencing Risk for Exploitation
• Did the VO’s socio-economic background impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation conduct?
• Did the VO’s racial, ethnic or cultural background impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation conduct?
• Did the VO’s educational background impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation conduct?
• Did the VO’s gender identity and/or sexual orientation impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation
conduct?
16
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
CURRENT
SEX TRAFFICKING
CONDUCT
17
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
Trafcker’s Use of Harm or Threats of Harm as a Form of Control
• Did the VO come under the control of their tracker through violence?
• Did the tracker use violence or threats of violence to control the VO and/or other victims?
• Did the tracker use or threaten to use other forms of harm to control the VO and/or other victims?
• Were the VO and/or the other victims afraid of the tracker?
• Did the tracker isolate the VO from other victims by punishing the other victims if the VO violated the
tracker’s rules?
• Did the VO avoid harm by engaging in criminal conduct directed by the tracker?
• Did the tracker initiate or exploit the VO’s substance use disorder as part of their tracking?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
ese factual inquiries are important for understanding the extent to which a VO’s actions were coerced and
controlled by a tracker and the extent to which the VO perceived any degree of choice in engaging in the
tracking conduct.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
Use or threat of violence or exposure to harm by the
tracker to control the VO and other victims could
indicate that the VO’s tracking conduct arose from
self-preservation. It is important to consider the
circumstances of control that may have caused the
VO’s conduct and consider how complex trauma and
ongoing abuse may simultaneously impact the VO’s
conduct. For example, control may be clear if the
victim committed an act of violence against another
person while a gun was held to their own head, but
the trauma of continued exposure to violence can
also inuence a VO’s perception of control in ways
that are not as easily identiable. A critical inquiry is
whether the tracker created an atmosphere of fear
that led the VO to believe they had no other choice
but to oend.
Any form of force, fraud or coercion resulting in
sex tracking violations needs to be considered
immediately to determine the appropriateness of
arresting and pressing charges and, subsequently,
pursuing charges. If charges are violent felonies
and no concurrent force, fraud or coercion can be
determined, then arrest and prosecution may be
appropriate, but current tracking victimization
must still be considered as a mitigating factor. Also
be aware of the potential for re-traumatizing a VO
by charging them alongside their exploiter as a co-
conspirator, and do not interview the VO in front of
trackers or other possible victims.
18
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
Impact of Trauma and Trauma-Bonding
• Has the VO attempted to protect their tracker in the investigation or prosecution?
• Is/was the VO afraid to testify against their tracker or participate in the investigation?
• Was the VO under the control of the tracker for a longer period of time than the tracker’s other victims?
• Is the VO emotionally bonded to the tracker?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
ese inquiries relate to how a VO acting under the eects of trauma can give the impression of acting willingly
even though the VO does not perceive a choice.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
Trauma, both past and concurrent, can have a dramatic
impact on how a VO responds to an investigation.
Failure to cooperate with an investigation should not
be treated as an indication of guilt but instead should
be explored and recognized as a red ag for potential
exploitation, fear of retaliatory harm or trauma
bonding. e VO may have a sense of obligation to
comply with demands to hold up their half of the
relationship. All of this is magnied if the victim is
young and/or does not understand the dynamics of
a healthy relationship or if the tracker is a family
member or perceived romantic partner and those
relationships have been used to facilitate the trauma-
bond.
When there is suspicion that someone may be a VO,
eorts should be made to immediately include a
victim advocate who has experience with tracking
cases. If the VO does not initially identify a tracker,
law enforcement should still consider that the VO
may be a victim and protecting a tracker. A VO can
be a victim and also be reluctant to self-identify and/
or testify against a tracker due to variety of factors,
including trauma bonding or fear of reprisal against
self or family. A VO who acts to protect their tracker
may be operating under the dynamics of abuse,
trauma and potentially intimate partner violence.
Since trauma may cause a VO to feel reticent to trust
others, this can make it dicult to build rapport with
law enforcement and prosecutors, especially if the VO
is not receiving appropriate services and care. Without
such care, a VO is likely to remain in survival mode,
so stakeholders should prioritize access to services.
19
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
Role of Relationship with the Trafcker
• Is the VO’s tracker a family member?
• Does the VO perceive a romantic relationship with their tracker?
• Does the VO have a child with the tracker?
• Has the VO’s child or another close relative been used as leverage to control the VO?
• Was the VO a minor at the time of their alleged tracking conduct or at the time their tracker began tracking them?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
A VO’s relationship with their tracker is critical to understanding the level of loyalty, obligation or
indebtedness a VO may feel towards the tracker. A VO’s sense of loyalty, obligation or indebtedness may be
particularly strong if the tracker is a family member or the VO had a personal relationship with the tracker
prior to their tracking victimization. Similar to the harm experienced by victims of intimate partner violence
or child abuse, a VO may be more inclined to engage in conduct that rises to exploitation of others if they
believe that doing so will please or strengthen their relationship with their tracker.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
e relationship between the VO and their tracker,
and the VO’s relationship with other victims, may
provide critical details that distinguish the VO’s
conduct from their tracker and demonstrate how
control and coercion that may not be immediately
apparent were driving the VO’s conduct. When the
VO believes they are in a romantic relationship with
their tracker, many of the VO’s behaviors may
mirror those of intimate partner violence, including
the frequency with which the victim returns to
and the sense of loyalty they may feel towards their
perpetrator. Similarly, if their tracker is a family
member, that may further increase the VO’s sense
of loyalty and the tracker’s ability to manipulate
behavior. It is important to consider the past and
concurrent dynamics of a VO’s relationship to the
tracker in order to understand why the VO may
appear more compliant with a tracker’s instructions
or requests.
Applying research and practices similar to those used
in intimate partner violence and child abuse cases can
provide guidance in these cases. is is true not only
when the tracker is a romantic partner or family
member but also when the tracker manipulates
a VO’s familial relationships, such as with their
child, a parent, or a younger sibling, as part of their
victimization. Increased sensitivity is required during
interviews and criminal justice processes in order to
assess the underlying dynamics of the tracker-VO
relationship and determine how this relationship
may have caused a VO to act for the benet of the
tracker. With an understanding of these factors
in place, the VO’s conduct may appear much less
culpable and intentional than when viewed without
consideration of these factors.
20
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
VO’s Conduct Toward Other Victims—Holistic Assessment
• If the VO directed the tracking related activities of other victims, did the VO also have to engage in commercial sex?
• If the VO used violence against, or otherwise exerted control over, other victims, was the VO instructed to do so by the
tracker?
• If the VO recruited other victims, did that allow the VO to avoid or limit their own exposure to violence, exploitation or
abuse by the tracker?
• Did the VO attempt to help other victims or reduce the harm they suered? If so, how?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
It is important to consider a VO’s conduct towards other victims in order to holistically understand the VO’s
role in the tracking crime, the extent to which the VO was acting under coercion or duress, and whether the
VO made any attempts to mitigate harm to other victims.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
Seeking information regarding why a potential VO
engaged in harmful conduct toward other victims
is critical to early identication of ST-VOI. is
information can also shed light regarding whether the
harmful conduct engaged in by the VO was committed
as a result of coercion. Recognizing the role of ST-
VOI and possible coercion is essential to determining
the extent of a VO’s culpability in resulting criminal
activities. is information is critical and can shift the
trajectory of the case from the beginning, potentially
avoiding arrest, or arrest on serious charges like
tracking or tracking conspiracy.
Law enforcement should consider inquiring about a
VO’s conduct towards other victims at the outset of
an investigation, as it can improve law enforcement’s
rapport with the VO, which in turn may lead the
VO to be more cooperative. Building rapport with
a VO may help mitigate the risk of retraumatization
throughout the criminal justice process and may be
more eective in soliciting information from a VO
than coercive tactics, such as leveraging charges
against a VO to gain cooperation in the prosecution
of the tracker. If a VO is charged, defense attorneys
can leverage this information to raise an armative
defense or seek to have charges dismissed based on
lack of criminal intent. Victim advocates can also use
this information to help to ensure that the VO receives
needed trauma treatment and services, because the
coercion to engage in oending conduct can have
serious trauma consequences that require specialized
treatment in addition to the trauma caused by the
underlying tracking victimization.
21
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
VO’s Apparent or Actual Autonomy—Holistic Assessment
• What degree of autonomy did the VO have in relation to other victims?
• If the VO had autonomy or access to a phone/car, was it monitored, limited or restricted by the tracker?
• If the VO collected money from other victims, did the VO turn over all or the majority of the money collected from
other victims to the tracker?
• If the VO helped “run the business,” did the VO avoid or limit their exposure to violence, exploitation or other
abuse by assisting the tracker?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
Questions related to a VO’s apparent and actual autonomy are important because, even when conduct on
the part of the VO may appear autonomous, the VO may not perceive that they had a choice due to their
underlying trauma or their tracker’s control. It is critical to consider the VO’s apparent and actual autonomy
together with indicators of coercion and control in order to accurately understand the VO’s actual role in the
tracking of other victims.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
To distinguish between VO and tracker conduct,
the degree of autonomy will have to be seen through
the lens of the VO and the dynamics of power and
control. e degree of actual autonomy may not
equal the level of autonomy the VO appeared to have
or even the level of autonomy the VO might claim to
have had.
Upon initial assessment it may appear that a VO
acted autonomously (e.g., they had access to a cell
phone or car); however, further investigation may
uncover that the VO’s behaviors were monitored or
that their tracker was controlling them through
threats (e.g., harm to a family member). It is critical
that law enforcement work to dierentiate what
actions the VO engaged in on behalf of the tracker
to support the business and/or enforce the tracker’s
demands and rules versus what, if any, actions they
engaged in completely independently. When assessing
autonomy, the eects of long-term trauma on the
brain and learned helplessness must be considered.
is is especially important when choosing whether
to charge a VO, especially on charges of tracking or
as a co-conspirator. Relatedly, if during the course of
an investigation it becomes clear that a VO did not
have signicant autonomy and was operating under
direction and control of a tracker, consider working
with the VO to bring that evidence of control into
the prosecution of the tracker, rather than bringing
charges against the VO.
22
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
PAST
SEX TRAFFICKING
VICTIMIZATION
23
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
History of Sex Trafcking Victimization as a Child
• Does the VO have a juvenile history of homelessness, running away or being forced to leave their home or placement?
• Has the VO been in a tracking situation that didn’t involve a 3rd party exploiter (i.e., exploitation by sex buyers in
exchange for basic needs, such as shelter, food or clothing) as a minor?
• Was the VO tracked as a minor by a third party, regardless of force, fraud or coercion?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
Tracking victimization that occurred during childhood, critical years of brain development, can signicantly
aect a VO’s current functioning, vulnerability and victimization, and can increase their susceptibility to coer-
cion and control. It is important to recognize that VOs may not perceive, and some criminal justice personnel
may not initially recognize, past victimization and sex tracking. is is especially true for VOs with a history
of homelessness, housing insecurity or related vulnerabilities who were exploited through exchanging sex acts
to survive. ese VOs may not have had, or may not be able to identify, a third-party exploiter; however, they
are nonetheless victims of child sex tracking.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
e impact of past tracking victimization can
create the same susceptibility to coercion and control
as concurrent victimization, especially when the
tracking occurred as a minor. Individuals who
were tracked as children may be at increased
vulnerability for becoming a VO later in life for
a variety of reasons. For example, they may lack
education and job/skills training and, as a result, may
become an oender as a method of survival. For other
VOs, their prior tracking victimization may have
normalized commercial sexual exploitation to the
point that they cannot connect with the idea of the
harm they cause when recruiting and/or exploiting
others. It could even go so far as the VO thinking
they are actually helping someone who is homeless,
a runaway, or in other dicult situations by exposing
them to commercial sex. is is particularly true if the
VO perceives their own history of exploitation as the
means that met their basic needs by providing access
to food, shelter and a perceived sense of security or
protection from other forms of harm.
Screening for previous tracking victimization is
essential. Equally important is training all criminal
justice stakeholders to identify tracking “red ags,”
such as a juvenile record, current or past homelessness
or a history of running away, which could indicate
potential tracking. If screening leads to a nding of
past victimization, this must be considered at all stages
of the criminal justice process. Additionally, victim
advocates should ensure that VOs who have a history
of child sex tracking victimization are provided
specialized services to address the prior victimization
and that VOs who have a history of homelessness
or housing insecurity are provided housing specic
services.
24
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
e trauma of a VO’s past tracking experiences can impact how susceptible they may be to re-exploitation,
coercion and control. e context of this past tracking victimization (e.g., the VO’s relationship to their
previous tracker, the violence they experienced, etc.) can also impact how a VO may respond to later
tracking situations. For example, control and violence at the hands of a previous tracker may increase their
susceptibility to control exerted by a later tracker and impact their perceived or actual degree of choice in
engaging in tracking conduct.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
e context of past tracking victimization
should always be considered when assessing the
autonomy of a VO engaging in tracking conduct.
Past victimization can signicantly impact a VO’s
perception of human tracking, especially if they
view commercial sexual exploitation as a survival
strategy or a situation from which they cannot escape.
A VO’s perception regarding human tracking may
not be apparent or fully conscious. Since the eect
of trauma on the brain and learned helplessness can
contribute to a VO’s tracking violations, it is critical
to investigate whether an individual charged with
tracking has a history of tracking victimization.
When a VO engages in tracking conduct that
victimizes others as a result of their own victimization,
they may suer severe feelings of shame, guilt, self-
loathing, and severe identity confusion and require
specialized counseling for that unique trauma. A
criminal response can often impede access to these
needed services and compound the trauma. For this
reason, as soon as tracking victimization is suspected
and/or conrmed, a VO should be connected with a
victim advocate or specialist who can connect them with
needed support and services. A VO who has access to
services and trauma-informed care is also more likely
to be willing and able to participate in the criminal
process against their tracker and is more likely to be
an eective witness. Past tracking victimization should
also be considered when making charging decisions.
For example, a VO may not have perceived that they
had any choice when carrying out the demands of their
tracker; therefore, it would not be advised to charge
them as a co-conspirator alongside their tracker. In
addition, learning about the circumstances and impact
of past tracking victimization is particularly important
for defense attorneys. Understanding this history can
help demonstrate a pattern of conduct showing control
by the tracker, rather than intentional conduct by the
VO.
Context of Past Sex Trafcking Victimization
• Did a previous tracker use violence or threats of violence to control the VO?
• Was the VO isolated from the community and/or moved too often to develop connections with anyone outside
of their tracking situation?
• Was the VO trauma-bonded to their tracker as a result of abuse and/or untreated trauma?
• Has the VO had an opportunity to address, receive support for or heal from the trauma that resulted from their
tracking victimization?
• Did the tracker require or exploit the VO’s drug use and/or addiction as part of their tracking?
• Has the VO experienced more than one tracking situation? If so, did the VO’s trackers know one another,
work together in a larger operation, or have gang aliation?
25
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO
HISTORY AND
OTHER RELATED
FACTORS
26
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
History of Abuse and Child Welfare Involvement
• Does the VO have a history of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual abuse or neglect?
• Was the VO involved in the child welfare system as a child?
• Did the VO’s child welfare system involvement reduce or increase the VO’s exposure to abuse/neglect?
• Did the VO’s familial background involve intergenerational trauma and abuse? If so, did the VO’s family background
include intergenerational tracking?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
It is important to inquire about a VO’s history of abuse/neglect and child welfare involvement because these
factors can impact a VO’s susceptibility to tracking victimization as well as their susceptibility to oending
under the tracking law. Complex trauma, which is often experienced by victims of human tracking, impacts
decision-making capacity. Instability and insecurity, especially at a young age, can impact susceptibility to
trauma bonding. e combined impact of childhood trauma and sex tracking victimization can substantially
inuence a VO’s understanding of right and wrong as well as their perception of choice and susceptibility to
control by a tracker.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
Trauma from childhood abuse/neglect can alter
neurological brain development and result in a victim’s
decision-making capacity being much younger than
their biological age. Childhood sexual abuse, in
particular, could also mean the VO was conditioned
at an early age to being sexualized and learned survival
through exploitation. Abuse/neglect and involvement
in the child welfare system could signicantly increase
a VO’s susceptibility to the coercion and control often
exhibited by trackers.
It is critical for law enforcement to understand
whether a VO had a history of childhood abuse
and child welfare involvement in order for them to
contextualize the underlying factors that may make
a VO susceptible to the coercion and control of
a tracker. Defense attorneys can also raise these
issues in their defense of the VO’s conduct, noting
their increased susceptibility to the coercion of the
tracker. Victim advocates working with VOs with
a signicant history of child welfare involvement
should ensure that VOs receive appropriate services,
not only for their current victimization but also for
any childhood victimization, that may have gone
untreated.
27
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
History of Mental Illness and Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities
• Does the VO have any vulnerabilities related to intellectual/developmental disabilities?
• Does the VO currently have, or have they in the past suered from, mental illness?
• Did the VO have access to and/or receive treatment for mental illness/accommodations for intellectual/develop-
mental disabilities?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
Inquiring about mental illness and intellectual/developmental disabilities is important because it relates to
the VO’s susceptibility to coercion and control as well as their ability to understand what constitutes illegal
behavior. Trackers often identify and exploit these conditions in a VO, use them to manipulate a VO’s
perception of right and wrong, and create dependence.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
An essential component of distinguishing a VO from
a tracker is recognizing whether the conduct was
voluntary and autonomous and whether the VO truly
understood the nature of their conduct. Underlying
mental illness and/or intellectual/developmental
disabilities can make a VO more susceptible to
coercion by a tracker and impact whether a VO
truly understood the nature of their conduct.
Untreated mental illness and/or intellectual/
developmental disabilities can compound complex
trauma and complicate recovery. In deciding whether
to charge or which charges to bring, law enforcement
and prosecutors should consider the extent to which
the VO understood the impact of their conduct. e
criminal justice process can compound a VO’s trauma
and have a more serious impact due to underlying
mental illness and/or intellectual/developmental
disabilities. erefore, it is critical that VOs with
mental illness and/or intellectual/development
disabilities have access to all necessary and appropriate
services. If the VO is expected to participate as a victim
witness, consider alternative means for delivering
testimony that could reduce the potential for serious
harm during the process. Additionally, depending on
the severity of a VO’s disability, they may need an
assessment and/or representation to ensure they fully
understand what is being communicated to them
by law enforcement, prosecutors and others in the
criminal justice process.
28
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
Role of Substance Use and Addiction
• Does the VO have a history of, or are they currently using, drugs or other substances?
• Does the VO have a history of, or are they currently dealing with, addiction or other substance abuse issues?
• Did the VO’s substance abuse play a role in their tracking victimization?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
Investigating a VO’s substance use disorder/addiction is critical because substance use and addiction can
increase a VO’s overall vulnerability to victimization and potentially increase a tracker’s ability to manipulate
and inuence a VO’s behavior. Trackers often encourage drug use to bring potential victims under their
control and then exploit or force addiction to maintain that control.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
Substance use disorder/addiction is an important
consideration and could be an indicator of potential
tracking victimization. A tracker may use drugs to
create dependency or exploit a pre-existing addiction
in an eort to control a VO. Not only do trackers
exploit victims’ substance use to coerce their
engagement in commercial sex, but trackers may
also exploit a VO’s substance use disorder to coerce
the VO to commit acts that assist the tracker and
violate the tracking law.
Understanding addiction and how it may be exploited
to cause a VO to engage in acts that constitute
tracking can help distinguish the role of a tracker
from the role of a VO. Additionally, identifying
substance use/addiction issues will help victim
advocates more eectively address the service needs
of a VO, including potentially facilitating access to
needed substance use disorder treatment through a
diversionary process.
29
IDENTIFICATION: RESPONSE:
Intersectional Background Factors Inuencing Risk for Exploitation
• Did the VO’s socio-economic background impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation conduct?
• Did the VO’s racial, ethnic or cultural background impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation
conduct?
• Did the VO’s educational background impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation conduct?
• Did the VO’s gender identity and/or sexual orientation impact their risk for exploitation, victimization or post-exploitation
conduct?
Why is this important to ask? How does this uniquely impact sex trafcking
victims and/or their likelihood to offend?
A person’s socio-economic, racial, ethnic, cultural and educational background, as well as their gender identity,
sexual orientation and the intersectionality of these identities, can greatly increase an individual’s vulnerability
to human tracking victimization, as well as their susceptibility to becoming a VO. Marginalized communities
and systemic discrimination can increase a person’s likelihood for being targeted by a tracker to commit
oenses and can reduce the likelihood that they will be perceived as victims rather than criminals.
How can the criminal justice system provide a just response?
Individuals who identify as LGBTQI+, people of color
and people from lower socio-economic backgrounds
are overrepresented among human tracking
victims.
45
Understanding a VO’s unique background
may shed light on the VO’s access to support systems
and on whether the VO perceived real alternatives for
creating a sustainable life, free from exploitation and,
eventually, avoiding becoming a VO.
A VO’s background, the intersectionality of their
multiple identities and their own and their peers’
prior experience with the criminal justice system
can greatly impact a VO’s perception of their
victimization, tracking conduct and the availability
of alternative choices. is information should be
gathered and considered as early as possible, starting
with identication and investigation and continuing
into the prosecutorial process, if the VO is prosecuted.
Information about the VO’s background is also
critical for victim advocates so that they are able to
ensure that the VO receives appropriate, culturally
responsive services.
KEY STAGES OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS
The factors in the Criminal Justice Stakeholder Tool can impact the response to VOI at various stages of the
criminal justice process. For example, law enforcement can shift the response in the investigation phase in
determining whether to arrest and, if arresting, considering the nature of the charges, such as not charging
as a co-conspirator alongside the trafcker. Prosecutors also have the opportunity to decide whether to
proceed with a prosecution, divert away from the criminal justice process or transfer into a specialized
human trafcking court. Defense attorneys can seek to avoid criminalization at the outset, relying on non-
criminalization provisions or afrmative defenses, or through post-conviction relief by relying on vacatur
laws. Judges and magistrates are positioned to decide what types of evidence are admissible for purposes
of demonstrating trafcking victimization, both during a prosecution of a VO and in subsequent hearings to
determine appropriate post-conviction remedies.
The following graphic depicts some of the ways that a more just response may be achieved in cases involving
VOI; however, many of these remedies may not be specically available to trafcking survivors under
existing law.
KEY STAGES OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
JUST RESPONSE
TO VICTIM-OFFENDER INTERSECTIONALITY
TRAUMA-INFORMED RESPONSE AND ACCESS TO SERVICES
STAGES OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PROCESS
INVESTIGATION
ARREST
CHARGES FILED
(Either adult or juvenile
proceeding)
TRIAL
CONVICTION
SENTENCING
POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF
Pre-trial diverson
Referral to human trafficking court or
specialized docket
Avoid prosecuting victim-offender as co-conspirator
alongside their trafficker
Avoid interviewing potential victim-offender
with trafficker or other victims
Identify VOI early in process to ensure access
to victim-witness protections
Do not prosecute child sex trafficking victims
as adults
Alternatives to conviction (judicial diversion,
deferred sentence)
Laws allowing affirmative defense for trafficking
offenses: available in 12 states
47
Allow expert witness testimony on impact of
trafficking victimization
Avoid coercive charging and/or arrest; build
rapport to encourage victim cooperation
Laws prohibiting prosecution of trafficking
victims for trafficking conduct—available in 4 states:
46
• Mississippi (minors only)
• South Carolina (minors only)
• New Mexico (prohibits accessory charges only)
• Wyoming
Avoid convictions on trafficking and other
charges with serious collateral consequences:
• 45 states require sex offender registration as a result
of certain trafficking convictions
48
• 36 states permit a court to terminate parental rights
based on a trafficking conviction
49
Mitigation in sentencing
Alternatives to incarceration
(probation, community service)
Sealing
Expungement
Vacatur—available for trafficking offenses
in 12 states
50
32
33
CASE
STUDIES
All of the case studies are based on federal cases from the past 12 years involving adult defendants who were prosecuted as a
co-defendant alongside their tracker. In each of the reviewed cases, the defendant was charged with sex tracking under
either the federal sex tracking law, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, or under 18 U.S.C. § 1594 for conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §
1591, and information in the court record indicated that the defendant had also experienced sex tracking victimization,
either as an adult or as a minor. Given the evidence that each defendant experienced tracking victimization, identifying
details in the case records, including names, were removed to protect the identity of the defendant.
The following case studies provide a picture of how ST-VOI cases have been
approached within the criminal justice system and some of the potentially negative
consequences that victim-offenders experience as a result of their criminalization
and the general lack of consideration of their underlying victimization. Each case
study examines the circumstances under which the victim-offender was arrested (to
the extent this information was available in the court record), the charges brought
against the victim-offender, and the outcome of the case. Within this framework,
the case studies also look at whether the victimization suffered by the victim-
offender was at issue during the prosecution or during sentencing and any impact
the victimization had on the outcome of the case.
34
“ADELE”
Initial Charges: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking (18 USC § 1594)
and 5 counts of Sex Tracking (18 USC § 1591)
Convicted Counts: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking (18 USC §
1594) and 5 counts of Sex Tracking (18 USC § 1591)
Sentence: 72 months on each count running concurrently followed by 10 years of
supervised release
Sex Offender Registration Required: Yes
DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
Adele grew up in an intact immigrant family. At age fteen, Adele was tracked by her rst tracker. During this victimization,
her parents repeatedly led missing person reports with the police in an attempt to locate their daughter. On a couple of occasions,
her parents found that Adele had been tracked several states away from their family home.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Subsequent to her initial tracking victimization as a minor, Adele met her second tracker, the co-defendant in this case, when
she was 19 years old. At the time, she was working as a hotel receptionist in a hotel where the co-defendant tracked some of his
underage victims. Adele’s mother, worried about her safety, led police reports for her daughter at the onset of Adele’s relationship
with the second tracker. at tracker subjected her to physical, psychological and emotional abuse.
TREATMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED (IF ANY)
Adele did not receive any counseling or mental health treatment in connection with either tracking victimization prior to
her incarceration on tracking charges. During that period of connement, Adele received treatment for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
ROLE IN TRAFFICKING ENTERPRISE
Adele’s role included taking pictures of the minor victims, posting the ads online, transporting victims, and collecting money
from the victims to give to her tracker. All of the money collected from the minor victims was given to tracker. e minor
victims made reference to Adele as “the bottom,” and the tracker identied her as his, “main girl.” In this role, Adele was no
longer required to engage in commercial sex as long as she recruited other victims. e tracker had a history of using coercion
to recruit and control the minor victims. In one instance, he forced a victim to perform a commercial sex act by threatening to
leave the victim stranded if she declined. Adele voiced concern about the ages of the minor victims and expressed her desire to
stop recruiting and exploiting minor victims. Adele also intervened in some circumstances when her tracker coerced other minor
victims, trying to stop or mitigate the abuse they experienced. However, her tracker continued to trac minors and expected
Adele to maintain her role in his operation, which continued until he and Adele were arrested.
According to the prosecution, at the time of her arrest Adele and a minor victim were driving together when they recruited another
minor victim. Adele was charged as co-conspirator with her tracker. e prosecution argued that Adele’s recruitment of the
minor victim was not done under the direct instruction of the tracker.
COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION
Rather than go to trial, Adele pled guilty to the charges. Unfortunately, despite the fact that she provided material assistance to
the prosecution, the prosecution disregarded her assistance in its sentencing memorandum and argued that a long sentence was
necessary to make an example of Adele. e prosecution claimed in its sentencing memorandum that because Adele was “raised in
a loving, two-parent household, where values including faith and education were paramount,” there was “simply no justication
for [her] abhorrent conduct.” According to the plea agreement, she was given the benet of taking responsibility in her sentencing
guidelines; however, there was no accounting for her victimization, either as a minor or as an adult, in the court record. Adele was
sentenced to 72 months of incarceration on each count to run concurrently and 10 years of supervised release.
Trafcking victimization as a minor was not considered at
trial or during sentencing.
35
“ADELE”
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD IMPACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S UNDERLYING
TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Consideration should have been given to the fact that Adele was from an immigrant family, an intersectional factor that could
have increased her vulnerability to exploitation due to language and cultural dierences. e facts that her tracking victimization
began when she was 15 and that she was frequently moved around by her tracker indicate she had additional vulnerabilities to
future tracking and would have struggled to develop relationships outside of her tracking situation. Furthermore, the fact she
stated she “loved” her tracker, combined with abuse she faced, indicates Adele may have suered from similar eects to intimate
partner violence, making her susceptible to pressure and manipulation in her actions. Based on the court record, it appears that
Adele never received services to address her initial tracking victimization as a minor; therefore, she likely never addressed her
initial trauma and her later actions should be viewed through a trauma responsive lens.
An important factor demonstrating that she was acting under the control of, and on the behalf of, her tracker is that all the
money she collected went to her tracker. She did not have to engage in commercial sex when she was able to recruit other victims,
reecting that this behavior was motivated by self-protection. Finally, she clearly struggled with her dual role since she expressed
concern about the minor’s ages and expressed a desire to stop recruiting and exploiting minors. All of these facts indicate that
she was not operating as an equal associate in the tracker’s treatment of other victims since she took particular steps to stop or
mitigate the tracker’s abuse of other victims.
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD HAVE IMPACTED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
Recognizing Adele’s past victimization and how it made her more susceptible to coercion and control could have shed light on
potential alternative motivations for her actions, including self-preservation due to the years of commercial sexual exploitation that
she endured, as well as trauma-bonding due to the “love” she believed she had for her tracker. e fact that Adele intervened to
ask the tracker to stop his abusive conduct toward other victims was also not taken as evidence against her complicity.
A more just response would have considered whether any of these factors were mitigating, and would have actively sought to
provide counseling for the trauma bonding and past victimization that occurred. Considering these factors could have resulted in
a very dierent approach to Adele’s case ranging from the decision to charge her, which charges to prosecute, mitigation during
sentencing, to access to post-conviction relief.
RELEVANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Tracker’s Use of Harm or reats of Harm as a Form of Control: physical abuse
• History of Control and Coercion in the Context of Past Sex Tracking Victimization: minor during rst victimization; was
moved around a lot; isolated from family supports
• Role of Relationship with the Tracker: Adele believed she was in a romantic relationship with her tracker
• Holistically Assessing the VO’s Apparent or Actual Autonomy: gave all money to the tracker
• Holistically Assessing the VO’s Conduct Toward Other Victims: she did not act coercively and wanted her tracker to stop
tracking minor victims
• Intersectional Background Factors Inuencing Risk for Exploitation: cultural background; family’s immigration status
APPLICATION OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
36
“BRITTANY”
Initial Charges: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking (18 USC §
1594); 1 count of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine & Cocaine Base in the Form of
Crack (21 USC §§ 841(a)(1)); 1 count of Possession w/ Intent to Distribute Cocaine
(21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C)); 1 count of Possession w/ Intent to Distribute
Cocaine Base in the Form of Crack (21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(B)); and 1
count of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Tracking Oense (18
USC § 924(c))
Convicted Counts: Misprision of felony (18 USC § 4)
Sentence: Time served
Sex Offender Registration Required: No
DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
Brittany was seventeen when she rst met her tracker through a friend. After meeting her tracker, she ran away from her
mother’s home and was tracked by him for 2 years until they were both arrested. Brittany had been diagnosed as having
developmental delays.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Another underage victim of the tracker recruited Brittany. e tracker lured Brittany into a sexual relationship, which led to
Brittany’s misguided belief that he loved her. e tracker often used romance as a form of manipulation with Brittany as well as
with other minor victims. Brittany did not keep any proceeds from her commercial sex acts and all proceeds went to the tracker.
e tracker also operated a drug tracking enterprise and he introduced Brittany to cocaine, crack, and ecstasy. If Brittany
violated one of the tracker’s rules, he would violently assault her. In one instance, Brittany used cocaine after the tracker told
her to refrain. As a punishment for Brittany and to frighten another victim who was present at the time, he took Brittany into the
hotel bathroom and severely beat her. e other victim reported hearing Brittany plead for her tracker to stop assaulting her.
TREATMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED (IF ANY)
e prosecution’s sentencing memorandum recommended that Brittany be connected to services and placed in a residential
program for homeless youth upon her release. Similarly, the defense’s sentencing memorandum requested assistance from probation
with ensuring she was able to access appropriate services following her release.
ROLE IN TRAFFICKING ENTERPRISE
Despite being charged with conspiracy to commit sex tracking in a superceding indictment, the indictment cites no overt acts
by Brittany in furtherance of the sex tracking charge, such as allegations that Brittany recruited other victims or managed any
aspects of her tracker’s tracking enterprise. Instead, the indictments allege conduct by Brittany in connection with the rearm
and drug charges for which she was also charged as a co-conspirator. Additionally, the sentencing memorandum in her tracker’s
case includes Brittany among his minor victims. However, unlike the other victims discussed in the sentencing memo, Brittany
was no longer a minor when her tracker was arrested.
COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION
Brittany was charged with ve separate felonies. Initially, she refused to cooperate with the government but she later agreed to
assist the prosecution after being arrested for a pretrial release violation. e prosecution cited her cooperation in its sentencing
memorandum recommending a downward departure and also acknowledged that Brittany had a diagnosed learning disability
and that she had been “victimized and controlled” by her tracker. Because of this she plead guilty to a reduced charge and was
sentenced to time served.
Identied intellectual disability should have been a “red
ag” for coercion.
38
37
“BRITTANY”
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD IMPACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S UNDERLYING
TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Brittany was a minor with an identied intellectual disability when she was initially tracked, making her highly susceptible to
coercion and manipulation. Her vulnerabilities were exacerbated by the “love” that her tracker convinced her they shared, a
technique he had frequently used with other victims to control their behaviors. Her tracker created further dependence through
the use of drugs. In addition to fostering emotional and physical dependence on him, her tracker further fostered Brittany’s
dependence on him by making her turn over to him all of the money she earned through commerical sex acts in exchange
for housing and food. e brutal assaults she endured for disobeying her tracker also demonstrate the violent coercion that
motivated her compliance with her tracker’s demands. is fear combined with her dependence on him likely motivated her to
protect him.
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD HAVE IMPACTED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
Brittany’s young age, past victimization, and intellectual disability all impacted her perception of choice in any of her actions
while under the control of her tracker. Far from acting in agreement with her tracker to exploit other victims, the record
demonstrates that she was equally victimized and controlled and points to no facts indicating that she carried out acts in violation
of the tracking law. is is further demonstrated in the sentencing memorandum in her tracker’s case which identies her as
among the tracker’s victims.
A more just response would have considered the fact that Brittany, who was initially tracked as a minor and had a diagnosed
developmental disability, lacked the criminal intent required to be a co-conspirator in this case. Approaching Brittany as a victim
rather than a criminal and taking a trauma-informed approach in this case could have resulted in a very dierent outcome for
Brittany, including access to specialized services and a victim-witness advocate throughout the criminal justice process. ese
measures may have enabled Brittany to cooperate in the prosecution without the re-traumatizing experience she endured as a result
of her criminalization in this case.
RELEVANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Role of Relationship to the Tracker: believed she was in a romantic relationship with her tracker
• Holistically Assessing the VO’s Conduct Toward Other Victims: there was no indication she recruited other victims
• Role of Substance Use and Addiction: tracker introduced her to and supported drug use
• Tracker’s Use of Harm or reats of Harm as a Form of Control: severe physical assault
• History of Mental Illness and Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities: intellectual disability
• Impact of Past Tracking Situations involving a ird Party Tracker: Was a minor when she met her tracker
APPLICATION OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
38
“CECILIA”
Initial Charges: 4 counts of Sex Tracking (18 USC § 1591); and 1 count of
Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking and to Distribute Heroin and Cocaine (18
USC § 371)
Convicted Counts: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking and to
Distribute Heroin and Cocaine (18 USC § 371)
Sentence: 30 Months
Sex Offender Registration Required: No
DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
Cecilia’s parents divorced when she was seven, and her father died of a heroin overdose when she was seventeen years old. Cecilia
had a very dicult time coping with her father’s death and spent some time receiving behavioral healthcare services. While she
was in high school, she started to use marijuana, ecstasy, mushrooms, and cocaine. She gave birth to her rst child when she was
18 years old and her second child at 20.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Cecilia met her tracker through her “best friend” who was also his niece. Her tracker gave her cocaine at this rst meeting
and after that rst meeting he continued to supply her cocaine. When Cecilia’s car loan was two months overdue, she borrowed
money from him. e tracker then encouraged Cecilia to post advertisements of herself on known escort platforms to pay o
her debts to him that had accrued from the cocaine that he was providing and the money she borrowed for her car. Because she
was frightened by her tracker’s displays of angry outbursts and violence, which included hitting and strangling other women in
front of her, she started engaging in commercial sex to pay o her debt to him and to continue receiving cocaine. However, despite
engaging in commercial sex acts to pay her drug debt, the debt never actually decreased. Her tracker simultaneously increased
the amount of cocaine he supplied to her and consequently continued to increase the amount of money she owed to him. All of
the proceeds from her commercial sex acts and her role in the enterprise went toward the “debt.” Eventually her tracker stopped
forcing her to engage in commercial sex to repay her debt and instead forced her to manage aspects of the tracking enterprise,
such as posting ads and distributing drugs to other victims and tracking their “debt” to the tracker. She was in this role when she
was arrested along with her tracker. In addition to exploiting her substance use disorder, her tracker was violent and threatened
her when she did not do something correctly. During her testimony at trial, she described being scared of him and was convinced
he had become a dierent person because she had thought he cared for her.
TREATMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED (IF ANY)
She was ordered to engage in a drug treatment program as part of her supervised release.
ROLE IN TRAFFICKING ENTERPRISE
According to the defense sentencing memorandum, there was no evidence that Cecilia recruited any victims to engage in
commercial sex acts “or verbally or physically assaulted anyone to engage in commercial sex acts.” Her tracker recruited and
coerced his victims by supplying drugs and exploiting his victims’ drug dependence to control them through debt-bondage. is
tactic generally involved providing victims with drugs for a period of time without requesting payment for the drugs and then
coercing the victims to engage in commercial sex to pay o their drug debt. By controlling the “price” of the drugs he supplied, the
amount of his victims’ drug debt could also be controlled to ensure ongoing compliance. He also exploited his victims’ dependence
on the drugs he supplied by restricting the drug supply as a form of control. Several victims testied at trial that he would punish
disobedience by forcing victims to go through painful withdrawal. Cecilia’s role in the enterprise consisted of taking pictures of
the victims, driving them to motels for commercial sex acts, and collecting the money they earned. Although Cecilia ostensibly
received fteen percent of the proceeds from the other victims, all of that money directly went to repay her ever increasing drug
debt.
COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION
Cecilia provided the government help in prosecuting her tracker by testifying against him. She received a six-level reduction
under the sentencing guidelines because of her material assistance, as documented in her plea agreement. Cecilia received a
30-month sentence.
Tried as co-defendant on all counts despite evidence of
coercion and control.
39
“CECILIA”
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD IMPACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S UNDERLYING
TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Cecilia experienced two signicant adverse childhood experiences at a young age: the trauma of her parents’ divorce and her
father’s death by drug overdose. ese experiences, as well as having two children at a young age, made her vulnerable to coercion
and control. Cecilia’s tracker applied a technique to entrap her that he had used before, supplying her drugs and paying for
her car and then creating a “debt dependence,” which he used to control her. She also witnessed violence towards other victims
and experienced other forms of violence, making self-preservation a primary motivation for her actions. Furthermore, Cecilia’s
tracker took her money, controlled the drug supply, and continually manipulated her debt to keep her under his control,
demonstrating a relationship that was characterized by coercion.
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD HAVE IMPACTED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
Cecilia helped run the business but she does not appear to have been involved in recruiting other victims. Her role in running the
business also seems to have been motivated by the same coercive control tactics that her tracker initially used to coerce her into
engaging in commercial sex, suggesting that she did not really perceive a choice in cooperating with her tracker’s demands, but
instead was acting out of self-preservation and fear.
A more just response would have taken these factors into consideration when decisions were made regarding whether to prosecute
and on what charges. Additional harm was caused by prosecuting her alongside her tracker. In addition, Cecilia should have been
provided with specialized services, including drug and trauma treatment, and a victim-witness advocate. Although treatment was
ordered at sentencing, it should have begun once her tracking victimization was suspected or identied.
RELEVANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Role of Substance Use and Addiction: history of using drugs, tracker’s use of drugs to create debt
• Tracker’s Use of Harm or reats of Harm as a Form of Control: frequent displays of violence and threats of violence; use
of debt scheme to require sex-acts
• Holistically Assessing VO’s Conduct Towards Other Victims: Cecilia did not use violence or coercion toward other victims
APPLICATION OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
40
“DAWN”
Initial Charges: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking of a Child (18
USC § 1594), 4 counts of Aiding and Abetting Sex Tracking of a Child (18 USC §
1591), 1 count of Sex Tracking of a Child (18 USC § 1591) and 1 count of Use of
Facilities in Interstate Commerce to Promote Prostitution (18 USC § 1592)
Convicted Counts: Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking of a Child (18 USC §
1594)
Sentence: 100 months
Sex Offender Registration Required: Yes
DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
Dawn’s parents separated when she was one year old. As a result, she went to live with her grandmother. is was untenable and
after a period of time, Dawn and her siblings were placed in foster care. She was returned to her mother at the age of nine, where
she suered physical and emotional abuse that caused her to run away from home. At the age of 14, she began a relationship with
an older boyfriend who was physically and sexually abusive. At 16 years of age, she entered the juvenile justice system. She used
marijuana with regularity during her childhood as a coping mechanism, and at some point during her childhood, she was placed
in a psychiatric facility for depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. She was reunited with her father when she was 17 years old.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Dawn was 17 when the tracker, who was a gang member, recruited her. Dawn believed the two were romantically involved
after they engaged in a sexual relationship. However, in court documents, the tracker said he never considered Dawn to be his
girlfriend, and instead he was committed to another “girlfriend” and their three children. Dawn had only turned 18 a few months
prior to being charged. She is alleged to have recruited the minor victims in the case; however, according to court documents, the
minors approached her to asked for assistance after they ran away from home, a situation very similar to her own.
TREATMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED (IF ANY)
None
ROLE IN TRAFFICKING ENTERPRISE
Dawn was convicted based on her role in recruiting another victim for the gang. Dawn knew the minor victim from school and
since the minor victim was in dire need of housing, she introduced her to the gang. However, the gang leader, Dawn’s tracker,
was the person who recruited the minor victim to engage in commercial sex after Dawn introduced the two of them.
COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION
Dawn cooperated with the prosecution after her arrest. She shared information with the prosecution, and pled guilty. Her
cooperation helped the government avoid a lengthy trial. However, despite her cooperation she received a 100-month (8+ years)
sentence.
Child Sex Trafcking Victim Who Just Turned 18
Demonstrated Heightened Dependence on Trafcker
Due to Gang-controlled Sex Trafcking Victimization
41
“DAWN”
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD IMPACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S UNDERLYING
TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Dawn’s tracking exploitation by her tracker began when she was a minor and he emotionally manipulated her into believing
they had a romantic relationship. Dawn’s history of foster care and juvenile justice involvement, childhood abuse, intimate partner
violence, drug use, mental illness, and running away, increased her vulnerability to this type of manipulation and tracking
victimization. Her signicant history of adverse childhood experiences, compounded with the “romantic” nature of Dawn’s
relationship with her tracker, put the tracker in a position to manipulate and exploit her perception of right and wrong.
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD HAVE IMPACTED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
An important factor to consider in assessing Dawn’s culpability is the fact that she did not recruit other victims until she encountered
a friend who needed housing. Given that she was “in the life” for so long and the minor’s situation mirrored her own, she may have
seen her “recruitment” as something helpful for the minor victim. Her own victimization may have normalized “being in the life”
to the extent she did not recognize the recruitment as a harmful act but that she was actually helping a homeless peer.
A more just response would have taken into account Dawn’s exploitation as a minor, indicators of mental illness, and severe
childhood trauma. Stakeholders could have considered these factors alongside the fact that Dawn did not have a history of
recruitment in determining whether to prosecute and at a minimum, could have avoided tracking-related charges. In addition,
Dawn should have been provided access to mental health treatment, including trauma treatment, and been provided a victim-
witness advocate.
RELEVANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• History of Abuse and Child Welfare Involvement: physical and emotional abuse, intimate partner violence
• Impact of Substance Use and Addiction: used drugs to cope with childhood trauma
• Holistically Assessing the VO’s Conduct toward Other Victims: circumstances indicate she did not recognize the harm of
recruiting the homeless minor victim
• History of Mental Illness and Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities: placed in psychiatric facility
APPLICATION OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
42
“EMMA”
Initial Charges: Child Exploitation Enterprises (18 USC § 2252A(g)), Sexual
Exploitation of Children (18 USC § 2251(a)), Distribution of Child Pornography (18
USC § 2252A(a)(2)), Transportation of Minors (18 USC § 1591(a)), Sex Tracking
of a Minor (18 USC § 1591), Transportation of an Individual (18 USC § 2421),
and Interstate Travel or Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises (18 USC §
1952)
Convicted Counts: Distribution of Child Pornography (18 USC § 2252A)
Sentence: 120 months incarceration followed by 5 years of supervised release
Sex Offender Registration Required: Yes
DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
Emma was adopted as an infant, and never knew her biological parents. Her adoptive mother passed away when she was six years
old. Subsequently, Emma was physically and mentally abused by the foster care family she was placed with, even being denied
food and clothing. She became a ward of the state at 15 years of age, and was placed in several other foster care facilities before
she ran away at age 17. At the time of her arrest, Emma had a limited criminal history that included a retail theft and carrying a
concealed weapon.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Emma was rst tracked at age 16 when she was living alone and exploited by sex buyers in exchange for meeting her basic needs
(e.g., food). e tracker recruited Emma to work for him after he posed as a buyer and took her back to his apartment for oral
sex. Emma had an interest in and tried to nish high school to have a better life, but her tracker forbade her to go to school.
When she tried to leave, the tracker convinced her she would never be good at anything else. e tracker was violent with
Emma when she did something he did not like, once hitting Emma with his car during an argument. She was hospitalized as a
result.
TREATMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED (IF ANY)
None
ROLE IN TRAFFICKING ENTERPRISE
Emma considered herself the “bottom” in the tracking organization. She took pictures of victims and posted them on websites.
She collected the money from the other women and girls working for the tracker. She would also train the others how to speak
to buyers and protect themselves.
COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION
Emma cooperated with the prosecutors in the case against her tracker. She gave a statement to the prosecution on several
occasions, and testied against her tracker at his trial. Despite her cooperation, she received a ten-year sentence of incarceration.
History of homelessness and trafcking victimization as a
child through “survival sex” reected both vulnerability to
trafcking and susceptibility to coercion.
43
“EMMA”
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD IMPACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S UNDERLYING
TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Emma experienced abuse from a young age and had little social stability or support, factors that increased her vulnerability
to tracking. As a minor unable to meet her basic needs, Emma was exploited by sex buyers which led to her meeting her
rst tracker which further normalized commercial sex as a means of self-preservation. Her dependence on her tracker was
exacerbated when her tracker isolated her by refusing to let her attend school, and telling her she would never be good at
anything other than commercial sex.
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD HAVE IMPACTED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
Despite having a well-documented history of abuse and experiencing violent acts perpetrated by her tracker, Emma was sentenced
to 10 years of incarceration.
A just response would have considered her signicant history of abuse, and recognized that she perceived little choice in her
circumstances and was motivated by self-preservation. In addition to mitigating her sentence, and also choosing to not charge her
alongside her tracker, Emma should have received trauma-informed counseling and support, as well as a victim-witness advocate
to represent her needs in the court.
RELEVANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• History of Sex Tracking Victimization as a Child: initially tracked as a minor; history of exploitation by sex buyers in
exchange for basic needs
• History of Control and Coercion in the Context of Past Sex Tracking Victimization: isolation from normal activities
(e.g., attending school)
• History of Abuse and Child Welfare Involvement: adopted as an infant; abused in foster care; denied basic needs (e.g., food);
frequently moved
• Role of Relationship to Tracker: tracker convinced her she could not do anything else
• Tracker’s Use of Harm or reats of Harm as a Form of Control: She wanted to leave the tracking situation but was not
allowed; tracker was violent to the point she was hospitalized for her injuries
• Holistically Assessing VO’s Conduct Towards Other Victims: no violence or coercion of other victims
APPLICATION OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
44
“FAITH”
Initial Charges: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking (18 USC § 371),
2 counts of Peonage: Obstructing Enforcement (18:1581(a)), 2 counts of Forced
Labor (18 USC § 1589(1)), 2 counts of Tracking In Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary
Servitude, Forced Labor (18 USC § 1590), 2 counts of Sex Tracking Of Children Or
By Force, Fraud, Or Coercion (18 USC § 1591)
Convicted Counts: 1 count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Tracking (18 USC §
371)
Sentence: 34 months followed by 3 years supervised release
Sex Offender Registration Required: No
DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
Faith met her tracker in 1998. During the next 3 years, she worked in his wrestling business. In 2001, she learned of his
prostitution business and was forced to recruit other women under the auspice of becoming female wrestlers.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Faith was one of a few victims designated by the tracker as a “team leader.” While the prosecution’s trial brief claimed that the
“team leaders” were women who “worked voluntarily” for the tracker, the brief goes on to describe the physically assaults and
strict rules that applied to “team leaders,” including not being allowed to leave his home without permission, prohibiting them
from dating or maintaining any other employment, as well as prohibiting them from “accessing the money they made from
dancing and as prostitutes.” Additionally, “team leaders” were coached to lie to law enforcement about their involvement in
prostitution. Faith’s tracker continued to pressure the “team leaders” to lie to law enforcement and in court after he was indicted
in this case. is pattern of control was also conrmed by a psychiatrist who completed Faith’s presentence evaluation and found
that her tracker psychologically manipulated her into believing she had a special status but her tracker “determined the full
range of her activities.”
TREATMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED (IF ANY)
Faith was court ordered into mental health treatment as a condition of her sentencing.
ROLE IN TRAFFICKING ENTERPRISE
e tracker treated Faith dierently than the other “team leaders.” He allowed her to have a cell phone and a vehicle. She
recruited victims into his tracking organization under the false premise that they would be working as female wrestlers. At her
tracker’s direction, Faith assaulted other women to induce them to perform commercial sex acts. On at least one occasion, she
sexually assaulted a victim after she refused to participate in a “cutting party.” e tracker used cutting parties to groom victims
from his wrestling business into his prostitution business. Faith seemed to feel extremely loyal to her tracker and disclosed
information to him when other women were not in compliance with rules or tried to escape.
COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION
Faith produced evidence and testied against her tracker.
Violent acts towards other victims while under control
of extremely violent trafcker and effects of intimate
partner violence.
45
“FAITH”
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD IMPACT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S UNDERLYING
TRAFFICKING VICTIMIZATION
Faith did not know she was entering a prostitution business and was lured into both the wrestling business and a romantic
relationship with her tracker. is was the tracker’s pattern of psychological manipulation of his victims. Faith also gave all
of her money to her tracker, who then forced her to recruit others by creating an atmosphere of violence and coercion. Her
tracker’s use of violence created an atmosphere of fear that enabled him to control his victims, such that the mere threat of
physical assault was enough to coerce his victims to follow his rules.
HOW USING THE TOOL TO EVALUATE THE CASE COULD HAVE IMPACTED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE
Despite having a “special” status in her tracker’s enterprise, Faith’s relationship with her tracker was still dened by deception
and manipulation. e tracker’s use of violence also created an atmosphere of fear that appears to have manipulated Faith’s sense
of right and wrong and may provide some context for understanding her role in coercing and recruiting other victims.
Recognizing the severity of Faith’s violent acts toward other victims, a just response should nevertheless have considered the
inuence of the tracker’s violence and psychological control over Faith, despite her role as “team lead.” is critical consideration
could have informed whether to treat Faith as a co-conspirator despite the evidence that she was acting under her tracker’s
control. Faith’s perceived freedoms and apparent autonomy in having access to a phone and car should also be viewed holistically.
Given the atmosphere of fear created by her tracker’s violence, her apparent autonomy did not necessarily provide her with actual
freedom or choice. Additionally, once it was recognized that she had also experienced victimization by the tracker, Faith should
have been provided mental health treatment, including trauma treatment, as well as a victim-witness advocate to support her in
the process of testifying against her tracker.
RELEVANT FACTORS TO CONSIDER
• Role of Relationship with the Tracker: tracker used romantic relationship to lure her into the tracking situation
• Holistically Assessing the VO’s Apparent or Actual Autonomy: even though Faith was allowed a phone and car, she remained
under threat of violence if she did not follow the tracker’s rules
• Tracker’s Use of Harm or reats of Harm as a Form of Control: violence and threats of violence created atmosphere of fear
• Holistically Assessing the Vo’s Conduct Toward Other Victims: Faith used violence to coerce victims at the behest of her
tracker, raising challenging issues for prosecutors in determining appropriate charges, making it critical to fully understand
the case in order to understand Faith’s motivations in engaging in the alleged conduct
APPLICATION OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER TOOL
46
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
NEXT STEPS
Provide broad-based training for criminal justice stakeholders on identifying and responding to
ST-VOI.
Consider the impact of, and potential alternatives to, coercive tactics to gain a sex trafcking victim-
offender’s cooperation and testimony. Research can help identify strategies for improving trafcking
investigations and prosecutions that reduce or eliminate reliance on victim-witness testimony.
Ensure that there is a strong service-based component embedded within the criminal justice response
to sex trafcking. Strong partnerships with service providers, especially those working with
particularly vulnerable and/or marginalized communities, can help break the cycle of exploitation
and address the vulnerabilities of trafcking victims before they potentially lead to later offending.
Conduct in-depth research on treatment approaches for sex trafcking victim-offenders, including
how to provide specialized trauma-informed services to sex trafcking victim-offenders without risk
to non-offending victims.
Conduct further research on what causes ST-VOI, how ST-VOI impacts a victim-offender, how those
harmed by a sex trafcking victim-offender are impacted, and what resilience and protective factors
could help prevent ST-VOI and coercion to commit other offenses.
Engage in an ongoing dialogue with a diverse range of criminal justice stakeholders on how to
balance competing priorities of victim-centered justice, victims’ rights and public safety concerns.
Seek out and incorporate survivor engagement in development of responses, protocols, research
strategies and any next steps on understanding and improving responses to ST-VOI.
Explore legal and practical alternatives to implementing a traditional criminal justice response in ST-
VOI cases, including opportunities to prevent criminalization at the outset of the case.
Open avenues for sex trafcking victim-offenders who have been convicted of crimes related to
their trafcking victimization to seek post-conviction relief from the long-term consequences of
those convictions.
48
LEGAL AND SCHOLARLY
RESOURCES RELATED TO
I. WHAT IS A VICTIM-OFFENDER IN THE SEX TRAFFICKING CONTEXT?
As dened in this eld guidance, a sex tracking victim-oender is a
sex tracking victim who is alleged to have committed acts of sex
tracking. In this context, victim-oenders are commonly referred to
as a “bottom.” However, since the term “bottom” is a street term that
pimps and trackers use to establish hierarchy among their victims, this
eld guidance does not use the term “bottom” to describe sex tracking
victims who allegedly commit acts of sex tracking. Nevertheless, given
the prevalence of the term “bottom,” its use and application to ST-VOI
are briey discussed here to provide context for eschewing the term in
identifying and responding to victim-oenders.
Although the term “Bottom” seems to suggest that the individual is the
least important person in a tracker’s “stable,” or group of prostituted
persons,
52
the “Bottom” is oftentimes the most important. e “Bottom”
keeps the other prostituted persons compliant with the tracker’s
demands and serves as a “buer[], intended to protect the real criminals
from prosecution.”
53
As dened by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Pipkins, a “Bottom”
is “a trusted and experienced prostitute” whose place is “[a]t the top of
the pimp’s organization.”
54
is denition, although illustrative of the
“Bottom’s” place in the hierarchy, is somewhat misleading; it solely
focuses on the role the “Bottom” plays for the tracker and fails to
acknowledge that the “Bottom” is also a victim of tracking.
55
In fact, sex
tracking victim-oenders are often “tracked in the same way as every
other victim” in that they are “recruited and groomed” and “promise[d]
. . . love and a better life.”
56
Victim-oenders also experience abuse and
degradation by the tracker, as all victims do, and oftentimes, their
psychological and physical abuse is even more severe. Further, trackers
SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM-OFFENDER INTERSECTIONALITY
The terms “Bottom” and “stable”
are street terms used by pimps and
trafckers to describe the players
in their internal hierarchies, typically
established as a means to control
their victims.
As the Eleventh Circuit’s
denition of the term “Bottom” indicates,
this term remains misunderstood and is
focused on the offending conduct while
failing to acknowledge the coercion and
control that may have led a sex trafcking
victim to engage in this conduct. For that
reason, this report does not seek to dene
“Bottom.” Rather, this section examines
some of the circumstances in which the
term has been applied to sex trafcking
victims. This review of the term “Bottom”
seeks to provide context for why this term
is not used in this eld guidance to describe
a sex trafcking victim who commits acts
of sex trafcking. Instead of relying on
an ill-dened and often derogatory term,
this eld guidance utilizes the term sex
trafcking victim-offender intersectionality,
or ST-VOI.
“BOTTOM”
Though criminal justice stakeholders are increasingly, albeit oftentimes unknowingly,
confronted with the complex issue of ST-VOI, little has been written to explain this
phenomenon.
51
Accordingly, this section analyzes court opinions and scholarly articles
that are directly related to this issue. It also provides an analysis of related criminological
theories that are potentially applicable in the ST-VOI context.
49
may use the hierarchy created by the position of the victim-oender to manipulate victims by forcing them to compete
against each other for the status of “Bottom” and, likewise, for the tracker’s aection. A tracker may use this as a type
of reward system, “demot[ing] and promot[ing] dierent girls to punish or reward them” for certain behavior.
57
Upon “promotion” to this new position, the victim-oender takes on a role that looks less like that of a victim of tracking
and more like that of a tracker. “Bottoms,” generally, are responsible for handling the tracker’s aairs, maintaining
order, collecting money from other victims and recruiting new victims into the criminal enterprise.
58
us, despite their
own victimization, victim-oenders may commit criminal oenses resembling those committed by the tracker.
59
Indeed, the victim-oender’s position and conduct present a signicant challenge for prosecutors seeking appropriate
charges.
60
Should a victim-oender, themselves a victim of commercial sexual exploitation, be prosecuted as an oender for
the acts they committed, seemingly, of their own volition? As one author explained,
United States law states that victims of human tracking should not be “inappropriately” penalized for acts committed “as a
direct result of being tracked,” but does not oer further guidance. When exactly, then is penalization appropriate? Is some
criminal conduct so severe that it cannot be excused? And what does the term “direct” mean? How close must the cause-and-
eect between victimization and the victim’s criminal conduct be to meet this standard?
61
is author acknowledges the complexity of cases involving a victim-oender who harms a third party and urges prosecutors
to “carefully consider the circumstances underlying any crime committed by a tracking victim prior to bringing charges
against such victim in order to ensure that the victim is not inappropriately penalized for acts committed pursuant to their
victimization.
62
Another author argues that only some victim-oenders “deserve leniency” while “others are no less autonomous and
culpable than trackers who entered the trade voluntarily.”
63
is author also suggests that prosecution in a criminal
court is the appropriate forum for determining which victim-oenders “deserve” such leniency and which “deserve” to be
convicted of tracking others.
64
To aid criminal justice stakeholders in determining the appropriateness of charges, the
following sections of this review focus on why a sex tracking victim may engage in conduct that violates the sex tracking
law.
II. EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICTIMIZATION AND OFFENDING
A. e “Victim-Oender Overlap,” Generally
One means of assessing the criminal culpability of sex tracking victim-oenders is by examining their role in the tracking
organization through the lens of the “victim-oender overlap,” a criminological term that refers to the relationship between
the victimization and oending patterns of individuals.
65
is framework recognizes the existence of dierent roles in
the commission of an oense: “victims” (those upon whom the crime is committed), “oenders” (those who commit the
crimes), and “victim-oenders” (individuals who have been both victims and perpetrators of crimes).
66
Furthermore, there
is a sliding scale of innocence and blame in the perception of criminal acts, and, especially in victim-oender scenarios
involving crimes of inter-personal and/or sexual violence, the oender and the victim may swap roles or be simultaneously
both a victim and a criminal.
67
Notably, a 2012 literature review found that while a “rather strong overlap” exists between oenders and victims,
the relationship is moderated by various risk factors.
68
e study found that some types of oenses created stronger
relationships between victimization and oending than others.
69
Furthermore, as another study noted, “[t]he victim-
oender relationship is robust, having been found in the United States as well as other countries, over time, across various
contexts, and within various demographic subgroups.”
70
While research on the victim-oender overlap in the context of
sex tracking is sparse, existing research on victim-oenders generally may be applied analogously to better understand the
phenomenon of victim-oender intersectionality in the sex tracking context.
50
B. Criminological eories Purporting to Explain the “Victim-Oender Overlap”
Although the exact cause of the victim-oender overlap is unknown, social scientists theorize that the phenomenon can be
partially explained by two criminological theories: the “cycle of violence theory” and the “routine activities theory.” Both
incorporate aspects of “social learning,” or the concept that individuals learn behaviors by observing others engaging in
those same behaviors.
71
Social learning theory “suggests that violent, deviant, and other criminal behaviors are learned by
the child from their parents (or other relatives)” and that these behaviors are repeated through imitation.
72
e two theories
discussed below use the social learning theory in dierent ways to explain the victim-oender overlap.
e “Cycle of Violence eory”
e “cycle of violence theory” rests on the idea of “violence breeding violence,” or, more specically, “abuse breeding
abuse.”
73
In a literature review examining the impact of children’s exposure to domestic violence, researchers noted,
“[C]hildren may be signicantly aected by the experience of domestic violence in their lives, the impact of which may
resonate intergenerationally with their own involvement in adult violence.”
74
Although the “cycle of violence theory” generally applies to familial relationships, this theory can be used to understand
non-familial sex tracker-sex tracking victim relationships as well. First, tracking victims, including sex tracking
victim-oenders, oftentimes have a history of childhood abuse, which may perpetuate the cycle of violence in their lives.
Additionally, even if a sex tracking victim-oender and their tracker are not biologically related, there oftentimes
exists a “family” dynamic and intimate relationship between them.
75
erefore, the “cycle of violence” can manifest in this
relationship as well, with the tracker rst abusing the sex tracking victim-oender and the victim-oender eventually
exploiting other sex tracking victims in return. is may be further exacerbated by the fact that childhood abuse, along
with other factors such as young age, limited brain development, and a lack of knowledge and experiences, often “contribute
to a victim’s obliviousness that the tracker is victimizing and exploiting [them].”
76
Accordingly, sex tracked youth may
normalize negative relationships with their trackers, which may aect their relationships with others.
77
Notably, research “cautions, however, that there is rarely a direct causal pathway leading to a particular outcome.”
78
us,
although the “cycle of violence theory” fails to fully explain the phenomenon of ST-VOI or to account for stranger-on-
stranger crime, it can be used to understand the position of a sex tracking victim-oender as both the abused and the
abuser.
e “Routine Activities eory”
In addition to the “cycle of violence theory,” the “routine activities theory” can serve to partially explain the behavior of a
sex tracking victim-oender and inform why a victim-oender should not simply be viewed as a tracker. is theory
posits that criminal behaviors are not static; instead, they vary by situation.
79
As noted in one study, “routine activities
theory” “focuses on the circumstances in which crime is committed rather than the characteristics of those who commit
it.”
80
To discern the circumstances prompting a criminal oense, proponents of the “routine activities theory” examine
whether there is “(a) a motivated individual, (b) a suitable target, and (c) the absence of a capable guardian.”
81
is theory
is context- and environment-specic; therefore, “even behaviors relating to sexual oending can be highly variable from
one situation to another.”
82
In the 2012 literature review discussed supra in Part II.A, the researchers examined the “routine activities theory” in
the context of the victim-oender overlap. ose researchers found that, according to this theory, the association with
delinquent peers in the absence of adult supervision can increase the likelihood of both victimization and oending.
83
is study also concluded that, “[d]elinquent peers can function as agents that provide an individual with tangible and
intangible rewards for delinquent/criminal behavior.”
84
Based on this theory, the actions of a sex tracking victim-oender are distinguishable from those of a tracker because
the victim-oender’s environment diers completely from that of the tracker. A tracker never loses autonomy and is
responsible for creating an environment of control and coercion. Conversely, a victim-oender is subject to psychological
51
and physical abuse, manipulation and control.
85
is type of environment can aect “the way people treat each other, leading
to the normalization of negative and abusive relationships.”
86
us, the victim-oender’s environmental circumstances may
lead to committing acts of tracking.
III. LEARNING BY ANALOGY: COMPARING SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM-OFFENDERS TO VICTIM-OFFENDERS IN INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE
Currently, no empirical studies have analyzed the victim-oender overlap in the context of commercial sexual exploitation.
However, studies on Intimate Partner Violence (“IPV”) may be instructive in applying the victim-oender framework
to better understand sex tracking victim-oenders.
87
e Centers for Disease Control and Prevention denes IPV
as “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or
former intimate partner.”
88
Studies of IPV can be informative when applied to tracker-victim relationships because of
the similar dynamics between some tracking relationships and IPV relationships: both types of relationships commonly
involve “violence between two individuals who are in a relationship and interact on a routine basis . . . [which] repeatedly
brings potential victims and perpetrators in close proximity to one another.”
89
Furthermore, as in relationships where IPV
occurs, in tracker-victim oender relationships, “the violence itself can increase the likelihood of additional violence. e
intimate crime event . . . has the potential to create motivation and opportunity for subsequent violence, either during the
same incident or in future ghts.”
90
Other similarities between these two contexts exist as well. A study, conducted in 2016, examined the victim-oender
overlap in relationships where IPV occurs and found that “substance use, negative temperament, living with non-spousal
partner, and feeling isolated” are all positively associated with being both a victim and a perpetrator of IPV.
91
If generalizable
to a sex tracking victim-oender context, this nding is particularly signicant: sex tracking victim-oenders, by the
very nature of their position, face social isolation.
92
Although similar in many ways, there is however, a notable dierence between IPV victim-oenders and victim-oenders
in the sex tracking context: in relationships where IPV occurs, the violence is directed from one partner to the other
and is often committed in either self-defense or retaliation. In contrast, sex tracking victim-oenders commit oenses
against other exploited individuals. How, then, can a sex tracking victim-oender’s conduct also be explained as an act
of self-defense? As one author wrote, sex tracking victims may have “unconventional reactions to their victimization.”
93
e ideal victim is expected to react to their aggressors and to their [victimization] in socially accepted ways. is condition
of achieving ideal victim status does not account for the coping techniques that tracked [persons] may have adopted in
order to survive their ordeal. Trackers often break [victims] in prostitution using rape, torture, and abuse. Tactics of
intimidation, threats, lies, deception, and emotional manipulation are used by trackers to engender psychological control
over a victim and to destroy [their] physical and psychological [defenses]. Additionally, a tracked [person] may form a
personal relationship with [their] attacker as [they] become[] dependent on them for survival. A captor’s bursts of abuse and
torture may be punctuated by moments of kindness or generosity, causing the tracked [person] to develop feelings of closeness
or reliance on them.
94
In addition to these abusive and coercive tactics, trackers prey on their victims’ psychological and emotional vulnerabilities,
95
forcing their victims to compete for the tracker’s aection through a hierarchy-based rewards system.
96
Upon promoting
a victim to the top of the hierarchy, a tracker may promise the victim, among other things, that they will no longer have
to engage in commercial sex. In return, the victim must supervise the others and commit acts that violate the sex tracking
law.
97
Accordingly, the sex tracking victim-oender often does not commit such acts because they genuinely want to hurt
those individuals; instead, the sex tracking victim-oender may perceive no choice but to engage in such behavior.
98
In
other words, the acts committed against other victims may be done out of self-defense to avoid abuse by the tracker or
to escape their own sexual exploitation.
52
56
Sex tracking victim-oenders may also dier from IPV victim-oenders because a sex tracking victim-oender’s
tracking conduct is not necessarily violent. Many acts of sex tracking committed by sex tracking victim-oenders
are actually absent of physical violence, including recruitment, harboring, advertising and economic or emotional control
or coercion. However, recruitment may also be a form of self-defense or self-protection because it is a way for the victim-
oender to reduce the degree of their own exploitation.
99
In summary, although victims of IPV and sex tracking victim-oenders can have distinct experiences, the similarities
between these populations seem to indicate that the victim-oender framework can help lawyers, advocates, and social
scientists to better understand sex tracking victim-oenders. Both groups are victims of abuse and trauma, which
inuences behavior and can lead to the commission of oenses as a method of self-defense or self-preservation. Similarly,
in both IPV and sex tracking victim-oender circumstances, someone with whom the individual has close, oftentimes
daily, contact caused the abuse and trauma.
100
Based on these similarities, one can extrapolate that sex tracking victim-
oenders, like many victim-oenders in IPV, become victim-oenders not because they want to engage in crime, but
because they can perceive few alternatives.
IV. PERCEPTIONS OF AGENCY, CONTROL AND AUTONOMY IN THE SEX TRAFFICKING CONTEXT
A pernicious problem in identifying and developing responses to ST-VOI is that the nature of trackers’ control over sex
tracking victims often perpetuates the perception that victims are acting with autonomy or possess a degree of agency
that is inconsistent with their actual experience. us, while a sex tracking-victim oender may appear to act with some
degree of agency when engaging in conduct that violates the sex tracking law, a deeper look at the victim-oender’s
experiences may contradict that notion of free will. Indeed, as one author wrote,
[T]he fact that these [victims] have power and status within the [tracking] organization is not incompatible with the
notion that they are actually unable to leave; to the contrary, trackers can seek to maintain control by strategically meting
out power and status to those who are most submissive. ough the intuition may be that more participation in the enterprise
means more actual agency[,] and thus more grounds for punishment[,] . . . the opposite is actually true.
101
In addition, trackers use a number of means to assert and maintain control over their victims, including victim-oenders.
Trackers oftentimes engage in physical violence or threats of physical violence, which may be directed toward the victim
or the family of the victim, including the victim’s children.
102
“Trackers have [also] been known to use public displays of
violence against one victim to keep others in line.” Further, control can be “much more subtle and psychological . . . e
trauma they experience may depend upon the age at which the victim was tracked, the nature of the exploitation, the
length of time the victim was exploited, the degree of violence to which the victim was exposed, and the degree of stigma
which the victim faces upon return to his or her home.”
103
“Relationships built on traumatic bonds possess an intense level of loyalty or attachment.”
104
One researcher described a
process akin to “brainwashing,” “the deliberate creation of culture shock through isolation, alienation, and intimidation in
order to weaken a person’s ego strengths. By this means, the person becomes vulnerable to alien ideas and behaviors that
would usually be rejected.”
105
As another author explained,
ere is a growing body of research about the eects of trauma that is sustained over time, such as in human tracking . . .
Over time, these victims lose not only a sense of control over their “self,” but also lose a sense of “self” altogether. e abuser’s
logic becomes their logic. e abuser’s decisions and directions take over, and they lose capacity for independent decision-
making. eir perception of reality is altered. ey may believe that the abuser treats them well even in the face of facts
clearly demonstrating that the abuser has regularly threatened them with physical and other harm and invaded their bodily
integrity. Scientists do not yet fully understand how this process, known as traumatic bonding or trauma-coerced attachment,
53
plays out inside of the brain. However, its presence has been regularly observed as a normal human response to sustained abuse
and control over time.
When deciding when to prosecute tracking victims for crimes induced by their perpetrators, the potential impact of
traumatic bonding is relevant to criminal intent. Prosecutors must consider whether it is in the interest of justice to prosecute
a person for conduct that was a normal human response to abusive control over time, rather than an independently developed
desire or intent to do harm.
106
In addition, trauma bonding may impact a victim-oender’s attitude, which in turn may aect whether those in the
criminal justice system perceive the victim-oender to have acted of their own volition. As one author stated,
e [victim-oender] may display belligerence, coldness, evasiveness, or nonchalance. When victims act that way, even
experienced law enforcement ocials may be more likely to think of the victims as criminals or as being disrespectful of law
enforcement. In truth, the victims may display those attitudes as a result of psychological and neurobiological processes . . .
ese behaviors may be the result of fear or trauma and, in some cases, of the victim’s “traumatic bonding” or “trauma-coerced
attachment” to the tracker.
107
Further, trackers may create or exploit other vulnerabilities, such as isolation, lack of social networks, lack of education
or substance use disorders, to maintain control.
108
e tracker’s “complete domination strip[s] away the [sex tracking
victim-oender’s] agency: although [they] commit oenses against other victims, they do so at the command of or for the
sake of the [person] tracking [them] and the other victims.”
109
Accordingly, understanding how a sex tracking victim-oender’s experiences and vulnerabilities aect their perceived
autonomy and motivation when allegedly engaging in conduct that violates the sex tracking law is an essential part of
responding fairly to these cases. In fact,
e Ninth Circuit has held that an expert’s testimony about the role of a [sex tracking victim-oender] may have “helped
the jury evaluate [her] testimony that she was acting at [her tracker’s] direction, not on her own accord.” In other cases,
experts have testied that trackers exert “total control” over their victims and can force them to victimize other victims
at their behest. When subject to such total control, tracking victims, including [sex tracking victim-oenders], are not
exercising agency to freely decide to engage in tracking oenses against other victims, but are acting out of a need to protect
themselves and please their tracker.
110
e issue may also be framed as one of agency theory.
111
As one author emphasizes, it is important not to “view [sex
tracking victim-oenders’] oenses in isolation,” because “[a]lthough [sex tracking victim-oenders] commit oenses
against other victims, they do so either at the command of or for the sake of the [person] tracking [them] and the other
victims.”
112
Finally, analyzing sex tracking victim-oenders in light of intersectionality is also important, because, as another
author argues, without it, “victim blaming is all that is left. e absence of intersectionality in sex tracking cases results
in pathologizing of victims,”
113
while also failing to acknowledge that the vulnerabilities of victims, created by their
intersecting identities, is “the lynchpin [sic] of [their] exploitation.”
114
erefore, it is important to understand, through
these theories of agency and intersectionality, that sex tracking victim-oenders likely “perpetrate these oenses not of
their own volition, but because of their own victimization.”
115
54
1
Christine Raino & Eliza Reock, What’s in a Name?: Lack of Consistency in Child Sex Tracking Laws May Hurt Our Children, SHARED HOPE INT’L (Feb. 21, 2017), https://sharedhope.org/2017/02/21/
whats-in-a-name.
2
See page 57 for list of JuST Response Council members.
3
See page 48 for a discussion of existing research on victim-oender overlap.
4
18 U.S.C. § 1591 (2012) (dening the crime of sex tracking and the required punishment if convicted).
5
Christine Raino, When Dicult News is the Most Important News, SHARED HOPE INT’L (Dec. 20, 2019), https://sharedhope.org/2019/12/20/when-dicult-news-is-the-most-important-news/.
6
22 U.S.C. § 7102(12) provides, “[t]he term ‘sex tracking’ means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial
sex act.” Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 7102(4), “[t]he term ‘commercial sex act’ means any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” 22 U.S.C. § 7102(11)(A)
denes “severe forms of tracking in persons” as “sex tracking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained
18 years of age.”
7
See Marinella Marmo & Nerida Chazal, e Tracked Woman: Ideal or Blameworthy Victim?, in 7 ADVANCES IN SOCIOLOGY RESEARCH, 125-140, 133 (Jaworski, J. ed., 2010) (citations omitted).
8
See LAURIE ANNE PEARLMAN & KAREN W. SAAKVITNE, TRAUMA AND THE THERAPIST: COUNTERTRANSFERENCE AND VICARIOUS TRAUMATIZATION IN
PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH INCEST SURVIVORS (1995).
9
See id.; see also JON G. ALLEN, COPING WITH TRAUMA: A GUIDE TO SELF-UNDERSTANDING 227 (1995).
10
See Eldra P. Solomon & Kathleen M. Heide, e Biology of Trauma: Implications for Treatment, 20 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 51, 53 (2005) (explaining how stress aects the brain, which
causes physical dierences in the brains of those who have experienced trauma).
11
Hearing on Trauma-Informed Care in Schools Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & Labor, 166th Cong. (2019) [hereinafter Hearing on Trauma-Informed Care] (statement of Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, Surgeon
General of California).
12
Id.
13
See Heather B. MacIntosh & Valerie E. Whien, Twenty Years of Progress in the Study of Trauma, 20 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 488, 489 (2005); see also RONALD T. POTTER-EFRON,
HANDBOOK OF ANGER MANAGEMENT: INDIVIDUAL, COUPLE, FAMILY, AND GROUP APPROACHES 229 (2005).
14
J. Douglas Bremner, M.D., Traumatic Stress: Eects on the Brain, 8 DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE 445 (2006).
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
See Hearing on Trauma-Informed Care, supra note 11.
18
Hans-Peter Kapfhammer, Acute and Long-term Mental and Physical Sequelae in the Aftermath of Traumatic Exposure: Some Remarks on “e Body Keeps the Score”, 30 PSYCHIATRIA DANUBINA, 254,
256 (2018).
19
Id. at 269.
20
See ALLEN, supra note 9.
21
See Claudia Peña, Trauma Abounds: A Case for Trauma-Informed Practices, 26 UCLA WOMEN’S L.J. 7, 7-12 (2019).
22
See id.; see also HEATHER J. CLAWSON ET AL., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., TREATING THE HIDDEN WOUNDS: TRAUMA TREATMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH
RECOVERY FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING (2008).
23
See Kristin A. Hom & Stephanie J. Woods, Trauma and Its Aftermath for Commercially Sexually Exploited Women as Told by Front-Line Service Providers, 34 ISSUES MENTAL HEALTH NURSING
75 (2013).
24
See Mazeda Hossain et al., e Relationship of Trauma to Mental Disorders Among Tracked and Sexually Exploited Girls and Women, 100 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 2442 (2010).
25
See id.
26
See CLAWSON ET AL., supra note 22.
27
Hanni Stoklosa et al., Human Tracking, Mental Illness, and Addiction: Avoiding Diagnostic Overshadowing, 19 AMA J. ETHICS 23, 25-26 (2017).
28
See Alexandra Cook et al., Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents, 21 FOCAL POINT 4, 4 (Winter 2007).
29
See id.
30
Id.
31
Georgina Cliord et al., Developing an Emotion- and Memory-Processing Group Intervention for PTSD with Complex Features: A Group Case Series with Survivors of Repeated Interpersonal Trauma, 9 EUR.
J. OF PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY 1, 6 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2018.1495980.
32
See What is C-PTSD?, BEAUTY AFTER BRUISES, https://www.beautyafterbruises.org/what-is-cptsd (last visited Jan. 16, 2020).
33
What is Complex Trauma?, BLUE KNOT FOUND., https://www.blueknot.org.au/Resources/Information/Understanding-abuse-and-trauma/What-is-complex-trauma (last visited Jan. 16, 2020).
34
See id.
35
Id.
36
See MORTON BARD & DAWN SANGREY, THE CRIME VICTIM’S BOOK (1986).
37
See id.
38
See Rachel Wamser-Nanney et al., Trauma Exposure, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Aggression Among Civilian Females, J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 1 (2019), https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260519860894.
39
See id.
40
See Wamser-Nanney et al., supra note 38.
41
See Vittoria Ardino, Oending Behaviour: e Role of Trauma and PTSD, 3 EUR. J. PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY (2012), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402156/pdf/EJPT-3-
18968.pdf.
42
See id. at 1.
43
Id. at 2.
44
Id.
45
See ANDREA J. NICHOLS ET AL., SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE WITH SURVIVORS OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND COMMERCIAL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION 192-217 (2018); Cheryl
Nelson-Butler, e Racial Roots of Human Tracking, 62 UCLA L. REV 1464 (2015).
46
is statistic reects legislation enacted as of August 1, 2018. Applicable statutes include: Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-51(3); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-2020(G); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-52-1(E); Wyo. Stat.
Ann. § 6-2-708(a).
47
Unless otherwise indicated, this statistic reects legislation enacted as of August 1, 2018. Applicable statutes include: Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-504(2.5) (armative defense for tracking of a
minor); Iowa Code § 710A.3; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5426(e) (minors only); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.170 (as long as the tracking act did not result in death or serious physical injury to the victim);
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-54.1(5); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201.303; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:13-8(c); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-43.16(a); Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 748(D); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-2020(F); Vt. Stat.
Ann. tit. 13, § 2652(c)(B)(2); Wis. Stat. § 939.46(1m). Notably, Montana removed this protection during its 2019 legislative session. Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-710 provides tracking victims with
an armative defense to charges for prostitution, promoting prostitution, and nonviolent oenses; however, Senate Bill 147, enacted May 8, 2019, amended the denition of “crime of violence” under
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-104(2)(a) to now include tracking oenses, rendering the armative defense law inapplicable to tracking charges.
END NOTES
55
48
is statistic reects legislation enacted as of August 1, 2018. Applicable statutes include: Ala. Code § 15-20A-5(28)-(29); Alaska Stat. § 12.63.010(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3821(A)(11)-(12);
Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-903(12)(A)(i)(cc); Cal. Penal Code §290(c)(236.1)(c)-(d); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16-22-103(1)(a); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4120(b)(1); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.21(4)(a)(1)
(b); Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-12(a)(10)(B.3)(iii); Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 846E-1(1); Idaho Code Ann. §18-8306(2)-(3); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-4-4(b)-(c); Iowa Code § 692A.103(1); Kan. Stat. Ann.
§ 22-4902(a)(1)–(2); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17.500(5)(a)(5)-(6); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:542(A)(1); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 255-A; Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 11-704(a); Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 6, § 178D; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.723; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 243.166(1b)(a)(2)(iii); Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-23(h); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 589.414(6)(1)(f)-(7)(w)(x)(y); Mont. Code Ann. §
46-23-502(10); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 179D.097(1)(q); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-B:2(I); N.Y. Correct. Law § 168-a(2)(a)(i); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.6(5); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-15(1)(g);
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2950.01(E)(1)(a), (F)(1)(a), (F)(1)(g); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 582(A); Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 163A.005–163A.235; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9799.13-.14; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 11-
37.1-3(a); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430; S.D. Codied Laws § 22-24B1-2; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-39-202(20), 40-39-212(a); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 62.051(a), 62.001(5)(B)-(B-1), (J)-(L);
Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-41-102(11), 77-41-105; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, §§ 5402(a), 5407(a); Va. Code Ann. § 9.1-902(A)-(B); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 9A.44.128(10), 9A.44.130(1)(a); W. Va. Code
Ann. § 15-12-2(b); Wis. Stat. § 301.45(1g)(a); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-19-301(a)(viii), 7-19-302(a).
49
is statistic reects legislation enacted as of August 1, 2018. Applicable statutes include: Ala. Code § 12-15-319(a); Alaska Stat. § 47.10.088(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 8-863(B)(2); Ark. Code Ann.
§ 9-27-341(b)(3)(ix); Cal. Penal Code §236.1(c); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-10-129(3)(b)(XI); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-717(g)(B); Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §1103(a)(4); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.01(71)(g);
Ga. Code Ann. §15-11-310(a)(2); Haw Rev. Stat. Ann § 587A-4; 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 405/2-21(5); Ind. Code Ann. §§ 31-34-1-3.5(a), 31-35-2-1; Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(o); Kan. Stat. Ann.
§§ 38-2269(a), 38-2271(a)(7); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 625.090(2)(d)-(f); La. Child. Code Ann. art. 1015(l)-(m); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(A)(B)(11); Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-323(d);
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119 § 51A(a); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 260C.301(1); Miss. Code Ann. §93-15-121(h)(i)(4)-(7); Mo. Rev. Stat. §211.447(2)(4); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 432B.393(3)(a)-(g)-(h); N.C.
Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-101(1)(d), 7B-1111(a); N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-44(1); Ohio Admin. Code § 5101:2-42-95(A)(1)(a); Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.502, B.504; S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(9); S.D.
Codied Laws § 26-8A-26.1; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(a), (c), 37-1-147; Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(L)(xv)-(xvi); Utah Code Ann. §§ 62A-4a-203.5, 78A-6-507; Wash. Rev. Code
Ann. §§ 13.34.132, 13.34.180; W. Va. Code Ann. § 49-1-201; Wis. Stat. § 48.415(9m); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv).
50
is statistic reects legislation enacted as of August 1, 2018 and includes vacatur laws that apply to convictions and/or delinquency adjudications for tracking oenses. Applicable statutes include:
Cal. Penal Code § 236.14(a); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 943.0583(3); Ind. Code Ann. § 31-37-22-11(b) (delinquency adjudications only); Idaho Code Ann. § 67-3014(1)-(2); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.160(1);
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-54.6(5); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-3005(2); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-3B-21 (delinquency adjudications only); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-2020(F); S.D. Codied Laws § 26-7A-
115.1 (delinquency adjudications only); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04012 (delinquency adjudications only) Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-708(c). Notably, Montana removed this protection during its 2019
legislative session. Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-608 allows tracking victims to vacate convictions for prostitution, promoting prostitution, and nonviolent oenses; however, Senate Bill 147, enacted May
8, 2019, amended the denition of “crime of violence” under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-104(2)(a) to now include tracking oenses, rendering the vacatur law inapplicable to tracking convictions.
51
See, e.g., Sarah Crocker, Stripping Agency from Top to Bottom: e Need for A Sentencing Guideline Safety Valve for Bottoms Prosecuted Under the Federal Sex Tracking Statutes, 111 NW. U. L. REV. 753,
774 (2017) (“Many scholarly articles have proposed legal solutions for dealing with prostitutes and tracking victims; nevertheless, most have ignored the problem raised when a victim—still victimized
and controlled by her tracker—perpetrates tracking oenses against other tracking victims.”). See generally Marianelli Agbulos, Female Perpetrators of Human Tracking: Overlooked in the United
Nations’ Anti-Tracking Framework (2017), https://www.academia.edu/36576018/Female_Perpetrators_of_Human_Tracking_Overlooked_in_the_United_Nations_Anti-Tracking_Framework
(discussing the need for comprehensive research examining a victim-oender’s motives, activities, and behavior).
52
See Prostitution Terminology & Slang, GENDERBERG, http://genderberg.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1244 (last visited Oct. 12, 2017) (dening “stable” as the “group of people under the
control of a single pimp,” and noting that “[t]he choice of a farming word is not accidental. Pimps consider their victims to be no better than animals.”).
53
Isabella Blizard, Chapter 636: Catching ose Who Fall, an Armative Defense for Human Tracking Victims, 48 UNIVERSITY PACIFIC L. REV. 631, 639 (2016).
54
378 F.3d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated, 544 U.S. 902 (2005), judgment reinstated, 412 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Daniels, 685 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2012)
(describing a conversation where a victim-oender “briefed [another victim] on necessary hygiene, the appropriate prices to charge for certain services, and ‘just how to act with a trick’”); United States
v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[Bottom Girls are a] pimp’s most senior prostitute, who often trains new prostitutes and collects their earnings until they can be trusted”).
55
See Blizard, supra note 53, at 639 (“Bottom girls may actually be the most victimized out of all of the prostitutes working for a particular tracker—they are in the position of bottom girl because
they are the most submissive, and the trackers maintain control over them by delegating power.”); see also Jessica Emerson & Alison Aminzadeh, Left Behind: How the Absence of Federal Vacatur Law
Disadvantages Survivors of Human Tracking, 16 U. MD. L.J. RACE, RELIGION, GENDER & CLASS 239, 247-48 (2016) (sharing story of Shamere McKenzie, who was federally prosecuted as a
co-conspirator in tracking).
56
See Crocker, supra note 51, at 771.
57
Id.
58
See Blizard, supra note 53, at 639; Crocker, supra note 51, at 774-75 (discussing the responsibilities of a “bottom”).
59
See Crocker, supra note 51, at 775 (“Although bottoms perform dierent roles for dierent trackers, many participate in recruitment of new victims and management of other prostitutes—thereby
meeting § 1591(a)(1)’s element of recruiting or maintaining a person.”); see also Krystle M. Fernandez, Victims or Criminals? e Intricacies of Dealing with Juvenile Victims of Sex Tracking and Why the
Distinction Matters, 45 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 859, 885 (2013) (arguing that a sexually exploited teen may “[choose] to play the role of a ‘bottom girl’ as a means of protection”).
60
In fact, the issue of charging sex tracking victim-oenders has sparked international attention:
e United Nations (Working Group on Tracking in Persons, 2010) urges the non-punishment and non-prosecution of tracked persons who may have committed oenses while tracked
victims. If crimes have been perpetrated under duress or force, Member States are urged to establish the principle of non-liability of the illegal acts committed by tracked victims through a
duress-based provision (a tracked person is compelled to commit the oense) or through a causation-based provision (the oense committed by the tracked person is directly related to the
tracking). e rst provision would apply to those who are coerced into working for the criminal organization – such as recruiting new victims, working as drivers, money collectors or guards.
e duress and causation-based provisions would apply to victims who are in the country illegally, those forced to work in prostitution (in countries where prostitution is illegal), or forced to beg,
steal or commit other oenses. Rather than viewing tracked persons as criminals, they should be viewed through the lens of a human rights-based approach – and protected.
ALEXIS A. ARONOWITZ, INT’L STUDIES CTR., VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING: A COMPLEX ISSUE 12 (2015).
61
Jerey H. Zeeman & Karen Stauss, Criminal Conduct of Victims: Policy Considerations, 65 U.S. ATT’YS BULL. 139, 139 (2017); see also Tracking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, 22 U.S.C.
§§ 7101-14 (2012).
62
Zeeman & Strauss, supra note 61, at 140-41.
63
Alexandra F. Levy, Innocent Trackers, Guilty Victims: e Case for Prosecuting So-Called “Bottom Girls” in the United States, 6 ANTI-TRAFFICKING REV. 130, 133 (2016).
64
Id. (“A criminal action, with its procedural safeguards and fact-sensitive inquiry, is the appropriate context within which to make a determination of culpability.”).
65
See generally Wesley G. Jennings et al., On the Overlap Between Victimization and Oending: A Review of the Literature, 17 J. AGGRESSION & VIOLENT BEHAVIOR 16 (2012) (reviewing
theoretical, analytical, and historical approaches to the victim-oender overlap).
66
See Lisa R. Muftic et al., e Victim-Oender Overlap, Intimate Partner Violence, and Sex: Assessing Dierences Among Victims, Oenders, and Victim-Oenders, 61 CRIME & DELINQ. 899, 900 (2015).
67
See Blanche Bong Cook, Stop Trac: Using Expert Witnesses to Disrupt Intersectional Vulnerability in Sex Tracking Prosecutions, 24 BERKELEY J. CRIM. L. 147, 157 (2019).
68
See Jennings et al., supra note 65, at 24 (examining 37 dierent studies and nding that 31 of these studies revealed evidence of the victim-oender overlap).
69
Id.
70
Marie Skubak Tillyer & Emily M. Wright, Intimate Partner Violence and the Victim-Oender Overlap, 51 J. RES. CRIME & DELINQ. 29, 34 (2014).
71
See Wesley G. Jennings et al., An Empirical Assessment of the Overlap Between Sexual Victimization and Sex Oending, 58 INT’L. J. OFFENDER THERAPY & COMP. CRIMINOLOGY 1466, 1468
(2014).
72
Id. (citation omitted).
73
See generally Cathy S. Wisdom, Does Violence Beget Violence? A Critical Examination of the Literature, 106 PSYCHOL. BULL. 3 (1989) (conducting a literature review of empirical studies examining
the relationship between violent victimization as a child and later criminal oending).
56
74
Stephanie Holt et al., e Impact of Exposure to Domestic Violence on Children and Young People: A Review of the Literature, 32 INT’L J. CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 797, 807 (2008).
75
See Crocker, supra note 51, at 771-74 (discussing the role of the bottom girl in sex tracking and the relationship between the bottom girl, other prostituted persons, and the tracker).
76
Id. at 768; see LINDA A. SMITH ET AL., SHARED HOPE INT’L, THE NATIONAL REPORT ON DOMESTIC MINOR SEX TRAFFICKING 31-32 (2009) (nding that dierent studies have
found between 70-95% of commercially sexually exploited children had been abused prior to being tracked).
77
See GLOB. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, IN-SERVICE TRAINING: IDENTIFICATION, INTERVENTION, AND PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING FOR PROFESSIONALS
17 (2018).
78
Holt et al., supra note 74, at 807.
79
See Mark Farmer et al., Sex Oending and Situational Motivation: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis of Desistance from Sexual Oending, 60 INT’L J. OFFENDER THERAPY & COMP.
CRIMINOLOGY 1756, 1758 (2016) (citing R. Wortley & S. W. Smallbone, Applying Situational Principles to Sexual Oenses Against Children, in SITUATIONAL PREVENTION OF CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE 7 (R. K. Wortley & S. W. Smallbone eds., 2006)).
80
Id.
81
Id. (citations omitted) (noting that “from a strong situationist perspective, motivation is also thought to be driven by environmental factors”).
82
Id.
83
See Jennings et al., supra note 71, at 17.
84
Id.
85
See supra Part I of this review.
86
GLOB. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, supra note 77, at 17.
87
See generally Muftic et al., supra note 66; Tara N. Richards et al., e Cycle of Violence Revisited: Distinguishing Intimate Partner Violence Oenders Only, Victims Only, and Victim-Oenders, 31
VIOLENCE & VICTIMS 573 (2016); Tillyer & Wright, supra note 70.
88
MATTHEW J. BRIEDING ET AL., CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE SURVEILLANCE: UNIFORM DEFINITIONS AND
RECOMMENDED DATA ELEMENTS, VERSION 2.0 11 (2015).
89
Tillyer & Wright, supra note 70, at 36.
90
Id.
91
Id. at 45.
92
See Amy Farrell et al., New Laws but Few Cases: Understanding the Challenges to the Investigation and Prosecution of Human Tracking Cases, 61 CRIME, L. & SOC. CHANGE 139, 163 (2014) (“Social
isolation and marginalization are common among all types of tracking victims.”).
93
Marmo & Chazal, supra note 7, at 133 (citations omitted).
94
Id.
95
See Susie B. Baldwin et al., Psychological Coercion in Human Tracking: An Application of Biderman’s Framework, 25 QUALITATIVE HEALTH RES. 1171, 1173-77 (2015) (describing the ways in
which trackers exercised control over their victims).
96
See Crocker, supra note 51, at 771-72.
97
Id.
98
Several sources have discussed the bottom girl’s lack of agency. See, e.g., Crocker, supra note 51, at 773 (“e trackers’ physical abuse and complete domination [over bottom girls] strip away the
bottoms’ agency: although bottoms commit oenses against other victims, they do so either at the command of or for the sake of the man tracking the bottom and the other victims.”).
99
See id. at 771-72 (“Because many trackers set quotas for their victims as a collective, it is logical but naïve for victims, including bottoms, to seek more victims for their stable in the hope that the
tracker will allow each victim to engage in fewer sex acts.”).
100
See Tillyer & Wight, supra note 70, at 31.
101
See Levy, supra note 63, at 132.
102
See ARONOWITZ, supra note 60, at 10.
103
Id. at 11.
104
Joan A. Reid & Shayne Jones, Exploited Vulnerability: Legal and Psychological Perspectives on Child Sex Tracking Victims, 6 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 207, 219 (2011).
105
Id. at 220; see GLOB. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, supra note 78, at 17 (describing how trauma bonds can result in the “normalization of negative and abusive relationships)
106
Zeeman & Strauss, supra note 61, at 143. Notably, the authors do suggest that there are circumstances when “it may be appropriate to charge adult sex tracking victims who willingly assist the
[tracker] in recruiting [and otherwise managing] other sex tracking victims, particularly when those additional victims include minors, persons with developmental disabilities, or other especially
vulnerable individuals.” Id. at 145. Even in such cases, however, the authors note that the interests of sex tracking victim-oenders must be considered and balanced against the interests of those the
victim-oender exploited. Id.
107
Id. at 140, 142.
108
See ARONOWITZ, supra note 60, at 10; Crocker, supra note 51, at 768; Francisco Zornosa, Protecting Human Tracking Victims from Punishment and Promoting eir Rehabilitation: e Need for
an Armative Defense 22 WASH. & LEE. J. C.R. & SOC. JUST. 177, 188 (2016); see also Agbulos, supra note 51, at 7 (“Female perpetrators are caught in a never-ending cycle of victimization and
victimizing. Most of them have little or no education, which limits their employment options. ey also know that their involvement in sex work, whether it began voluntarily or involuntarily, has made
them tainted outcasts who cannot return to the community from which they came . . . . (Ironically, being part of this group of perpetrators may give them the only sense of community now available
to them.) And while it may seem heartless for someone who was a victim-turned-perpetrator to put another woman through the same experience, nancial security, plus the accompanying feeling of
empowerment, keep female perpetrators in their role: wealth and economic benets outweigh traditional social values and traditional religious morals in which sex is valued as an act of procreation alone.
To maintain her position, the female perpetrator must meet her recruitment quota, which means she must continue the cycle of enslavement.”).
109
Crocker, supra note 51, at 773.
110
Id. at 774.
111
See id. at 756 n.21 (quoting Agency, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (3d ed. 2012)). Agency can be dened as the “[a]bility or capacity to act or exert power” independently. Id.
112
Crocker, supra note 51, at 773-75.
113
Cook, supra note 67, at 158.
114
Id. at 171-73.
115
Crocker, supra note 51, at 775.
57
SHARED HOPE INTERNATIONAL’S
JUST RESPONSE COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shared Hope International’s JuST Response Council represents some of the most
innovative and informed experts in the country. These members help ensure JuST
Response products are informed by diverse perspectives and experiences. Council
members share the goals of preventing juveniles from becoming sex trafcking
victims and ensuring that youth who have been trafcked have access to the tools
and support necessary to heal from the trauma they have endured and the skills to
create and sustain a life away from trafcking. Members include policy advocates,
government ofcials, medical professionals, law enforcement, judges, academics and
service providers, many of whom are themselves survivors of juvenile sex trafcking,
from diverse geographic areas.
JuST Response Council Members & Observers include:
Nancy Baldwin, Hickey Family Foundation (AZ)
Darla Bardine, National Network for Youth (DC)
Lauren Behsudi, Casey Family Programs (DC)
Alisa Bernard, Organization for Prostitution Survivors (WA)
Laura Boyd, Foster Family-based Treatment Association (OK)
e Honorable Bobbe Bridge, ret., Center for Children and Youth
Justice (WA)
Vednita Carter, Founder Breaking Free (MN)
Kristy Childs, Veronica’s Voice (KS)
Denise Edwards, National Children’s Alliance (DC)
Rebecca Epstein, Georgetown University School of Law (DC)
Teresa Forliti, Breaking Free (MN)
Courtney Gaskins, Youth for Tomorrow (VA)
Bethany Gilot, Dept. of Children & Families (FL)
Melinda Giovengo, YouthCare (WA)
Susan Goldfarb, Suolk County Children’s Advocacy Center (MA)
Kim Grabert, Citrus Health Network (FL)
Lisa Goldblatt Grace, My Life My Choice, Justice Resource
Institute (MA)
Yolanda Graham, Devereux Georgia (GA)
Michelle Guymon, L.A. County Probation Dept. (CA)
Marian Hatcher, Cook County Sheri’s Oce (IL)
Rebecca Johnson, Engedi Refuge (WA)
Abigail Kuzma, Taylor University (IN)
Meghan Malik, Women’s Fund to Omaha (NE)
Shamere McKenzie, SunGate Foundation (MD)
Nicholas Oakley, Center for Children and Youth Justice (WA) Nancy
O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney’s Oce (CA)
Withelma “T” Ortiz Walker Pettigrew, Survivor Advocate (MD)
Alexandra (Sandi) Pierce, Othayonih Research (MN)
e Honorable Hiram Puig-Lugo, D.C. Superior Court (DC)
Margie Quin, End Slavery Tennessee (TN)
Eliza Reock, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (VA)
Deborah Richardson, International Human Tracking Institute (GA)
Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, Sex Tracking Intervention Research Oce,
Arizona State University (AZ)
Shea Rhodes, Villanova Law Institute to Address Commercial Sexual
Exploitation (PA)
Linda Smith, Shared Hope International (WA)
Jen Spry, Forensic & Psychiatric RN, Survivor Leader & Consultant (PA)
Margaret (Peg) Talburtt, Philanthropy Consultant (MI)
Yasmin Vafa, Rights4Girls (DC)
Kate Walker Brown, National Center for Youth Law (NCYL), (CA)
Katherine Kaufka Walts, Center for the Human Rights of Children,
Loyola University Chicago (IL)
Terry Williams, Women’s Foundation of Minnesota (MN)
Erin Williamson, Love 146 (CT)
58
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Shared Hope International and the Institute to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation
at Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law extend appreciation to the
many people who gave their time and efforts to help accomplish “Responding to Sex
Trafcking Victim-Offender Intersectionality: A Guide for Criminal Justice Stakeholders.”
Our hope is that the information compiled here supports a shift in the criminal justice
response to ST-VOI from a narrow, retributive approach toward a holistic approach.
is eld guidance was a collaborative eort under the direction of Christine Raino, Esq. and was greatly assisted by Sarah
Breyer, J.D., LL.M and Sarah Bendtsen, J.D. Appreciation is also due to the following Shared Hope Fellows and Interns:
Rose Brugger, MacKenzie Coplen, Alison Damery, Briana Davis, Christina Jones, Kaitlin Kinsella, Jaclyn Lahr, Amanda
Lopez, Aliz Nagyvaradi, Justin Pollard, Paul Qu, Matthew Quandt, Liisa Rettedal, Sara Rosenthal, Damir Siahkoohi,
Rachel Ungar, and Joseph Woltmann. All Shared Hope sta members were involved in key ways in the research and writing
of this report.
Shea Rhodes, Esq., Director and Co-Founder of the CSE Institute, would like to extend special appreciation and gratitude
to Alexia Tomlinson, Esq., CSE Institute Justice for Victims Legal Fellow, and Jessica DiBacco, Esq., CWSL ‘18, Lindsay
Burrill, CWSL ‘20, and Amy Krumenacher, CWSL ‘20 for their contributions to this project.
And nally, we would like to extend our gratitude to Regent University School of Law’s Center for Global Justice, Human
Rights, and the Rule of Law for their contribution in researching federal cases that informed the case studies section of this
report.
59
1016 16TH ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036
SHAREDHOPE.ORG
