Sex trafficking is a problem, but the referendum proposal is not the right solution

Proposition 313 would send anyone convicted of child sex trafficking to prison for life without parole. This is the wrong answer if the goal is to protect the most vulnerable.

John Covert
| opinion contributor

Defense attorney Clarence Darrow once said that the criminal justice system simply “institutionalizes revenge,” meting out punishments that do not in themselves deter crime.

Although he was known to exaggerate at times to make his point, he said that simply implementing draconian sanctions does not protect society.

Rather, it is important to look for the underlying causes of crime and work to address them. Only then will the community be safer.

It’s easy to imagine Darrow strongly opposing Proposition 313, which would impose an automatic life sentence without parole for anyone convicted of child sex trafficking, regardless of the individual circumstances of their case.

Measure was inspired by a dubious movie

This proposal is an extreme measure based on an emotional, punitive and unscientific response to a serious situation and offers essentially nothing that will work to protect the most vulnerable among us.

The proposal was developed by Republican Rep. Selina Bliss of Prescott.

Bliss said the initiative was brought to him by a group inspired by the film “Sound of Freedom,” a surprise box-office hit in 2023.

The film is based on the real life of an anti-trafficking activist, but many doubts have been raised about its factual claims.

Additionally, the film is linked to individuals, including its star Jim Caviezel, with ties to the cult group QAnon., who has long propagated conspiracy theories that liberal elites kill children.

Bliss noted, for her part, that she had not seen the film and had no plans to see it.

There are strict laws against child sex traffickers

Those currently convicted of child sex trafficking are not getting off lightly. Under current law, the presumptive sentence for a first offense is 20 years in prison per count, with each count running consecutively.

People involved in sex trafficking come in all shapes and sizes, with different backgrounds and motivations.

The importance of giving the judge discretion in sentencing lies in the fact that the sentence can be adjusted according to the seriousness of the crime, which goes beyond a “one size fits all” approach.

Closing the back page: Making the fight against the sex trade more difficult

One criticism of the proposal is that a simple life sentence could lead to a host of negative consequences with no way to change them. Democratic Rep. Analise Ortiz of Phoenix, who has opposed similar legislation, said the proposal could unintentionally target minors who are themselves victims of sex trafficking.

“Sex trafficking experts know that some victims are being used to coerce other victims into this trafficking,” Ortiz told a KJZZ reporter. “That’s the harsh reality, and we don’t want these minors who have been severely traumatized to be locked up because of this bill.”

Consider the teenagers that financier Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplices trained to recruit other teenagers for him. It is certainly legitimate to ask whether they too should be sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives.

Tighter measures may not deter crime

Furthermore, it is questionable whether the harsh penalties provided for in this proposal will actually deter sex trafficking.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, increasing the severity of sentences has been shown to have only limited effectiveness in deterring crime.

Most criminals do not expect to be caught and do not keep in mind the penalties associated with specific crimes when they commit them.

Ultimately, what is needed is a rational understanding of the problem so that it can be addressed intelligently. This requires scientific research, adequate resources for education and community-wide prevention programs, and effective enforcement measures that can deter such activities.

Because of the range of serious problems this proposition raises, Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws urge voters to demand a better way to prevent sexual harm and vote “no” on Proposition 313.

We believe there is a better way to prevent sexual violence while preserving the constitutional rights of all.

John Covert is a member of the executive committee of Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Policies. He can be reached at [email protected].