Sex Trafficking Not Always a 'Crime of Violence' Says Federal Court
At stake: Possessing a firearm during a "crime of violence" adds five extra years to a felony sentence.


It's being reported as an "outrage," but the reasoning behind a recent federal court decision declaring sex trafficking "not a violent crime" is more a matter of statutory language than the belief that forcing someone into prostitution is no big deal.
The case involves two men, Kevin Garcia Fuertes and German de Jesus Ventura, who ran several brothels around Maryland and one in Portsmouth, Virgina. Most of the women who worked at these brothels did so willingly, were paid, and came and went as they pleased, sometimes traveling in from out-of-state to work for a week at a time. Ventura's girlfriend, however—"a young woman illegally present in the country with no English skills and a third-grade education," according to court documents—says he held her against her will and compelled her to engage in prostitution using violence and threats of violence. Prosecutors said Fuertes was aware that this was going on.
In the course of the police sex-trafficking investigation, several of the women working at the brothels were arrested for prostitution. Ventura and Fuertes were indicted for various federal sex-trafficking and prostitution-related offenses, including sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion; transportation of an individual in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution; and conspiracy to transport someone for the purpose of prostitution. Ventura was also charged with enticing an individual to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution, more counts of transporting for prostitution, and possession of a firearm in relation to a violent crime.
A jury found Ventura guilty on all counts, and Fuertes guilty of sex trafficking and conspiracy. They were sentenced to 35 years and 19.5 years in prison, respectively, with the firearm possession charge adding a five-year mandatory minimum sentence to Ventura's time.
The men appealed. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld most of the convictions while striking down Ventura's conviction for "possession and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence." The charge "was erroneous," the court wrote, "because, we hold, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of (federal law) is not categorically a violent crime."
The categorically there is an important—to trigger the firearm charge in question (and its mandatory minimum sentence), a gun must be used in conjunction with a felony crime that by statuatory definition always involves "use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" or "involves a substantial risk that" such physical force will be used in the couse of committing the offense."
"One possibility is that the court was making a move to circumscribe the reach of controversial mandatory minimum sentencing," writes Andrew Mark Bennett at The Daily Beast.
By limiting what is considered a crime of violence in this case, the court may be sending a message that it will not readily recognize other crimes as crimes of violence in future cases. The result would be a decrease in future mandatory minimum 924(c) convictions. But if that was indeed the court's intent, it could have openly said so, to likely greater effect. The most compelling explanation is that the court simply did not understand the true scope of violence in sex trafficking.
There's no need to invent judicial motivations here, however. Rather, we have a 30-something page document in which Judge Andre Davis explains the court's reasoning.
"When a statute defines an offense using a single, indivisible set of elements that allows for both violent and nonviolent means of commission, the offense is not a categorical crime of violence," Davis explained. For instance, because "the Maryland offense of resisting arrest has a single and indivisible set of elements that may be committed by either violent or nonviolent means, it does not qualify categorically as a crime of violence." Second-degree assault in Maryland is also not distinguished as a categorically "violent felony." Burglary, however, can be considered a categorically violent crime, because it's defined as breaking into someone's home to either "commit violence" or theft—inherent in the crime is the required "physical force against the person or property."
Federal criminal code lumps together as one crime "sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion." Because the law specifies "that sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion may be committed nonviolently—i.e., through fraudulent means—the offense does not qualify as a categorical crime of violence under the force clause," the court ruled.
"Senior Judge Andre Davis… overlooked that sex trafficking is a violent trespass on human beings' bodies, particularly women's bodies," writes Bennett.
He didn't. In fact, Judge Davis specifically addressed the fact that compelled prostitution may result in physical violence (i.e., rape, assault) against victims, noting federal prosecutors' position "that sex trafficking is categorically a crime of violence under (federal criminal code) because, even where the defendant effects the offense by means of fraud, there is still a substantial risk of physical injury from the prostitute's customers, or johns."
But "this argument misapprehends the (statute), which specifies that a felony is a crime of violence when it, 'by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense," writes Davis. "The relevant inquiry is not whether there is a risk of any person using force in any way tangentially related to an on-going offense, but rather whether there is a substantial risk of the defendant doing so."
Note that he doesn't mean the particular defendant in this case, Ventura, but any defendant charged with federal sex trafficking of an adult—a crime which is defined as using physical force or other means to compel prostitution. While Bennett assumes the court was making a statement about either mandatory minimums or sex trafficking, judges actually seem to have taken the only non-activist position, ruling that a crime defined as sometimes not involving physical force can't also be defined as categorically involving physical force.
Sex-trafficking of a minor is categorically a crime of violence under federal law, according to a previous court ruling. Interestingly, using physical force is not a required element of committing sex trafficking of a minor; nor are fraud, coercion, kidnapping, or any other element used to compel sexual activity. Because people under 18 are not able to legally consent to sex work, anyone who knowingly helps them in that endeavor can be charged with sex trafficking, even if they're not aware the person was a minor.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
http://freebeacon.com/politics.....epartment/
Under federal law, extending your middle finger at someone, is a crime of violence.
Every crime is violent. Because prohibiting something that people want always leads to violence since the police must employ violence to enforce the law. Some people actually believe this...
^ This. I can't say how many times I've seen "dangers of drugs" presentations in which the only real argument presented is that drugs are dangerous because the police are going to beat you senseless as they arrest you.
With *no* sense of irony or humor at all.
and one in Portsmouth, Virgina
P-TOWN REPRAZENT
On the judgmental map of Hampton Roads, Portsmouth is labeled "Beyond Scared Straight." This is accurate.
nice
My town is described as "Beyond Thunderdome"...
Also Virgina (where the virgins are) reprazent.
Virginia is not "Where the virgins are," dickstain.
It is "Virginal," which is pretty funny becuase, if you buy into global warming and destruction environments and phenomenal manmade disasters, leftys should probably argue that they should change the name to "Well Used" or possibly "Past its Prime."
Or it is named after the "Virgin" queen. Which is, of course, redonkulous.
A Walmart in the *Atlantic Ocean*?
Probably!
There are a LOT of Walmarts around here.
Am I missing something? All I get on there is comments, both in Chrome or IE.
The picture must not be loading for you for whatever reason. Does this work?
No Orlando 🙁
Not mentioned in the post: both are illegal aliens (Honduras and El Salvador). But the GOP is "nuts" over illegal immigration, right? Because most illegals aren't pimps!
WHYCOME MEXICANS GIT OUT MY COUNTRY AINT
BEEP BOOP LAW OF THE LAND BOOP BLEEP ENFORCE ALL LAWS BLURP
Whats the name of that Reason app so I can put Warty's retarded ass on ignore?
Reasonable
Ignore Warty at your peril.
No no, that's the name of the Warty-tracking app with the proximity-triggered push notifications.
Look, they are taking jobs locals don't want, and at a lower cost, too!
Damn, no wonder i got turned down for that pimp job in Portsmouth. I gotta lower my standards.
Not standards, you just have to ask for competitive salary. Or increase your productivity - have your practiced a multislap instead of ordinary pimpslap?
My pimp hand is only so strong.
That's exactly what the last buggy whip maker said! Adapt! Cybernize your pimp hand!
Cybernized pimp hand... Nice band name.
Wow. Just wow. So when native citizens get convicted of trafficking, is that an argument for emptying the entire country?
Yes?
That is usually the theory with gun control, at least.
I hold the strange, old-fashioned belief that immigration ought to be for our benefit. That means we keep out the pimps, gangsters, drunk drivers, welfare cases, child molesters, etc.
The real question is, where's the pot and ass sex? I mean, I guess since they were operating a brothel ass sex may have been involved, but what about the pot?
That costs extra.
See, this is why good old traditional American pimps can't find work. There should be a living wage for citizen pimps, and a border wall to keep foreign pimps pimpin' away south of the border.
"The relevant inquiry is not whether there is a risk of any person using force in any way tangentially related to an on-going offense, but rather whether there is a substantial risk of the defendant doing so."
With all due respect, a lotta guys would say the relevant inquiry is whether people can assess such "risk", substantial or not.
" overlooked that sex trafficking is a violent trespass on human beings' bodies, particularly women's bodies."
What if they're invited?
Well, then it's a violent trespass on their *minds*.
Wow - way to mansplain it away, cis shitlord
It's impossible to consent when money is directly involved, because power imbalance is too huge.
I debating liquidating all my assets and going on an epic bender a la "leaving Las Vegas" because not living on this planet anymore is an option unavailable to me.
I strongly recommend contacting Mr. Lizard, instead. He may have other options.
The kangaroo court system is a JOKE
http://www.Total-Privacy.tk
American courts are now all kangaroo courts.
Look, they are taking jobs locals don't want, and at a lower cost, too!