Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Sex Trafficking

Alabama's New Sex Trafficking Law Could Mean Life in Prison for Trafficking Victims

It's the war on drugs all over again, folks...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.6.2024 11:33 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey | ALABAMA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE/UPI/Newscom
(ALABAMA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE/UPI/Newscom)

A new law in Alabama showcases how the war on sex trafficking is mirroring the war on drugs, with all of the negative consequences that implies. The law, signed by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey in mid-April, is called "The Sound of Freedom Act," after a recent hit movie about sex trafficking.

It's never a good sign when public policy takes its cues from Hollywood. It's even worse when the film in question was inspired by a group (Operation Underground Railroad) that stages highly-questionable "sting" operations and was founded by a truth-challenged man (Tim Ballard) fending off multiple sexual assault lawsuits.

Alabama's law—which takes effect on October 1, 2024—stipulates a mandatory life sentence for anyone found guilty of first-degree human trafficking of a minor. On its surface, this might not sound too objectionable. But in fact it will likely to lead to extreme overpunishment for people whose offenses are far less nefarious than those in movies like The Sound of Freedom.

It could even lead to life in prison for trafficking victims.

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

How Human Trafficking Laws Really Work 

If you're a regular reader, you probably know by now that "human trafficking" in America looks nothing like it does in the movies. Something needn't involve force, abduction, or border crossings to be legally defined as human trafficking. Adult victims often start off doing sex work consensually, then wind up being exploited, threatened, or abused by someone they initially trusted to help them. And when someone under age 18 is involved in any exchange of sexual activity for something of value, it qualifies as sex trafficking even if no trafficker is involved.

Two 17-year-old runaways could work together, meeting up with prostitution customers. They would both be considered trafficking victims under U.S. law. If one of them turned 18 and they continued to work together, the 18-year-old would be guilty of child sex trafficking. Helping them post an ad online or driving them to meet a customer would also suffice.

A teenage victim need not even be a legal adult to be labeled a sex trafficker. Take the case of Hope Zeferjohn, in Kansas. Starting at age 15, she was victimized by an older boyfriend, who pressured her into prostitution and asked her to try to recruit other teens to work for him too. Zeferjohn wound up convicted of child sex trafficking for these attempts.

And people need not know they're involved with a minor to be guilty of child sex trafficking. A 17-year-old could post an ad online, pretend to be 19, and meet up with someone (perhaps barely over 18 himself) looking to pay another adult for sex. The person paying would be guilty of human trafficking in the first degree even if he had no reason to believe the person he paid was a minor. In fact, Alabama law specifically states that "it is not required that the defendant have knowledge of a minor victim's age, nor is reasonable mistake of age a defense to liability under this section."

There doesn't even need to be a real victim involved for someone to be convicted of human trafficking of a minor. Police could pretend to be an adult sex worker, chat with a prospective customer, and then casually drop into the conversation that they're "really" only 17-years-old. The prospective customer may believe this to be actually true or not (after all, the actual police decoy may be and look like a young adult). But for purposes of the law, it doesn't matter what the person believed or that there was no actual minor involved.

None of these scenarios resemble the sort of sex trafficking situations imagined by Hollywood or by groups like Operation Underground Railroad. That doesn't mean everyone involved is totally blameless. But…

Existing Laws Provide Plenty Harsh Penalties 

Whatever culpability should accrue to individuals in the above situations, I think most people would agree that life in prison would be too harsh. But under Alabama's new Sound of Freedom law, a life sentence would be possible in all cases and mandatory in cases where the offender was at least 19 years old.

This is insane—and especially so when you consider the existing punishments available.

Human trafficking in the first degree is a Class A felony in Alabama. Class A felonies already come with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, and a life sentence or up to 99 years in prison is possible.

Under existing law, then, it's not as if people guilty of truly heinous acts will get off easy (even if additional charges, such as abduction or assault, are not added on).

Someone guilty of Hollywood-style sex trafficking could still be sentenced to life in prison. Someone guilty of less heinous but still serious crimes could be sentenced to decades in prison. But an 19-year-old who takes a 17-year-old friend along to meet a customer would be subject to only 10 years in prison—still too much, if you ask me, but at least not life in prison regardless of circumstances.

Following Drug War Trends 

What we're seeing in Alabama is a perfect example of how the war on sex trafficking mirrors the war on drugs.

At a certain point in the drug war, everything was plenty criminalized but (surprise, surprise) people were still doing and selling drugs. And politicians still wanted ways to look like they were doing something about it.

An honest broker might say: Look, the laws we have are already quite tough, but the truth is that no amount of criminalization will ever eradicate drugs entirely. Instead of throwing more law enforcement at the problem, maybe we should look at ways to help people struggling with addiction. But no one in power wanted to appear soft on drugs.

So instead of dealing in reality, they proposed harsher and harsher penalties for drug offenses. First mandatory minimums. Then even harsher mandatory minimums, along with sentencing enhancements for various circumstances (like being in a certain proximity to a school, even if no minors are involved) and three-strikes laws (which automatically impose a harsher sentence on people if they've been convicted of certain previous crimes, even when the prior offenses are unrelated to the third offense). This is a large part of how America ended up with a devastating mass incarceration problem.

Over the past two decades, we've been seeing this same pattern play out with prostitution-related offenses—including ones where the sexual activity involves consenting adults, rather than force, fraud, coercion, or minors. We've seen the introduction of harsher and harsher penalties, mandatory minimums, and now Alabama's mandatory life sentences. And we've seen this at the same time that authorities keep expanding the categories of activities that count as sex trafficking, from activities directly and knowingly connected to the core crime to activities only tangentially or unwittingly involved.

In this way, actual problems are blown up into moral panics, after which any measure of proportion is thrown out and any effort to deal with root causes or victim services falls way behind efforts to mete out harsher and harsher punishments to as many people as possible.

We didn't arrest and imprison our way out of drug addiction. And we're not going to arrest and imprison our way out of sexual abuse and exploitation, or out of young people in desperate circumstances turning to sex work to get by. But approaches like opening up more shelters don't get the same headlines as flashy legislation named after popular sex-crime melodramas.

More Sex & Tech News

• NetChoice is suing over an Ohio law requiring young people get parental consent to be on social media. Meanwhile, in Tennessee, the governor just signed a similar bill into law.

• A new law in Georgia "allows the Georgia Board of Massage Therapy to initiate inspections of massage therapy businesses and board recognized massage therapy educational programs without notice," per Gov. Brian Kemp's office. Laws like these are often justified by invoking speculation about sex trafficking; in practice, they get used to bust a bunch of immigrant women for giving massages without a license.

• Meta is starting to test age verification in the U.S. for Facebook Dating.

• "It is perhaps inevitable that taking sexual misconduct seriously, as with any other social ill, would open the door for opportunistic people to use that effort to get what they want," writes Freddie DeBoer in a rant about the incoherence of many progressive attitudes toward sex right now.

Today's Image

Gemini dreams of sunshine on this rainy Monday. (ENB/Reason)

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Does Uncle Sam Consider Your Backyard Restricted Airspace?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Sex TraffickingSex CrimesSexSex WorkProstitutionHuman TraffickingOvercriminalizationCriminal JusticeMandatory MinimumsLaw enforcementAlabama
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (38)

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.

  1. mad.casual   1 year ago

    A new law in Alabama showcases how the war on sex trafficking is mirroring the war on drugs, with all of the negative consequences that implies. The law, signed by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey in mid-April, is called “The Sound of Freedom Act,” after a recent hit movie about sex trafficking.

    Remember how you cheered over the IVF Clinic’s lax security that effectively sterilized several women, jeered against the invocation of God in their defense, and cheered the Governor’s protection of IVF clinics?

    This is how you get ants. Reap the whirlwind you disingenuous bitch.

    1. Obviously   1 year ago

      https://reason.com/2024/02/21/frozen-embryos-are-now-children-under-alabama-law/

      There’s the link for anyone who’s wondering “wtf is this person talking about?” In summary, OP is Big Mad that their interpretation of the Bible isn’t considered legal writ by the author.

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Nobody's wondering what I'm talking about. I am and was hardly the only one to make the point at the time. The IVF clinic was contractually obligated to preserve the embryos and failed/abrogated the contract. The fact that one justice invoked The Bible is a poison pill for the usual crowd advocating "In order to protect women's agency, we have to corrode women's agency."

        Contract law, women's agency, clump of cells' lives, the Judiciary (which can be narrowly interpreted and expediently overturned) and, apparently, The Bible were all on the same side in the case. Instead, ENB went with the Governor like rabid zealots because they couldn't possibly accept one or all of the above coinciding.

        Do you think people can't see you using the same tactics and verbal ticks as SQRLSY One? Why do you just assume everyone else is that much more stupid than you?

        1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          Sure. It's all a conspiracy against you.

        2. Obviously   1 year ago

          You seem to think everyone has such a thorough knowledge of your reason.com comment history so as to know exactly what you’re talking about when you bring up your little vendetta. Thank god you’re keeping the score though.

        3. Demosthenes0   1 year ago

          Um, yeah, I for one was wondering what you were going on about. And more importantly, what it has to do with the article above.

      2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

        Thank you for the leg work. I was wondering what the litteral fuck he was going on about.

        1. Minadin   1 year ago

          littoral? literal?
          Screw it, let's just murder some embryos.

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago

      FFS, you tards didn't even bother to use a different photo when you came up the same opinions.

  2. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Another example of why you can’t have chicks in charge.

    1. Lester75   1 year ago

      There are lots of Heritage Foundation old guys who would like to make contraception illegal aside from the 'rthym' methods:

      The policy book also proposes requiring education on “fertility awareness-based” methods of contraception and family planning and suggests eliminating condoms from Health Resources & Service Administration guidelines because they are not a “women’s” preventative service. [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed 3/19/24]

      Yea, the chicks can't be in charge or they would shitcan stuff like that.

      1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

        Did you see who is signing the bill?

      2. Ben of Houston   1 year ago

        Look, you are literally making things up. Seriously. Stop projecting your fantasies of being persecuted. Saying that we shouldn't provide free contraception is not the same as wanting to make it illegal.

  3. Liberty_Belle   1 year ago

    What does stupidly written laws have to do with nonsensical sky-fairy worship ?

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      Thou shalt not murder?
      Thou shalt not steal?

      1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

        You don't think the jewd came up with those all by themselves in the middle of the fucking desert do you?

        The ideas were developed before language and are part of the basic mammal package.

        1. BYODB   1 year ago

          Rats are mammals and they literally eat their own young...

          1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

            Yep, and nearly all mammals steal

  4. Rick James   1 year ago

    So... Ghislane Maxwell is a sex trafficking victim?

    1. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Ghislane Maxwell... and no one else. No one.

  5. Rick James   1 year ago

    Off-topic, I'm getting random background chatter that Larry Fink had a fucking meltdown about 'lies' and 'misinformation' on an earnings call where Blackrock has lost 'billions' on its woke projects.

    1. ravenshrike   1 year ago

      That was a month or two ago IIRC, and to be fair to that piece of rancid cat shit Fink, it's unlikely BR themselves lost billions. The people they collectively loaned the DEI discounted loans out to on the other hand is a different story. For the most part, the large loans BR tossed out were to people who were good to pay it back even when the projects crashed and burned. So BR probably only at most lost a couple hundred million, and they might have even made a very small profit depending on exactly what their distribution of loans was.

  6. Nobartium   1 year ago

    And when someone under age 18 is involved in any exchange of sexual activity for something of value, it qualifies as sex trafficking even if no trafficker is involved.

    In which ENB makes the case that jailbait (teens between puberty and 18) is justified.

    Only one step away from saying that child porn is as well.

    1. Stuck in California   1 year ago

      "That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age"

      -ENB

    2. Foo_dd   1 year ago

      i'm not sure the implication is that it is justified.... but there is a difference between your classic pedophile and a creep who honestly thought the girl was older. both are terrible, but the one fucking ten year olds is what people are thinking about when they pass laws like this.... not the twit who doesn't know what a fake ID looks like.

      1. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

        At 14 I made fake IDs for the older schoolkids so they could get into Steve McQueen movies. The urge to coerce the weak for the sake of coercion shrieks MENTAL ILLNESS and perhaps a desire for suicide-by-reprisal. Remember the Canadian incel who ran over pedestrians then tried to startle the cop into shooting him? He could be mayor of Birmingham now.

    3. Ben of Houston   1 year ago

      Sorry, but given the number of times I've heard about high school girls lying about their age to snag an older guy, I can't agree. The fact that ignorance and even deception are not a defense changes everything. Additionally, the mandatory life imprisonment seems absurd given the number of conditions that this covers especially compared to other crimes. Paying a 17-year-11-month girl who lied about her age is worse than literal murder?

  7. Nobartium   1 year ago

    Also, the best form of prostitution in the world is in Australia, a complete authoritarian approach.

  8. BYODB   1 year ago


    Alabama law specifically states that "it is not required that the defendant have knowledge of a minor victim's age, nor is reasonable mistake of age a defense to liability under this section."

    Wow, so mens rea is truly dead eh?

    1. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

      Well... Thoughtcrime and Reality Control are alive and kicking in doors like there was no tomorrow.

  9. mad.casual   1 year ago

    Fucking LOL:
     

    If you're a regular reader, you probably know by now that "human trafficking" in America looks nothing like it does in the movies. Something needn't involve force, abduction, or border crossings to be legally defined as human trafficking. Adult victims often start off doing sex work consensually, then wind up being exploited, threatened, or abused by someone they initially trusted to help them.

    It doesn't involve force, abduction, or border crossing, just exploitation, threats of violence, and abuse!

    It's not a blacklist of people to shadowban. It's a collection of names that we deprioritize the visibility of, unsubscribe their users, and block their posts without telling anyone!

    It's not a bill that explicitly violates the 1A and grants Congress the power to censor the internet, it's a bill that Congress uses to protect Good Samaritans that block and screen offensive material for them!

    How's the libertarian feminism clown show going?

    1. BYODB   1 year ago

      In some fairness, treating women like they have agency and choose their situation is somewhat libertarian. Extra special protections for women that make poor choices and end up in bad situations is probably not libertarian.

      Still, it is insane to say that threats of violence and abuse aren't already crimes. If those aren't getting reported as such, there is little reason to think a 'sex trafficking' version of essentially the same statute will be any more enforceable than the laws already on the books for those other crimes.

      It's just more statutes they can throw at the individual for essentially the exact same conduct.

      1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

        "just more statutes they can throw at the individual"
        Well Said +100000000.

  10. TJJ2000   1 year ago

    The real problem is the State deciding for itself what constitutes 'sex trafficking of a minor' is. As a 3rd party they can make-up whatever lie they want (No proof necessary (ID-Required)) in complete contrast to any supposed victims free-will in the matter literally creating a life-sentence prosecution on a victimless ?crime? justified by a blatant lie.

    There needs to be an actual *victim* in these kinds of cases or the government isn't ensuring justice at-all they're just witch-hunting with lies.

  11. Roberta   1 year ago

    The sex attitudes' incoherence that deBoer ranted about is as nothing next to the simultaneous beliefs that sex roles are oppressive — that persons of opposite sex can share attitudes about anything — and that persons who have attitudes associated with the opposite sex are really of that sex — and ought to be helped fit those roles by whatever means, including physical ones.

  12. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

    First Anthony Comstock in 1873, then Teedy Rosenfeld boosting the NY Book-burning Society. The dry KKK joined the dry GOP in 1928. Next came Alabama miscegenation lynch mobs and Beatles-album bonfires. After that we saw George Wallace nuts allied with Red Scare Nixon Birchers. Then Jesus-boy shoots John Lennon in the back. And THESE are the exact same parties, klaverns and milling mobs that vandalize the Capitol and grasp at every police-state straw as if there were some desperate shortage of crime. Are they sane?

    1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

      The 1924 Democratic Party convention is often called the “Klanbake” because one of the front-runners, white shoe lawyer and former Wilson Cabinet member William G. McAdoo, was supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

      You need to change your screen-name to the LIEtranslator.

  13. LIBtranslator   1 year ago

    Isn't Alabama where the AfD-funded Lootvig Fon Mises Institute is based? There you see what Jesus-Boy meant when he praised the smaller, harder, angrier Republican party his Caucasians made via blitzkrieg Anschluss: "by our fruits you will know us."

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Judge Orders Tufts Grad Student Rumeysa Ozturk Be Released on Bail From Immigration Detention

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.9.2025 3:17 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!