Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
More grandstanding from Coakley
There are already several laws which could put these people in prison for life - kidnapping, contributing to delinquency, accessory to rape.
Is she saying she can't do her job without a new law every time something happens?
No - she's saying she'll
No - she's saying she'll never get elected to higher office unless she grandstands on this issue.
She'll never get elected...
...unless she actually bothers to attend large local events and meet people. I'm still laughing about her blowing off the Winter Classic.
Laws
Kidnapping doesn't put you away for life. Kidnapping someone under 16 gets you not more than 25 years in the state prison.
Other laws possibly violated:
MGL Chapter 265, Sec. 26C, Enticement of a child with the purpose of inducing to become a prostitute. This gets you a max of 5 years in the state prison.
MGL Ch. 272, Sec 7, Deriving support from a prostitute, maximum of 5 years.
MGL Ch 272, Sec 4A, Inducing a minor to become a prostitute, gets you a max of 5 years, but at least has a minimum of 3.
The only thing that could get him an actual life sentence would be rape of a child.
I would agree, though, that moving someone from Danvers to Quincy probably doesn't qualify as "trafficking". If it does, than anyone convicted of any of the above crimes would probably be trafficking, as well. Instead of a new law, maybe we could just strengthen the ones we have with more sincere penalties, and actually make people serve their sentences.
In real life, though, I bet this suspect will get a relatively light sentence. The prosecutor will want a plea bargain to keep from having to put the victim on the stand.
Human Trafficking
Moving someone from Danvers to Quincy to force them to have sex would qualify as human trafficking under the federal law. It would also qualify under the laws in most of the 46 states that have a human trafficking statute.
Not sure what the resistance is to having one here in MA. There's a million overlapping laws with specific variations to cover particular behavior. This seems worse than kidnapping or any of those other charges.
Actually
The federal law (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 77, Section 1591), Sex trafficking of children, specifies that the trafficking must either cross state lines, or occur in an area of federal jurisdiction, such as an Indian reservation or national park.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?AC...$$xa$$busc18.wais&start=2694282&SIZE=4222&TYPE=TEXT
Here's the Definition, From the Law
(8) SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS- The term `severe forms of trafficking in persons' means--
(A) sex trafficking 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; or
(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
(9) SEX TRAFFICKING- The term `sex trafficking' means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.
(http://www.state.gov/g/tip/laws/61124.htm)
Taking someone from Danvers to Quincy qualifies as transportation. If the feds can't charge it without an interstate aspect, then all the more reason for a state law so it can be charged for what it is.
The law you cited is not part
The law you cited is not part of the criminal code (Title 18). The definition you cited is part of an administrative law to provide support and funds for programs combating trafficking, and as such, defines it. However, you can't violate that law, and it imposes no penalties.
The story is that he did rape
The story is that he did rape her. Rape of a child plus kidnapping - and assorted assault charges along the way - would mean a life sentence.
If that didn't get the job done, you can increase the penalties for all of the above. There's no need of a new 'trafficking' crime. Trafficking is just someone's agenda of the day.
And of course, as you say, this isn't 'trafficking' in any standard sense of the word. It's a terrible crime, but it's not trafficking' Trafficking would be kidnapping in one state and sending them to another state - and another person - to be pimped out.
Trafficking
And there are already federal laws against moving people, especially juveniles, across state lines for prostitution. In fact, you can get 5 years just for moving willing adult women across state lines to engage in prostitution, which is what happened to the proprietor of the Danish Health Club in Kittery, Maine.
We could probably use a law against bribery as well
Could help with future DiMasis.
Human Trafficking
It isn't just kidnapping.
It isn't just rape.
It is kidnapping someone so you can sell them to others to rape.
That is a distinct difference.
There is much written nationally and internationally about this topic - google is your friend and mentor!
Just kill him
I sure don't want tax dollars wasted keeping him alive.
It seems like a person could
It seems like a person could get more time for looking at child porn on a computer. If that makes any sense
Stop Slavery 2011
www.stopslavery2011.com