How the law can add to child sex trafficking victims’ existing trauma
- Written by Kate Price, Associate Research Scientist at the Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College
The January 2026 release of additional files related to the Justice Department’s investigation of convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell[1] has brought renewed attention to the late financier’s connections to the world’s rich and powerful[2].
However, the failure to redact identifying victim information[3] and explicit photos has also brought unwanted attention to survivors. The lack of consideration for their welfare illustrates how legal proceedings can add to child sex trafficking victims’ existing trauma and burden[4] instead of offering a stable path forward.
Some states have passed laws in recent years to protect child victims of sex trafficking. But at the same time, most states have passed laws that allow those same children to be arrested or prosecuted for prostitution[5]. It’s a tug of war between advocates, law enforcement and policymakers[6] to determine the best approach for keeping vulnerable children safe from pimps, predators and dangerous family members.
Often these intentions to “keep kids safe” end up harming the very children the laws are supposed to protect. This is done by identifying them as criminals and not victims[7].
As a sociologist and scholar[8] who researches the commercial sexual exploitation of children, I believe Americans have to look at the many different ways states treat sexually exploited minors to fully understand this issue and the harm that is being done.
Retraumatizing victims
When approved in 2000, the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act[9] established that children under 18 who experience commercial sexual exploitation are sex trafficking victims.
Criminally charging a child with prostitution, as most states allow[10], asserts they are willfully participating in the commercial sex trade, while identifying a minor as a sex trafficking victim recognizes they are not in this situation by choice.
Some states require minors to prove a third party forced, deceived or coerced them into prostitution to be considered a child sex trafficking victim. Their innocence, despite their age, is not automatically assumed. This approach risks retraumatizing victims[11] by labeling and stigmatizing them as criminal, as voluntary participants in the commercial sex trade.
Examining these state statutes[12] is important because these minors are more likely to interact with local law enforcement[13] than federal agents. That’s because in the U.S. federalist system[14], states have more power than the national government to set rules regarding crime.
Arresting and prosecuting minors for prostitution
As of 2025, 15 states do not arrest and prosecute children for prostitution, while seven states allow a minor to be arrested but not prosecuted for this charge, according to my unpublished research. As a result, sexually exploited minors can be criminalized[15] in 35 states for their maltreatment because they can be charged or prosecuted for prostitution.
These laws determine how courts identify commercially sexually exploited minors, as victims or criminals.
Safe harbor laws have been adopted by 31 states[16] as a legal strategy to divert sex trafficked minors from the criminal legal system. These measures connect them to specialized services, including trauma-informed health care and safe housing. But safe harbor statutes do not guarantee that children will be protected[17] from arrest or prosecution for prostitution.
For example, New York’s 2008 safe harbor law[18] requires a child charged with prostitution to admit they participated in this crime. The child also has to explain why they shouldn’t be held liable for the charge.
Another common strategy adopted by some states, including Rhode Island[19], requires a minor to fulfill a specific “child sex trafficking victim” definition – such as proving force, fraud or coercion by a third party – to avoid being criminalized for prostitution. Yet mandating sexually exploited minors to meet such requirements places the burden of proof on the child.
Conversely, Massachusetts’ safe harbor law[20] does not afford any protections to minors, allowing a child to be arrested and prosecuted for prostitution. State and local police collaborate with child protective services[21] and are trained not to arrest sexually exploited minors. But some officials argue law enforcement needs the threat of criminal charges to pressure minors they see as “noncompliant” to accept services or leave trafficking situations.
This approach blurs the line between criminal legal mechanisms and social work. It positions police as “helpers” who expect trafficked youth to accept support or risk criminal punishment.
In sum, unlike federal law, which recognizes all sexually exploited minors as victims, some state authorities present minors with a choice: comply with law enforcement or prove their innocence[22].
The adultification of child victims
These demands that shift legal burdens to sexually exploited minors signal that law enforcement and legislators expect them to have the capacity to make mature and rational choices. Yet, neuroscience research[23] indicates juveniles don’t have the same decision-making capacity as adults[24] until their early to mid-20s.
Further, sexually exploited minors with trauma may appear as uncooperative[25] in stressful situations. Those include being detained or arrested for prostitution[26].
By blaming sex trafficked minors for “making bad choices,” the criminal legal system treats commercial sexual exploitation victims as complicit. And this may lead to prostitution charges instead of support[27]. Furthermore, focusing on a child’s “choices” does not address the financial, familial and traumatic adversities[28] that make victims vulnerable to sexual violence and exploitation in the first place.
Commercial sexual exploitation risk factors[29] include complex post-traumatic stress disorder, low socioeconomic status, limited educational access and child sexual abuse prior to this exploitation. That includes exploitation from fraught family living situations where a parent, relative or caregiver sexually exploits a child.
Racial inequality in prostitution charges
Similarly, racial bias has deeply influenced trafficking legislation.
In 1910, Congress passed The Mann Act, also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act[30]. This measure framed commercial sexual exploitation as a problem affecting only white women and girls, erasing the exploitation of people of color.
This pattern continues today. Black and brown children in the U.S. are more likely to be arrested and detained for prostitution[31] than all other racial groups. Children who live in states with higher levels of structural economic inequality, which affects children of color at higher rates that white children, are at higher risk of being arrested and prosecuted for prostitution.
My research with Keith Bentele[32] indicates that states with higher levels of structural economic inequality[33] are less likely to adopt legislation protecting children from arrest and prosecution for prostitution.
Increasing compassion for victims
Without addressing these structural inequalities and the lack of a social safety net, sex trafficked children, particularly children of color and LGBTQ+ youth, are at risk of facing further marginalization and criminalization for prostitution.
One state has risen above the rest in recognizing and addressing these systemic barriers. Minnesota’s “No Wrong Door[34]” framework utilizes a public health approach and is regarded as the gold standard of state-level commercial sexual exploitation legislation.
Protecting youth up to age 24 from prostitution charges, Minnesota offers housing and medical services to victims instead of criminal punishment. It also coordinates trauma-informed training for professionals, such as police and social workers.
An evaluation of this model[35] indicates that it has successfully increased compassion for youth victims in the community, particularly among law enforcement.
Mallika Sunder, a student at Wellesley College and intern in its Wellesley Centers for Women, co-authored this article.
References
- ^ convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (www.justice.gov)
- ^ financier’s connections to the world’s rich and powerful (www.bbc.com)
- ^ the failure to redact identifying victim information (www.pbs.org)
- ^ sex trafficking victims’ existing trauma and burden (doi.org)
- ^ children to be arrested or prosecuted for prostitution (love146.org)
- ^ tug of war between advocates, law enforcement and policymakers (scholarship.law.duke.edu)
- ^ identifying them as criminals and not victims (rights4girls.org)
- ^ a sociologist and scholar (www.wcwonline.org)
- ^ Trafficking Victims Protection Act (www.justice.gov)
- ^ as most states allow (scholarworks.umb.edu)
- ^ approach risks retraumatizing victims (genderjusticeandopportunity.georgetown.edu)
- ^ state statutes (www.ncsl.org)
- ^ more likely to interact with local law enforcement (doi.org)
- ^ U.S. federalist system (www.researchwithrutgers.com)
- ^ sexually exploited minors can be criminalized (reportcards.sharedhope.org)
- ^ Safe harbor laws have been adopted by 31 states (sharedhope.org)
- ^ children will be protected (doi.org)
- ^ New York’s 2008 safe harbor law (otda.ny.gov)
- ^ including Rhode Island (law.justia.com)
- ^ Massachusetts’ safe harbor law (malegislature.gov)
- ^ collaborate with child protective services (www.mass.gov)
- ^ comply with law enforcement or prove their innocence (www.degruyterbrill.com)
- ^ neuroscience research (doi.org)
- ^ same decision-making capacity as adults (doi.org)
- ^ with trauma may appear as uncooperative (www.nctsn.org)
- ^ being detained or arrested for prostitution (genderjusticeandopportunity.georgetown.edu)
- ^ may lead to prostitution charges instead of support (doi.org)
- ^ financial, familial and traumatic adversities (www.iicsa.org.uk)
- ^ Commercial sexual exploitation risk factors (www.missingkids.org)
- ^ White-Slave Traffic Act (wearenotforsale.org)
- ^ more likely to be arrested and detained for prostitution (rights4girls.org)
- ^ Keith Bentele (sirow.arizona.edu)
- ^ states with higher levels of structural economic inequality (doi.org)
- ^ No Wrong Door (www.health.state.mn.us)
- ^ evaluation of this model (www.wilder.org)
Authors: Kate Price, Associate Research Scientist at the Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College
