BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              S
                             2013-2014 Regular Session               B

                                                                     1
                                                                     3
                                                                     8
          SB 1388 (Lieu)                                             8
          As Introduced February 21, 2014 
          Hearing date:  April 22, 2014
          Penal Code
          JM:mc
                                           
                       SOLICITATION OF MINORS FOR PROSTITUTION  

                                       HISTORY

          Source:  Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; California  
          Against Slavery 

          Prior Legislation: AB 90 (Swanson) - Ch. 457, Stats. 2011
                       AB 17 (Swanson) - Ch. 211, Stats. 2010

          Support: Freedom from Exploitation; Soroptomist International of  
                   Vista; Soroptomists Together Against Trafficking;  
                   Laura's House; Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse  
                   (CORA); Journey Community Church; California Narcotic  
                   Officers Association; California Police Chiefs  
                   Association; California Catholic Conference, Inc. 

          Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California  
                   Public Defenders Association (unless amended)


                                      KEY ISSUES
           
          WHERE A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF PROVIDING A CHILD UNDER THE  
          AGE OF 16 TO ANOTHER FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES, OR PLACES A MINOR INTO  
          PROSTITUTION, SHOULD THE COURT HAVE DISCRETION TO IMPOSE A FINE  
          OF BETWEEN $5,000 AND $20,000 FOR PAYMENT INTO THE VICTIM  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageB

          WITNESS FUND FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE COUNSELING AND PREVENTION?

                                                                (CONTINUED)



          SHOULD THE TERM "PROSTITUTION" BE REPLACED IN THE APPLICABLE CODE  
          SECTIONS WITH THE TERM "COMMERCIAL SEX ACT," WITH SEPARATE  
          PROVISIONS FOR PURCHASERS AND PROVIDERS OF COMMERCIAL SEX?

          SHOULD ANY PERSON GRANTED PROBATION FOR PURCHASING OR AGREEING TO  
          PURCHASE A COMMERCIAL SEX ACT BE REQUIRED TO SERVE A JAIL TERM OF AT  
          LEAST 48 HOURS AND PAY A FINE OF BETWEEN $1,000 AND $50,000, AND  
          SHOULD A PERSON NOT GRANTED PROBATION BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE  
          48-HOUR CONTINUOUS JAIL TERM?

          SHOULD FINES COLLECTED IN COMMERCIAL SEX CRIME CASES BE DEPOSITED IN  
          THE VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE FUND AND DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN  
          ENTITIES THAT SERVE SEXUALLY EXPLOITED PERSONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT  
          FOR SEX COMMERCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS?

          SHOULD AN ADULT CONVICTED OF A COMMERCIAL SEX ACT INVOLVING A MINOR  
          BE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL FINE OF BETWEEN $1,000 AND $10,000, TO  
          BE DEPOSITED IN THE COMMERCIAL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN  
          SERVICES FUND, AS CREATED BY THIS BILL?



                                       PURPOSE

          The purposes of this bill are to 1) provide that where a  
          defendant is convicted of furnishing a minor under the age of 16  
          to another person for sexual conduct, or placing a minor into  
          prostitution, the court may impose an additional fine of $5,000  
          and $20,000; 2) replace the term "prostitution" (exchange of  
          anything of value for a lewd act) with the term "commercial sex"  
          and define as separate crimes the (a) purchasing or agreeing to  
          purchase sex; and (b) agreeing to provide or providing sex; 3)  
          require a person granted probation for purchasing or agreeing to  
          purchase a commercial sexual act to serve a continuous jail term  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageC

          of at least 48 hours and pay a mandatory fine of between $1,000  
          and $50,000, the proceeds of which shall be paid into the Victim  
          Witness Assistance Fund, with 50% provided to persons exploited  
          through commercial sex and 50% to law enforcement programs to  
          prevent sex purchasing; and 4) create a Commercial Sexual  
          Exploitation of Children Services Fund (CSECSF) for services to  
          sexually exploited children, to be funded by a fine of between  
          $1,000 and $10,000 imposed on any defendant convicted of the  
          crime of commercial sex with a minor.

          Sex Crimes Against or Involving Minors 
          
           Existing law  defines "unlawful sexual intercourse" as an act of  
          sexual intercourse accomplished with a person under the age of  
          18 years, when no other aggravating elements - such as force or  
          duress - are present.  (Pen. Code § 261.5, subd. (a).) 
            Existing law  provides the following penalties for unlawful  
          sexual intercourse: 

           Where the defendant is not more than three years older or  
            three years younger than the minor, the offense is a  
            misdemeanor. 
           Where the defendant is more than three years older than the  
            minor, the offense is an alternate felony-misdemeanor,  
            punishable by a jail term of up to one year, a fine of up to  
            $1,000, or both, or by a prison term of 16 months, two years  
            or three years and a fine of up $10,000. 
           Where the defendant is at least 21 years of age and the minor  
            is under the age of 16, the offense is an alternate  
            felony-misdemeanor, punishable by a jail term of up to one  
            year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, or by a prison term of  
            16 months, two years or three years and a fine of up $10,000.   
            (Pen. Code § 261.5, subd (b)-(d).) 

           Existing law  provides that in the absence of aggravating  
          elements each crime of sodomy, oral copulation or penetration  
          with a foreign or unknown object with a minor is punishable as  
          follows:

           Where the defendant is over 21 and the minor under 16 years of  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageD

            age, the offense is a felony, with a prison term of 16 months,  
            2 years or 3 years.
           In other cases sodomy with a minor is a wobbler, with a felony  
            prison term of 16 months, 2 years or 3 years.  (Pen. Code §§  
            286, subd. (b), 288a, subd. (b), 289, subd.  (h).)

           Existing law  provides that where each crime of sodomy, oral  
          copulation or penetration with a foreign or unknown object with  
          a minor who is under 14 and the perpetrator is more than 10  
          years older than the minor, the offense is a felony, punishable  
          by a prison term of 3, 6 or 8 years.  (Pen. Code §§ 286, subd.  
          (c)(1), 288a, subd. (c)(1), 289, subd. (j).)

           Existing law  provides that any person who engages in lewd  
          conduct - any sexually motivated touching or a defined sex act -  
          with a child under the age of 14 is guilty of a felony,  
          punishable by a prison term of 3, 6 or 8 years. Where the  
          offense involves force or coercion, the prison term is 5, 8 or  
          10 years.  (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (b).)

           Existing law  provides that where any person who engages in lewd  
          conduct with a child who is 14 or 15 years old, and the person  
          is at least 10 years older than the child, the person is guilty  
          of an alternate felony-misdemeanor, punishable by a jail term of  
          up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, or by a prison  
          term of 16 months, two years or three years and a fine of up  
          $10,000.  (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (c)(1).) 
          
          Commercial Sex Crimes Involving Minors
          
          Existing law  includes numerous crimes concerning sexual  
          exploitation of minors for commercial purposes.  These crimes  
          include:

           Pimping: Deriving income from the earnings of a prostitute,  
            deriving income from a place of prostitution, or receiving  
            compensation for soliciting a prostitute.  Where the victim is  
            a minor under the age of 16, the crime is a punishable by a  
            prison term of three, six or eight years. (Pen. Code § 266h,  
            subds. (a)-(b).)




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageE

           Pandering: Procuring another for prostitution, inducing  
            another to become a prostitute, procuring another person to be  
            placed in a house of prostitution, persuading a person to  
            remain in a house of prostitution, procuring another for  
            prostitution by fraud, duress or abuse of authority, and  
            commercial exchange for procurement.  (Pen. Code § 266i, subd.  
            (a).) 
           Procurement: Transporting or providing a child under 16 to  
            another person for purposes of any lewd or lascivious act.   
            The crime is punishable by a prison term of three, six, or  
            eight years, and by a fine not to exceed $15,000.  (Pen. Code  
            § 266j.)
           Taking a minor from her or his parents or guardian for  
            purposes of prostitution.  This is a felony punishable by a  
            prison term of 16 months, two years, or three years and a fine  
            of up to $2,000. (Pen. Code § 267.) 

           Existing law  provides that where a person is convicted of  
          pimping or pandering involving a minor the court may order the  
          defendant to pay an additional fine of up to $5,000.  In setting  
          the fine, the court shall consider the seriousness and  
          circumstances of the offense, the illicit gain realized by the  
          defendant and the harm suffered by the victim.  The proceeds of  
          this fine shall be deposited in the Victim-Witness Assistance  
          Fund and made available to fund programs for prevention of child  
          sexual abuse and treatment of victims.  (Pen. Code § 266k, subd.  
          (a).)  

           Existing law  provides that where a defendant is convicted of  
          taking a minor under the age 16 from his or her parents to  
          provide to others for prostitution (Pen. Code § 267) or  
          transporting or providing a child under the age of 16 for  
          purposes of any lewd or lascivious act (Pen. Code § 266j), the  
          court may impose an additional fine of up to $20,000.  (Pen.  
          Code § 266k, subd. (b).)

           This bill  provides that where a defendant is convicted under  
          Penal Code of taking a minor (under the age of 18) from his or  
          her parents for purposes of prostitution (Pen. Code § 267), or  
          transporting or providing a child under the age of 16 for  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageF

          purposes of any lewd or lascivious act (266j), the court, if it  
          decides to impose a specified additional fine, the fine must be  
          no less than $5,000, but no more than $20,000.  (Pen. Code §  
          266k, subd. (b).)

          Prostitution Offenses Generally 
          
           Existing law  provides that any person who solicits, agrees to  
          engage in, or engages in an act of prostitution<1> is guilty of  
          misdemeanor.  The crime does not occur unless the person  
          specifically intends to engage in an act of prostitution and  
          some act is done in furtherance of agreed upon act.   
          Prostitution includes any lewd act between persons for money or  
          other consideration.  (Pen. Code § 647, subd. (b).) 

           Existing law  provides that if the defendant agreed to engage in  
          an act of prostitution, the person soliciting the act of  
          prostitution need not specifically intend to engage in an act or  
          prostitution.<2>  (Pen. Code § 647, subd. (b).) 

           Existing law  provides that where any person is convicted of a  
          second prostitution offense, the person shall serve a sentence  
          of at least 45 days, no part of which can be suspended or  
          reduced by the court regardless of whether or not the court  
          grants probation.  (Pen. Code § 647, subd. (k).) 

           Existing law  provides that where any person is convicted for a  
          third prostitution offense, the  person shall serve a sentence  
          of at least 90 days, no part of which can be suspended or  
          reduced  by the court regardless of whether or not the court  
          grants probation.  (Pen. Code § 647, subd. (k).) 

           This bill  substitutes the term "commercial sex act" for "act of  
          prostitution" in the section and subdivision (Pen. Code § 647,  
          subd. (b)) setting out the basic definition of a crime involving  
          an exchange of something of value for sex, or an offer to do so.
          ---------------------------
          <1> Soliciting or engaging in an act of prostitution is a form  
          of disorderly conduct.  (Pen. Code § 647.) 
          <2> This provision concerns the use of police decoys to solicit  
          a defendant for an act of prostitution.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageG


           This bill  separately defines the crimes of purchasing or  
          agreeing to purchase a commercial sex act and performing or  
          agreeing to perform a commercial sex act.

           This bill  provides that a person convicted of purchasing or  
          agreeing to purchase a commercial sex act is guilty of a  
          misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for  
          no less than 48 hours of continuous confinement and no more than  
          six months and a fine of up to $1,000.  Where the court grants  
          the defendant probation, the defendant must serve at least 48  
          hours of continuous confinement and pay a fine of at least  
          $1,000 and up to $50,000.  The court may not waive the  
          requirement that a defendant - whether granted probation or not  
          - serve at least 48 hours of continuous confinement.  

           This bill  provides that fines collected from a person who has  
          been convicted of purchasing or offering to purchase a  
          commercial sex act shall be deposited in the Victim-Witness  
          Assistance Fund to fund grants to "local programs."  Fifty  
          percent of each fine shall be granted to public agencies and  
          nonprofit corporations providing exit or recovery services to  
          persons exploited through commercial sex.  Fifty percent of the  
          fines shall be granted to law enforcement and prosecution  
          agencies in the jurisdiction of the crime "to fund programs to  
          prevent sex purchasing."  

           This bill  provides that where an adult defendant is convicted of  
          purchasing or offering to purchase a commercial sex, or  
          convicted of performing or agreeing to perform a commercial sex  
          act, and the crime involves a minor, the court may order the  
          defendant to pay an additional fine of not less than $1,000 and  
          not more than $10,000.  The proceeds of this fine shall be  
          deposited in the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children  
          Services Fund (CSECSF), which is created in the State Treasury  
          by this bill, with the following features:
            
                 The fund will be administered by an undesignated agency.
                 Money in the fund is available, upon legislative  
               appropriation, for child sexual abuse and exploitation  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageH

               counseling centers, as specified, and programs for child  
               victims of human trafficking, as specified. 
                 Then administrative costs of collecting the fine, not to  
               exceed 2% of the total paid, may be paid into the county  
               treasury.

           This bill  does not designate an agency or entity to house and  
          manage the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Services  
          Fund.


                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's  
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation  
          relating to conditions of confinement.  On May 23, 2011, the  
          United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its  
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two  
          years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the  
          state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.   

          Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to  
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the  
          prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony  
          prosecutions.  Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"  
          (which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis  
          Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new  
          felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or  
          otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner  
          which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis.  Under  
          these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,  
          provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did  
          not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by  
          passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.  
            

          In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the  
          historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of  
          California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the  
          federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageI

          population to 137.5 percent of design capacity.  The State  
          submitted that the, ". . .  population in the State's 33 prisons  
          has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when  
          public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000  
          inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly  
          42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ."  Plaintiffs opposed the  
          state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which  
          currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of  
          capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is  
          constitutionally deficient."  In an order dated January 29,  
          2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension  
          to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,  
          2013.  

          The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state  
          of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply  
          with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to  
          reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by  
          December 31, 2013."  On September 16, 2013, the State asked the  
          Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016.  In  
          response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,  
          2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to  
          enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants  
          can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including  
          means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or  
          accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to  
          the prison crowding problem."

          The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the  
          meet-and-confer process.  As a result, the Court ordered  
          briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,  
          2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the  
          in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity  
          to February 28, 2016.  The order requires the state to meet the  
          following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 





                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageJ

          If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position  
          created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of  
          inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.   


          In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the  
          state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33  
          prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.   
          8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.

          The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison  
          capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement  
          remain unresolved.  While real gains in reducing the prison  
          population have been made, even greater reductions may be  
          required to meet the orders of the federal court.  Therefore,  
          the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may  
          impact the prison population - will be informed by the following  
          questions:

                 Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the  
               prison population;
                 Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
                 Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or  
               legislative drafting error; 
                 Whether a measure proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
                 Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy.



                                      COMMENTS

          1.   Need for This Bill  

          According to the author:




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageK


               Senate Bill 1388 addresses a few oversights in  
               California's sexual exploitation law and ensures that  
               individuals convicted of pimping or soliciting a minor  
               will face significant financial penalties.  This  
               measure further specifies that funds collected as a  
               result of these fines go directly to support services  
               and counseling for child victims of commercial sexual  
               exploitation.  Finally, SB 1388 will require sex  
               buyers convicted of solicitation or engagement in a  
               commercial sex act, regardless of the age of the  
               individual solicited, to face a penalty structure  
               similar to those convicted of a DUI.

               Specifically, SB 1388 sets the minimum fine for  
               conviction of pimping of a minor at $5,000 and  
               maintains the maximum fine of $20,000.  SB 1388 would  
               also establish a fine of not less than $1,000 and not  
               more than $10,000 for any sex buyer convicted of  
               soliciting a minor.  This measure specifies that funds  
               collected from these fines be directed to a county  
               Victim Services Fund to provide support services for  
               child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse  
               victim counseling services and programs for child  
                 victims of human sex trafficking.  SB 1388 will make a  
               person who seeks to purchase or who purchases a  
               commercial sex act guilty of a misdemeanor punishable  
               in a county jail for at least 48 hours, but not more  
               than six months and by a fine of at least $1,000 and  
               not more than $50,000.

          2. Non-Prostitution Related Sex Crimes Against Minors  

          This bill concerns sexual commerce, with particular emphasis on  
          crimes in which adults purchase or agree to purchase sexual acts  
          with a minor.  Sexual conduct with a minor constitutes a felony  
          in most instances, regardless of whether anything of value was  
          offered or exchanged for the sexual acts.  Arguably, the  
          exchange of money could be an aggravating factor in the  
          underlying sex crime, as it could be seen as an improper attempt  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageL

          to normalize the behavior or coerce the victim.  If the minor  
          involved in commercial sex of was under the age of 14, the  
          defendant has committed the felony of lewd conduct, with a  
          prison term of three, six or eight years.  (Pen. Code § 288,  
          subd. (a).)  The crime is punishable by a term of 5, 8 or 10  
          years if the defendant used force, threats, duress or coercion.   
          Solicitation of an act of prostitution from a minor under the  
          age of 14 could likely be prosecuted as attempted lewd conduct -  
          the intention to commit the crime and a direct step towards it  
          commission.  The prison or jail term of an attempt is generally  
          one-half the punishment for the completed crime.  Where the  
          defendant solicited or employed a minor who was14 or 15 years  
          old, and the defendant was at least 10 years older than the  
          minor, the defendant has committed an alternate  
          felony-misdemeanor.

          Any defined sex act - sodomy, sexual penetration, oral  
          copulation or sexual intercourse - with a minor is a crime.  The  
          penalties depend on the relative ages of the defendant and the  
          minor and whether the crime involved some form of force,  
          coercion or improper advantage.  

          A defendant charged with a prostitution-related offense  
          involving a minor could also be charged and convicted of a sex  
          crime in the same case.  Generally, because the defined sex  
          crime and the sexual commerce offense would involve a single  
          transaction or act, the defendant could only be punished for one  
          offense - the offense carrying the greatest penalty.  (Pen. Code  
          § 654.)  

          DO MOST PROSTITUTION INCIDENTS IN WHICH AN ADULT SOUGHT TO  
          PURCHASE SEX FROM A MINOR CONSTITUTE ATTEMPTED OR COMPLETED SEX  
          CRIMES?

          3.  Fine for Sexual Commerce with a Minor Does not Include an  
            Element that the Defendant Knew Or Should Have Known that the  
            Incident Involved a Minor  

          This bill provides that in a prostitution-commercial sex offense  
          in which the defendant purchased or offered to purchase sex from  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageM

          a minor, the court has discretion to impose a fine of between  
          $1,000 and $10,000.  A 16 or 17-year-old minor acting as a  
          prostitute could appear to be an adult.  In such circumstances,  
          it cannot be said that the defendant intended to exploit minors  
          or knew that he was exploiting a minor for sexual services.   
          Further, advocates have noted that a substantial proportion of  
          juveniles placed into prostitution are around 12 or 13 years  
          old.  An adult would clearly know that a 12-year prostitute was  
          not an adult. 

          SHOULD A LAW AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL FINE IN CASES WHERE AN ADULT  
          COMMITTED A SEXUAL COMMERCE CRIME INVOLVING A MINOR INCLUDE AN  
          ELEMENT THAT THE ADULT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE OTHER  
          PERSON WAS A MINOR?

          4.  Incentive to Refuse Probation for Defendants Convicted of  
          Offering to Purchase or                                      
           Purchasing Commercial Sex  

          This bill provides that where a person convicted of agreeing to  
          purchase or purchasing a commercial sex act is granted  
          probation, the defendant must serve a continuous jail term of at  
          least 48 hours and pay a fine of between $1,000 and $50,000.   
          The sentencing court cannot decline to impose the jail term.  A  
          person convicted of such a crime who is not granted probation  
          must serve a continuous jail term of at least 48 hours, but  
          there is no requirement that the defendant pay a fine.  If the  
          court imposes a fine, the maximum fine is $1,000, the default  
          maximum misdemeanor fine.

          Arguably, subjecting only persons granted probation for  
          purchasing or agreeing to purchase a commercial sex act to a  
          mandatory fine of between $1,000 and $50,000 creates a very  
          strong incentive for defendants to refuse probation.  A  
          defendant who refused probation would serve his jail term and  
          face no more than a $1,000 fine.  A defendant who refuses  
          probation would not receive supervision after serving his jail  
          term and could not have his punishment modified, unlike a  
          probationer.  The court has essentially no authority over a  
          person who refuses probation and has suffered whatever  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageN

          punishment the court imposes.  

          BECAUSE THE BILL INCLUDES A MANDATORY FINE OF BETWEEN $1,000 AND  
          $50,000 ONLY FOR A DEFENDANT GRANTED PROBATION FOR A COMMERCIAL  
          SEX ACT CRIME, DOES THIS CREATE AN INCENTIVE FOR DEFENDANTS TO  
          REFUSE PROBATION?

          5.  Penalty Structure in this Bill for Purchasing or Agreeing to  
            Purchase Commercial Sex Act is Modeled on Driving Under the  
            Influence Penalties  

          The bill sponsor - California Against Slavery - has noted that  
          the penalties in the bill for those who purchase or offer to  
          purchase commercial sex are modeled on the penalty structure for  
          driving under the influence (DUI) offenses.  For example,  
          similar to DUI penalties, the bill would require 48 hours of  
          continuous custody and mandatory payment of a fine between  
          $1,000 and $50,000.  However, the fines in this bill for  
          commercial sex customers are much higher than DUI fines.

          California DUI laws have been found<3> to be relatively  
          effective in reducing the incidence and harms of that offense.   
          It should be noted that the applicable DUI fines of from $390 to  
          $1,000 - while significant - appear to be relatively  
          collectible.  Further, a defendant would be motivated to accept  
          probation and pay fines and comply with other conditions so as  
          to maintain a restricted driver's license.  That is not likely  
          true as to the fine in this bill of up to $50,000, which is  
          actually a fine of over $200,000 with penalty assessments.  (See  
          Comment #5.)  It is also unclear what would motivate  
          prostitution probationers to fully comply with special  
          conditions, such as a sex buyers' program modeled on the  
          drinking driver programs.  

          6.  Penalty Assessments Effectively Quadruple a Criminal Fine -  
          Difficulty Collecting Fines  

          ---------------------------
          <3>  
          http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-2 
          36.pdf.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageO

          Concerns about Collecting High Fines from Criminal Convictions

          It has been often noted that California criminal fines -  
          especially penalty assessments added to each fine - can be very  
          difficult and expensive to collect eliminating the value of the  
          fine.<4>  A special fine imposed on commercial sex buyers that  
          would fund effective programs for persons sexually persons could  
          be valuable in reducing sex trafficking and the harms it creates  
          or exacerbates.  These harms include poverty, homelessness, drug  
          dependence and other conditions that are associated with entry  
          into commercial sex. 




          Penalty Assessments
          
          Mandatory penalty assessments and fees - 310% as of April, 2013  
          - are assessed on the base fine for a crime.  The penalty  
          assessment structure is extremely complex.  As the balance of  
          this comment demonstrates, the penalty assessments generally  
          have little or nothing to do with the crime for which the  
          fine-paying defendant was convicted.  Assuming a defendant was  
          fined $10,000 as the maximum fine, the following penalty  
          assessments would be imposed pursuant to the Penal Code and the  
          California Government Code:

          Base Fine:                                                        
                                                                 $ 10,000

          Penal Code 1464 assessment:                                       
                    $10,000 ($10 for every $10)
          Penal Code 1465.7 surcharge:                                      
                         2,000 (20% surcharge)
          Penal Code 1465.8 assessment:                                     
                             40 ($40 fee per offense)
          Government Code 70372 assessment:                                 
                  5,000 ($5 for every $10)
          Government Code 70373 assessment:                                 


          ---------------------------
          <4> https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/06/03/06-003.pdf.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageP

                       30 ($30 for felony or misd.)
          Government Code 76000 assessment:                                 
                  7,000 ($7 for every $10)
          Government Code 76000.5 assessment:                               
                 2,000 ($2 for every $10) 
          Government Code 76104.6 assessment:                               
                 1,000 ($1 for every $10)
          Government Code 76104.7 assessment                                
                 4,000 ($4 for every $10)

          Total Fine with Assessments:                                  
          $41,070

          Distribution of Penalty Assessments:

                 State penalty of $10 for every $10.  70 % is transmitted  
               to the state and 30 percent remains with the county.  The  
               state portion of penalty is distributed in specified  
               percentages among: the Fish and Game Preservation Fund  
               (0.33 percent); the Restitution Fund (32.02 percent); the  
               Peace Officers Training Fund (23.99 percent); the Driver  
               Training Penalty Assessment Fund (25.70 percent); the  
               Corrections Training Fund (7.88 percent); the Local Public  
               Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund (0.78 percent, not to  
               exceed $850,000 per year); the Victim-Witness Assistance  
               Fund (8.64 percent); and the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund  
               (0.66 percent).  (Penal Code § 1464.)
                 County penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 upon every  
               fine or penalty including all Vehicle Code offense and any  
               local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code except  
               parking offenses.  The money collected shall be placed in  
               any of the following funds if established by a County Board  
               of Supervisors:  Courthouse Construction Fund; a Criminal  
               Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated Fingerprint  
               Identification Fund; Emergency Medical Services Fund; DNA  
               Identification Fund.  (Gov. Code § 76000 et seq.)
                 State surcharge of 20 % for deposit in the General Fund.  
                (Pen. Code § 1465.7.)
                 "State Court Facilities Construction Fund" - up to $5  
               for every $10.  Each county determines the amount - for  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageQ

               local courthouse construction.  (Gov. Code §§ 70372,  
               76100.)  
                 $1 on every $10 for DNA databank implementation.  (Gov.  
               Code § 76104.6)
                 State-only penalty of $4 for every $10.  (Gov. Code §  
               76104.7.)
                 $2 on every $10 to support emergency medical services.   
               (Gov. Code § 76000.5.)
                 $4 on every Vehicle Code violation or local ordinance  
               for the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act Fund.   
               (Government Code § 76000.10.)
                 Flat fee of $40 to ensure adequate funding for court  
               security.  (Penal Code § 1465.8.)

          7.  Payment of Criminal Fines to a Law Enforcement Entity - Bounty  
            Issues and Precedent for Funding Law Enforcement Activities  
            through Fines  

          The payment of criminal fines or fees to a law enforcement  
          entity or for direct law enforcement purposes raises issues of  
          an improper bounty - an incentive for law enforcement agencies  
          to pursue investigations based on financial interest, rather  
          than public safety.  These concerns may be heightened when  
          government budgets are strained.

          Further, designating that criminal fines be paid to a particular  
          kind of law enforcement program could set a precedent under  
          which other law enforcement entities could press to receive the  
          proceeds of criminal fines.  Investigations of many crimes -  
          murders, sexual assaults, financial crimes, construction fraud  
          and worker's compensation fraud - may be as costly and  
          complicated as commercial sex crimes.  For example, the  
          Contractors' State License Board uses stings to catch unlicensed  
          contractors.  If criminal fines are used to fund decoy programs  
          in which law enforcement personnel pretend to be commercial sex  
          workers, law enforcement officers and prosecutors who handle  
          other complex cases could well demand that fines be used to  
          support their operations.  

          To avoid creation of an incentive for law enforcement to pursue  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageR

          certain crimes for financial purposes, not solely law  
          enforcement purposes, and to avoid a precedent for funding law  
          enforcement through criminal fines, it is suggested that the  
          bill could be amended to deposit special fines in commercial sex  
          cases into victim services.

          In this bill, another concern is that the law enforcement  
          funding is designated for prevention programs. As the name  
          states, law enforcement entities enforce the criminal law by  
          arresting subjects and collecting evidence for the prosecutor.   
          Law enforcement agencies conduct prostitution "stings" in which  
          a law enforcement decoy pretends to be a prostitute in order to  
          arrest a person for solicitation of prostitution.  While this  
          can be said to prevent a prostitution offense on the night of  
          arrest, it cannot be determined if the arrested person would  
          seek out prostitutes at a later time.  Further, the person might  
          learn from the arrest how to avoid decoys and arrests on other  
          occasions.  Further, law enforcement entities generally do not  
          have programs to turn prostitutes away from sexual commerce and  
          toward different employment and social contacts and conducting  
          stings to arrest sex purchasers would not directly affect sex  
          workers. 



          WOULD DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIAL FINES FROM COMMERCIAL SEX  
          CRIME CONVICTIONS RAISE CONCERNS THAT INVESTIGATION AND  
          PROSECUTION OF SUCH CRIMES COULD BE BASED ON FINANCIAL  
          INCENTIVES, RATHER THAN SOLELY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES?

          8.  Limited Distribution of Fines into the Victim Witness Fund for  
            Sex Trafficking Victims  

          The Victim Witness Assistance Fund is largely funded by a small  
          portion of the penalty assessments imposed on each criminal  
          fine, except parking offenses and specifically exempt fines.   
          Local victim-witness assistance programs also receive federal  
          Victims of Crime Act and Violence Against Women Act funding.  A  
          negligible amount of income - $20,000 in 2013-14 is generated  
          from surplus money investments and penalties on specific felony  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageS

          convictions<5>.  In 2013-14, the fund is projected to have a  
          negative balance of $83,000.  In 2014-15, the fund is projected  
          to have a balance of $5.8 million due to a $10.1 million General  
          Fund loan repayment from 2011.  Each county designates an agency  
          to operate a victim witness assistance program.  The district  
          attorney is the designated agency in all but seven counties  
          (three in probation departments and one in a county sheriff's  
          office).

          Only eight community-based agencies received money from the fund  
          in fiscal year 2012-2013 for child sexual abuse and exploited  
          homeless youth.  These agencies received $978,000 from the fund,  
          with $256,500 going to the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program  
          and $721,500 to the Homeless Youth and Exploitation Program.   
          The Homeless Youth program also received $356,000 General Fund  
          money in fiscal year 2012.  

          There appear to be a great unmet need for funding of  
          community-based agencies that provide services to sex  
          trafficking victims and homeless minors who could become  
          involved in commercial sex.  Only eight community-based agencies  
          received money from the fund in fiscal year 2012-2013 for  
          services to child sexual abuse victims and exploited homeless  
          youth.  These agencies received $978,000 from the fund, with  
          $256,500 going to the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program and  
          $721,500 to the Homeless Youth and Exploitation Program.  The  
          Homeless Youth program also received $356,000 General Fund money  
          in fiscal year 2012.  

          COULD FINES IN ADULT PROSTITUTION CASES BE USED TO FUND  
          COLLABORATIVE COURTS FOR MINORS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL COMMERCE?

          WOULD DISTRIBUTION OF FINE PROCEEDS TO COLLABORATIVE COURTS BY  
          THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL REDUCE CONCERNS ABOUT SELF-DEALING BY A  
          PARTICULAR COUNTY'S COURT SYSTEM?


          ---------------------------
          <5> This entire amount is $5,000 less than the maximum amount of  
          a single special fine authorized by Penal Code § 261.9 to be  
          imposed on purchasers of sex from a minor.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageT


          9.  Recidivism Studies on Persons Convicted of Purchasing Sex -  
            Effects of Special Programs
           
          A study<6> in 2002 in the Western Criminology Review of a now  
          defunct first-offender program in Portland (SEEP) found very low  
          recidivism rates for all prostitution arrestees regardless of  
          whether they were referred to SEEP and participated, were  
          referred to SEEP but did not attend, or were not referred to the  
          program.  The study considered only a two-year period and a  
          relatively small number of offenders.  The researchers inferred  
          from the data that an arrest,
          per se, could have deterred offenders, as prostitution offenses  
          involve significant shame.  The authors, however, also  
          questioned if the offenders continued to solicit prostitutes but  
          simply learned how to avoid arrest.  They could not say whether  
          the education from the SEEP program would have led the  
          participants to a avoid prostitution for a substantial time in  
          the future.

          A number of cities around the country have adopted special  
          first-offender prostitution diversion programs that educate men  
          arrested for soliciting an act of prostitution about the harms  
          caused by or attendant to the commercial sex trade.  The San  
          Francisco program - First Offender Prostitution Program (FOPP) -  
          was one of the first of these programs.  The program requires  
          men arrested for the first time for a prostitution offense to  
          attend a one-day course of the harms caused or exacerbated by  
          the demand for prostitution.  Men who complete the course are  
          diverted out of the criminal justice system.<7> 

          A report on the San Francisco FOPP conducted by Abt Associates  
          concluded that program was well run and effective. The program  
          educated participants about the risk of harm to prostitution  
          customers, such as robbery, reinforcement of sexually compulsive  
          behaviors and sexually transmitted diseases (STD).  The course  
          also examined the negative consequences for prostitutes, such as  
          drug abuse, STDs and other health problems, criminal  

          ---------------------------
          <6> http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v3n2/monto.html.
          <7> http://sagesf.org/first-offender-prostitution-program-fopp.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageU

          convictions, exploitation by pimps, rape and other violence and  
          harm to the community.  The Abt report found a sharp drop in  
          recidivism attributable to the program.<8> 

          The claims of a sharp drop in recidivism in the Abt report have  
          been criticized and questioned.  One study by researchers from  
          DePaul University and American University found methodological  
          flaws in the Abt report.<9>  The study from the Western  
          Criminology Review (noted above) found that recidivism rates  
          attributable to FOPP programs are difficult to measure, as johns  
          arrested for prostitution offenses can easily learn how to avoid  
          arrest.  Further, the increasing shift of prostitution to the  
          Internet makes it difficult to measure recidivism.10

          DOES RESEARCH INDICATE THAT AN ARREST, PER SE, MAY BE A  
          SUBSTANTIAL DETERRENT FOR MEN WHO SOLICIT PROSTITUTES?



          10.   Limited Studies of the Demographics of Prostitution  
          Customers
           
          According to a John Jay College study of commercially, sexually  
          exploited homeless youth in New York often sought out customers.  
           (See Comment #12.)  Particularly in Manhattan, or through the  
          Internet, CSEC sought older white customers who were perceived  
          to have more money.  However, the range of customers was  
          relatively wide.  

          A draft University of Chicago study by Steven Levitt and Sudhir  
          Alladi Venkatesh (Freakonomics) conducted a detailed study of  
          street-level prostitution in certain Chicago neighborhoods known  
          for prostitution, including a neighborhood where prostitution  
          was controlled by pimps and a neighborhood where prostitutes  

          ---------------------------
          <8> https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222451.pdf.
          <9>  
          http://rightswork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/John-Schools.Lov 
          ell.Jordan.7.12.pdf.





                                                                     (More)
                       






                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageV

          were independent.<10>  Levitt estimated that there were 1,200  
          acts of prostitution per arrest, indicating that even  
          street-level prostitution customers generally need not fear  
          arrest.  The Chicago study noted that more upscale prostitution  
          occurred over the Internet and through escort services, where  
          the likelihood of arrest was low.  Freakonomics publications  
          later noted that the cost of prostitution had declined in recent  
          decades, likely indicating that customers were spread across  
          economic classes.<11>

          Levitt found "many men making a few visits and a small number of  
          men making very frequent visits."  He found 25 johns arrested  
          twice and 2,969 johns who were arrested once.  As in the Western  
          Criminology Review study, Leavitt speculated that some men may  
          have learned from one arrest how to avoid another.  However,  
          some johns may have been arrested multiple times because they  
          were not good at distinguishing between an actual prostitute and  
          a police decoy.

          A 2008 review in the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality<12>  
          of studies from cities across the country found wide variance in  
          education, income and ethnicity among prostitution customers.   
          There were some regional differences, such as lower levels of  
          education in Indianapolis, likely marginally higher income in  
          Portland, Oregon and similar street level and off-street  
          (massage parlors, escort service, bars) customers in Colorado  
          Springs.  However, the Colorado Springs study was conducted  
          between 1988 and 1992, largely before sex commerce became widely  
          available on the Internet.

          11.        Sex Trafficking of Minors - Estimated Prevalence and  
          Available Data  

          General Trafficking Prevalence Estimates and Data; 2007  
          California Data
          ---------------------------
          <10>  
           http://economics.uchicago.edu/pdf/Prostitution%205.pdf?q=venkates 
          h  .  Levitt noted that the data was preliminary and cautioned  
          those who would cite the report, the study has been widely read  
          and cited.
          <11>  
          http://freakonomics.com/books/superfreakonomics/chapter-excerpts/ 
          chapter-1/.
          <12> http://www.ejhs.org/volume11/brewer.htm.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageW

          
          There appears to be general agreement that sex trafficking of  
          children is increasing and profitable.  However, the 2007 Final  
          Report of the California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and  
          Slavery Task Force<13> noted that California lacked  
          comprehensive statistics on human trafficking.  Thus, many  
          statistics on human trafficking in general, and sex trafficking  
          of children in particular, are estimates.  The 2007 report did  
          cite statistics from various sources, including a study finding  
          that 80% of documented cases in California occurred in urban  
          areas and the majority of victims were non-citizens.  A U.S.  
          State Department report of global trafficking estimated that  
          minors constituted 50% of trafficking victims.  (2007 Alliance  
          to Combat Trafficking.  Final Report, pp. 33-39.<14>)  The State  
          Department also noted that 14,500 to 17,500 persons are  
          trafficked into the United States from other countries.<15>

          The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducts 24 Innocence  
          Lost child sexual exploitation task forces and working groups  
          across the country.  Through 2007, 365 cases were opened and 281  
          child victims were located.  The Shared Hope International  
          non-profit organization has reported that approximately 100,000  
          domestic minors are sexually trafficked each year.<16>  Numerous  
          examples of trafficking cases were summarized in the California  
          Alliance Report.  In 2001, a Berkeley man was prosecuted for  
          smuggling 15 girls from India for labor and sexual exploitation.  
           In 2000, a man was prosecuted for bringing women and girls from  
          Mexico and forcing them to work as prostitutes in Long Beach.   
          (2007 Alliance to Combat Trafficking, Final Report, p. 18.)

          ---------------------------
          <13> The task force was administered by the California Attorney  
          General's Office.
          <14>  
           http://ag.ca.gov/publications/Human_Trafficking_Final_Report.pdf  . 
            The report includes citations to the each of the studies  
          quoted in the report.
          <15>  http://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012  , Ch. 3 p. 48.
          <16>  
          http://www.sharedhope.org/Portals/0/Documents/SHI_National_Report 
          _on_DMST_2009.pdf.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageX

          2012 Report of the California Attorney General on Human  
          Trafficking
          
          The California Attorney General's Human Trafficking in  
          California 2012<17> report stated that human trafficking  
          investigations and prosecutions have become more comprehensive  
          and organized.  There are nine human trafficking task forces in  
          California, composed of local, state and federal law enforcement  
          and prosecutors.

          Data on human trafficking has improved, although the data still  
          does not reflect the actual extent and range of human  
          trafficking.  <18>Data from 2010 through 2012 collected by the  
          California task forces are set out in the following chart:

          California Human Trafficking Task Forces Data 2010-2012

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Investigations                  |2,552                           |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Victims Identified              |1,277                           |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Arrests Made                    |1,798                           |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 





          Trafficking by Category

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Sex Trafficking                 |56%                             |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Labor Trafficking               |23%                             |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Unclassified or Insufficient    |21%                             |
          |Information                     |                                |

          ---------------------------
          <17> http://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012.
          <18>  http://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012  , Ch. 3, pp. 47-53.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageY

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          Insufficient Reporting of Labor Trafficking
          
          As labor trafficking is greatly under-identified and  
          under-reported, the task force data does not reflect the true  
          extent of labor trafficking.  The report noted:  "The Work  
          Group's concerns [about under-reporting of labor trafficking]  
          are further supported by ILO (International Labor Organization),  
          which indicate that the majority of global trafficking is labor,  
          rather than sex, trafficking."<19>  

          12.                                                          
           Detailed John Jay College of Criminal Justice Study on  
          Commercially Exploited                                          
           Children (CSEC) found that most CSEC were introduced to  
          Commercial Sex By Peers  

          Recent years have seen a great increase in awareness of and  
          concerns about minors - most often girls - engaged in commercial  
          sex activities.  Organized, coerced trafficking has received the  
          most attention.  Sex trafficking of has been described as sexual  
          slavery.  Trafficked minors are isolated, controlled by and made  
          dependent on their exploiters, and can even be perversely loyal  
          because of the manufactured dependency.<20>

          However, a detailed 2008 study by the Center for Court  
          Innovation and John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that  
          most of the minors engaging in commercial sex in New York City  
          are homeless or runaway minors who engage in "survival sex" to  
          obtain small amounts of money for food and other necessities.  A  
          significant number of these CSEC - commercially sexually  
          exploited children - are gay, lesbian and transgender youth who  
          left unsupportive families and communities.  The study authors  
          were surprised to find that most CSEC were recruited or  
          initiated into survival sex by their peers, with no involvement  
          by adult pimps.  The John Jay study also reported that many CSEC  
          ---------------------------
          <19> http://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012, Ch. 3, pp. 52-53.
          <20> Rachel Lloyd, Girls Like Us, pp.153-159  Harper Collins,  
          2011.



                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageZ

          were simply approached on the street by would-be customers,  
          without any solicitation by the CSEC. <21> Also surprising,  
          there were as many male CSEC as female in New York City. 

          Rachel Aviv's December 2012<22> profile of homeless young people  
          in the New Yorker magazine noted the results of the John Jay  
          study and then carefully documented the daily lives of a number  
          of homeless young people on the New York City streets.  They  
          often formed informal communities or street families for support.  
           They sometimes shared repeat customers and money earned from





























                                                                     (More)
























          ---------------------------
          <21>  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225083.pdf  ,  pp  
          48-49,. 32-102.
          <22>  
          http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/10/121210fa_fact_aviv? 
          currentPage=all&pink=HhM7xT.








          commercial sex, technically acting as pimps for each other.   
          Adults who purchase sex from CSEC are certainly aware that they  
          are taking advantage of these children.  Some men use violence  
          against the homeless young people. 

          Aviv's profile documented that living on the streets and  
          engaging in survival sex is perilous.  The rate of HIV among  
          homeless youth is triple that of the general population.  Hunger  
          and illness are common and many show symptoms of psychiatric  
          disorders. Many face the frightening prospect of becoming  
          chronically or permanently homeless.  Aviv wrote:  "Samantha and  
          Ryan were both terrified of becoming 'lifers.'  They saw the  
          signs in their friends, who stopped trying to get job  
          interviews, missed appointments with caseworkers, and cycled in  
          and out of psychiatric hospitals or rehab centers, becoming  
          accustomed to people telling them what to do and when."

          13.   Girls Collaborative Court Programs for Minors Engaged in  
          Prostitution  

          Special Court Process
          
          The New Yorker profile noted above described a patchwork of  
          services that are not coordinated or comprehensive.  As the CSEC  
          understood, they are constantly in danger of becoming lifers on  
          the street, with the attendant harms of that life.  The John Jay  
          study may not reflect the populations of CSEC in cities and  
          areas other than New York.  However, the study does indicate  
          that approaches that rely mostly on enforcement of criminal laws  
          against human trafficking and pimping will not likely solve many  
          of the problems of young people who are exploited for commercial  
          sex.  

          There has been a growing awareness of the value of special  
          juvenile courts for the girls found to be involved in commercial  
          sex.  It has been argued that treating juvenile prostitution as  
          a crime problem does little or nothing to address the underlying  
          circumstances that bring minors to engage in commercial sex.   
          Special collaborative courts can organize and monitor  
          supervision and treatment of CSEC girls.  Special STAR  




                                                                     (More)







                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageB

          (Succeeding through Achievement and Resilience) courts have been  
          implemented in Los Angeles as a pilot project that is reportedly  
          being expanded.<23>  Alameda County has an established an  
          extensive Girls Court.  New York has created a network of 11  
          Human Trafficking Intervention Courts for juveniles who are at  
          least 16 years old.<24>  

          It appears that collaborative courts for minors caught up in  
          sexual commerce have focused almost exclusively on girls.   
          However, the John Jay study and the New Yorker investigative  
          article indicate that there are a substantial number of boys and  
          transgender youth who are CSEC.  In New York, the John Jay study  
          found that as many boys as girls were involved in sexual  
          commerce.  Arguably, collaborative courts should be organized or  
          designed to handle whatever populations of CSEC are present in  
          the community of the court or courts.  

          Possible Funding of Girls Courts by Prostitution Fines

          Collaborative girls courts have only been implemented on a  
          limited basis, likely because the court system and probation  
          departments have limited funds.  A successful girls' court or  
          other collaborative court for minors involved in prostitution  
          could move a minor out of the world of sexual exploitation,  
          limiting the extent of juvenile prostitution and the need for  
          arresting offenders.

          Perhaps the author would consider using some of the fines  
          collected from defendants who purchase or offer to purchase  
          sexual services.  The concerns of creating a court bounty would  
          be limited by the fact that adult criminal courts would impose  
          fines on prostitution defendants.  The proceeds of the fines  
          would be disbursed to the juvenile court - a separate branch of  
          a county superior court system.  However, to limit concerns  
          about self-dealing by the superior court in any particular  
          county, perhaps the Judicial Council could distribute the money  
          ---------------------------
          <23> http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/70403.pdf.
          <24>  
          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/us/a-courts-all-hands-approach- 
          aids-girls-most-at-risk.html?_r=0.











                                                             SB 1388 (Lieu)
                                                                      PageC

          to collaborative courts that apply for funding through grants or  
          another funding method.


                                   ***************