American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Prosecuting Sex Traffickers Should Not Come at the Expense of our
The ACLU agrees that actual sex traffickers should be punished, but has concerns that:
- Requiring prosecutorial consent to a preliminary hearing erodes critical procedural safeguards, may raise confrontation clause issues, and likely will clog up our court system. This is like requiring the District Attorney to consent to a defendant’s right to a trial by jury. (Sec. 7, amending NRS 171.196)
- Expanding Nevada’s already overcrowded jail and prison populations by vastly increasing sentences and penalties, including removing the option for probation from existing crimes, costs the State money that would be better spent on survivors’ services. (Sec. 42, amending NRS 203.100)
- Assuming that adults cannot freely choose to engage in sexual activity without governmental interference invades the right to privacy. Consent is a factual determination that should be made on a case-by-case basis. (Sec. 1, amending NRS Chapter 41)
- Broadening the definitions of existing crimes and eliminating the element of coercion deprives women of the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies. Sex trafficking is slavery, and must involve an element of coercion. (Sec. 13, 34, 41)
Under AB 67, prosecution of the following individuals would be possible:
- Children, parents, and significant others supported by a sex worker, for “living off the earnings of a prostitute” (Sec. 13);
- Friend and family members that drive sex workers to their appointments, for “transport[ing]” and/or “harbor[ing]” a sex worker (Sec. 1);
- An immigrant worker who pays someone for a ride from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, for the same reason.
AB 67 has myriad problems and requires extensive revisions.
If you have questions, please contact Vanessa Spinazola, Legislative and Advocacy Director, at firstname.lastname@example.org.