Prop 35: N – No to New Human Trafficking Penalties? Yep.

I recommend a “No” vote on this initiative which will increase penalties for Human Trafficking. Does this mean I am FOR Human Trafficking? A reasonable question since liberals like me are constantly striving to make our streets safer for deranged sociopaths, but, no I actually am AGAINST Human Trafficking (!) but still do not support this Proposition.

This is another brain baby of those Legislature-of-one, rich guys who may actually mean well.  In this case it’s Chris Kelly, Facebook’s Chief Privacy Officer.  (I will pause here to allow you contemplate what Facebook’s CPO may actually be up to).

As I mentioned previously, I generally like to leave legislating in the hands of the legislature unless there is good reason not to. I do not see increasing penalties for human trafficking to be the kind politically unpopular cause that cannot get past of the hurdles of the normal legislative process.  If law enforcement and prosecutors need new laws to better deal with this scourge, I think they could probably get them if they asked. Conversely judges, juries and law enforcement could use the laws already on the books.

In addition to increasing penalties and expanding the definition of human trafficking for labor and sexual exploitation, this initiative expands the scope of the sex-offender registry.  This is problematic for me because I feel like the sex-offender registry already casts a web so wide that it is counter-productive to it’s goal of keeping track of predators.

Unfortunately the only argument against this initiative in the voter guide comes from “The Erotic Service Providers Legal Project,” hardly a group to rally your average voter. However,  Advocacy groups for trafficking victims have expressed opposition to this proposition and many newspapers including the LA Times are urging a “No” vote as well.

I believe this issue us best addressed in the Legislature with time for testimony and discussion to make sure the law will do what it intends.