Will a bill intended to protect those who report human trafficking actually do the job?
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday morning to support S.103, which would provide immunity from prosecution to people reporting that they were a victim of or witness to a crime that arose from their own involvement in prostitution or human trafficking.
The bill is similar to a “Good Samaritan” law the Legislature passed in 2013 that protects Vermonters who seek medical assistance for someone experiencing a drug overdose from any drug charges of their own. This legislation, however, aims to help stop human trafficking.
In discussing the bill Wednesday, several lawmakers expressed qualms about its language, worrying it was too narrow in scope.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, argued that the language protects only those who are themselves involved in prostitution or human trafficking — and not necessarily an observer who might be afraid to report the crime because of drug offenses they could face.
Deputy Defender Gen. Marshall Pahl agreed with those complaints, saying the bill is “very narrow,” and his office thinks it could stand to be a lot broader.
“The way that this bill is written, it’s going to have very, very, very limited application, and also offer very, very, very limited protection in the sense that, to begin with, it does not actually provide for immunity from very much,” Pahl said. “What this bill does is, it provides a very, very narrow immunity provision allowing a very narrow class of people.”
In its current form, the bill protects people from charges of prostitution, prohibited conduct and a variety of minor drug possession charges. It applies only to witnesses to a human trafficking crime that they themselves were somehow involved in.
Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, said the bill’s language seems a little “slippery,” and questioned whether lower-level perpetrators of human trafficking could take advantage of the bill to report higher-ups in the operation without facing consequences of their own.
“As a practical matter, I think that that’s extremely unlikely that folks who are involved in this would have that sort of legal sophistication,” said David Sherr, an assistant attorney general. “Even setting the practical reality aside, I do think the language is crafted tightly enough that no one could avail themselves of this when they are, in fact, a perpetrator.”
Ultimately, committee members decided to endorse the bill as is — and fine-tune it next year.
“I think for my purposes, and what I’ve agreed to, broadening it would be something that we could back to next year,” said Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, who chairs the committee. “This is the end of the session, and if we go much further with it, I think we’d have to take a lot more testimony.”
Committee members agreed, saying a small step in the right direction would be better than no step at all and voted out the bill unanimously.
The House approved the same language last year, and legislative counsel Michelle Childs said that, if the full Senate passed the bill, the House Judiciary Committee would likely take it up next week.