Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Minors: Challenges, Gaps, and Policy Recommendations
Keywords:
child trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation of children, sex trafficking, criminal justice, prosecution, safe harbor, victim-centred justice, child witnesses, policy reformAbstract
Background: Human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of minors are simultaneously child-protection violations and serious crimes, yet criminal justice systems often struggle to identify affected children, preserve usable evidence, avoid victim criminalization, and prosecute exploiters without imposing repeated testimonial burdens on traumatized young people.
Objective: This review compares international and selected national legal frameworks and synthesizes empirical evidence on the operational barriers that shape investigation, prosecution, courtroom participation, and post-identification protection of trafficked and sexually exploited minors.
Methods: A structured comparative legal/policy review and evidence synthesis was conducted for material published or in force from 2000 through 2022. Authoritative instruments and statutes were examined alongside 15 empirical studies directly relevant to criminal justice responses to trafficking or commercial sexual exploitation of minors. Sources were coded across legal classification, non-criminalization, identification, interviewing and testimony, corroborative evidence, interagency coordination, specialized adjudication, services, and accountability.
Results: Formal legal protection has expanded substantially, but implementation remains fragmented. Recurrent gaps included inconsistent identification and screening, uneven diversion from delinquency-oriented responses, limited specialized training, weak police–prosecutor–child welfare coordination, service scarcity, and overreliance on victim cooperation. Safe-harbor reforms improved orientation toward youth as victims but did not reliably create the service infrastructure needed to operationalize diversion. Comparative analysis also showed that child-sensitive procedural safeguards are strongest where law explicitly limits interviews, provides representation, and treats child status as reducing or eliminating proof of coercive “means.”
Conclusion: The principal challenge is no longer simply absence of criminalization; it is misalignment between protection duties, evidentiary practice, and prosecution strategy. This review introduces the Child-Centred Criminal Justice Alignment Framework (CCJAF), a six-stage model linking recognition, protection, evidence preservation, coordination, specialized prosecution, and sustained aftercare. The framework offers a novel implementation architecture for improving both child welfare and case viability while reducing avoidable retraumatization.
References
1. United Nations. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. United Nations Treaty Series, 2237, 319; 2000.
2. United Nations. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. General Assembly Resolution 54/263. 2000.
3. United Nations Economic and Social Council. Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Resolution 2005/20. 2005.
4. International Labour Organization & Walk Free Foundation. Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage. ILO. 2017.
5. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Global report on trafficking in persons 2020. United Nations; 2020.
6. UNICEF. Action to end child sexual abuse and exploitation: A review of the evidence. UNICEF; 2020.
7. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Evidential issues in trafficking in persons cases: Case digest. United Nations; 2017.
8. Barnert ES, Abrams S, Azzi VF, Ryan G, Brook R, Chung PJ. Identifying best practices for “Safe Harbor” legislation to protect child sex trafficking victims: Decriminalization alone is not sufficient. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2016;51:249-262. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.002
9. Farrell A, McDevitt J, Fahy S. Where are all the victims? Understanding the determinants of official identification of human trafficking incidents. Criminology & Public Policy. 2010;9(2):201-233. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00621.x
10. Farrell A, DeLateur MJ, Owens C, Fahy S. The prosecution of state-level human trafficking cases in the United States. Anti-Trafficking Review. 2016;6:48-70. doi:10.14197/atr.20121664
11. Sprang G, Cole J, Leistner C, Ascienzo S. The impact of Safe Harbor legislation on court proceedings involving sex trafficked youth: A qualitative investigation of judicial perspectives. Family Court Review. 2020;58(3):816-831. doi:10.1111/fcre.12415
12. Nichols AJ, Gerassi LB, Gilbert K, Taylor E. Provider challenges in responding to retrafficking of juvenile justice-involved domestic minor sex trafficking survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2022;126:105521. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105521
13. Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Wolak J. Conceptualizing juvenile prostitution as child maltreatment: Findings from the National Juvenile Prostitution Study. Child Maltreatment. 2010;15(1):18-36. doi:10.1177/1077559509349443
14. Cole J, Sprang G. Post-implementation of a Safe Harbor law in the U.S.: Review of state administrative data. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2020;101:104320. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104320
15. O’Brien JE, Li W, Givens A, Leibowitz GS. Domestic minor sex trafficking among adjudicated male youth: Prevalence and links to treatment. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;82:392-399. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.026
16. Gies SV, Healy E, Green B, Bobnis A. From villain to victim: The impact of safe harbor laws on minors involved in commercial sexual exploitation. Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19(2):389-408. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12497
17. Ramachandran V. “These girls never give statements”: Anti-trafficking interventions and “victim-witness testimony” in India. Social Sciences. 2022;11(9):405. doi:10.3390/socsci11090405
18. Bath EP, Godoy SM, Morris TC, Hammond I, Mondal S, Goitom S et al. A specialty court for U.S. youth impacted by commercial sexual exploitation. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2020;100:104041. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104041
19. Cole J, Sprang G, Leistner C. Juvenile and family court judges' knowledge and attitudes about sex trafficking of minors: Associations with gender, race, and U.S. region. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 2020;71(3):29-41. doi:10.1111/jfcj.12174
20. Council of Europe. Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, CETS No. 197. 2005.
21. Council of Europe. Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (Lanzarote Convention), CETS No. 201. 2007.
22. O’Brien JE, White K, Fraga Rizo C. Domestic minor sex trafficking among child welfare-involved youth: An exploratory study of correlates. Child Maltreatment. 2017;22(3):265-274. doi:10.1177/1077559517709995
23. Allert JL. Justice professionals' lens on familial trafficking cases. Criminal Justice Review. 2022;47(2):208-224. doi:10.1177/07340168211024719
24. Australia. Criminal Code Act 1995, Division 271 (Trafficking in persons), as in force before 31 December 2022. 1995.
25. Canada. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 279.011 (trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen years), enacted by S.C. 2010, c. 3. 1985.
26. Cole J, Sprang G. Safe harbor law: Pre- to post-implementation change in service providers' knowledge and response to sex trafficking of minors. Journal of Crime and Justice. 2020;43(3):377-392. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2019.1690548
27. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. Official Journal of the European Union, L 101, 1-11. 2011.
28. India. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Act No. 104 of 1956. 1956.
29. India. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Act No. 32 of 2012. 2012.
30. India. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (substituting sections 370 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code). 2013.
31. Institute of Medicine & National Research Council. Confronting commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors in the United States. National Academies Press; 2013. doi:10.17226/18358
32. United Kingdom. Modern Slavery Act 2015, c. 30. 2015.
33. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Anti-human trafficking manual for criminal justice practitioners. United Nations; 2009.
34. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The international legal definition of trafficking in persons: Consolidation of research findings and reflection on issues raised. United Nations; 2018.
35. United States. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464. 2000.
36. United States. Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-22, 129 Stat. 227. 2015.
37. United States Code. (2018 ed.). 18 U.S.C. § 1591, Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Integrated Sciences (JMRIS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright in their published work. Unless an individual Version of Record identifies different terms, JMRIS articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This permits sharing and adaptation, including commercial use, with appropriate attribution, a link to the license, and indication of changes. Third-party material may be subject to separate terms. Existing articles retain the license originally granted to their Version of Record; a policy update does not retrospectively replace that license.
