������Ƶ

Gov. Linda Lingle on Tuesday vetoed , legislation aimed at handling human trafficking offenses in Hawaii. The decision means the state remains one of just six states without any laws designed specifically to fight human trafficking.

The veto came amid heated debate between activists and public servants over whether the measure was an essential first step toward better addressing the local trafficking problem, or whether it would have made prosecuting suspected pimps, johns and others involved in trafficking to justice more difficult.

Law enforcement and prosecutors widely spoke out against the bill, which they said contained overly broad language that criminalized some legal activities and lumped together offenses that now elicit separate charges, making trafficking cases harder to prosecute by requiring multiple criteria in order to win convictions. Despite frustration about the veto, the bill’s drafters cited some gains.

“We don’t really feel that this year has been a loss,” said one of the bill’s drafters, Kathryn Xian, co-founder of the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery, or PASS, and a long-present and divisive voice in the debate over how to handle human trafficking in the islands. “We feel that the level of awareness of what’s going on with the legislature has galvanized people, both locally and nationally. Next, we’ll work to identify our allies, get our bill back on the agenda and then start the whole advocacy process. The most important thing right now is to take care of the survivors we do have.”

Supporters of the bill, including an editorial writer at the Los Angeles Times, say its veto represents a gap in national security, and makes Hawaii an outlier.

The bill’s defeat comes in stark contrast to its unanimous passage by state lawmakers, though some of those lawmakers have since said they didn’t believe the law would have been effective.

The governor’s explanation for vetoing SB 2045 echoes testimony against the bill from the offices of the public defender, Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett and Honolulu city prosecutor Peter Carlisle. When Lingle added the bill to her list of possible veto items on June 21, she explained her reasoning for doing so was that the law “does not clearly define the prohibited conduct in a way that can be enforced and prosecuted in court.”

Representatives for the city prosecutor’s office said that although they opposed SB 2045, they are committed to working toward a solution.

“There were fundamental disagreements in how to accomplish, at least, the legislative piece of it,” said Dennis Dunn, director of the Victim Witness Kokua Services division in the Honolulu Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. “But I think most people felt like we were working together.” ¹

Supporters of SB 2045 argued that prosecutors would have still been able to charge a suspect with the kinds of offenses — kidnapping, domestic abuse, assault — that they use to convict pimps today. The vetoed measure would have given prosecutors the additional ability to charge pimps with a Class A felony human trafficking offense. The bill’s proponents also said that creating a criminal statute for human trafficking isn’t just aimed at creating tougher penalties for pimps, but at beginning to identify victims in a way that would help them escape some of the social stigmas about prostitution.

“The police would have to start identifying them and marking them as human trafficking victims instead of prostitutes, delinquents or runaways,” said Xian, who says that such a designation would also help remove jurors bias against prostitutes, who she says are still often seen as criminals rather than as victims. “Without [that designation], they’re never going to be able to control or abate the problem because, first of all, you’re going to have a bunch of prostitutes come in your door who look nothing like domestic assault or domestic violence victims, and they’re going to run from you because not only are they criminals by law enforcement standards, but pimps come after them.”

The bill’s critics argue that it would be foolish for the state to enact any human trafficking legislation that doesn’t guarantee widespread social services offered to victims. But some of those same people also say it would be impossible to pass legislation requiring funding for services during recession, when the state’s purse strings are so tight. But advocates insist that legislative leaders are tasked first with protecting their citizens they represent, and that necessary funding would follow.

“If there’s a problem, you address it, because that’s what we are sworn to do,” said Xian. “The money and resources will come.”

In other cities, convicted johns help finance victims services through fees they pay to participate in required programs known as “john schools.” Xian says restitution from convicted pimps would offer an enormous funding source, locally.

“These pimps make so much money, they could fund both HPD and all victims services for an entire year,” said Xian. “They can make between $1,000 and $3,000 on one girl alone, per night, and some of the bigger pimps have up to 30 girls.”

“Most people think that there’s no problems here,” said Xian. “They think prostitution is a viable source of income. They don’t see past the high heels and the short skirts.”