HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381.jpg
2.1 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Department of justice (doj) commentary on proposed legislation
File Size:
2.1 MB
Summary
This document is a commentary from the Department of Justice (DOJ) expressing opposition to proposed legislative changes outlined in Sections 224, 231, 232, and 233 related to human trafficking laws. The DOJ argues that the proposed changes are unnecessary, burdensome, or based on a misunderstanding of existing laws and departmental procedures. The document defends current practices, including the use of a wide range of statutes like the Mann Act and collaborations with various organizations for training and enforcement.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| minor victims | Victim |
Mentioned in the context of human trafficking laws that do not require proof of force, fraud, or coercion.
|
| adult victims | Victim |
Mentioned in the context of human trafficking laws that do not require the showing of force, fraud, or coercion.
|
| DOJ trafficking prosecutors | Legal Professional |
Utilize a wide range of statutes to address criminal conduct associated with human trafficking.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
The authoring organization, referred to as 'The Department' and 'DOJ', providing commentary and opposition to propose...
|
|
| National Advocacy Center |
A location for DOJ training on human trafficking.
|
|
| National Center for Missing and Exploited Children |
An organization involved in DOJ training regarding human trafficking.
|
|
| Human Trafficking Task Forces |
Funded by the Department of Justice to combat human trafficking.
|
|
| Innocence Lost National Initiative |
A program through which training on charging decisions for human trafficking is provided.
|
|
| Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) |
A group that would gain oversight authority over grants under a proposed (and opposed) legislative change.
|
|
| House Oversight |
Appears in the document footer (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381), likely indicating the committee or body to which the documen...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Annual
Not specified
DOJ training on using various criminal statutes in human trafficking cases.
Annual conferences, the National Advocacy Center, and field locations with Human Trafficking Task Forces.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the discussion of federal laws (e.g., Mann Act), state laws, and U.S. government agencies like the DOJ.
|
Relationships (2)
The DOJ conducts training in conjunction with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The document mentions 'Department of Justice funded Human Trafficking Task Forces'.
Key Quotes (4)
"This section misunderstands the purpose and effect of the model law and should be deleted."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381.jpg
Quote #1
"The Department opposes any statutory changes to the annual report."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381.jpg
Quote #2
"DOJ opposes this addition as unnecessary."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381.jpg
Quote #3
"DOJ opposes the change to section 206 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, which would remove the discretion of agencies in informing the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) of grants."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,934 characters)
20. Section 224
This section misunderstands the purpose and effect of the model law and should be deleted. The Department's model law was never designed to supplant pre-existing state laws which target pimping, pandering, or prostitution, but rather to supplement those laws. At the time that the Department's model law was issued, most states had comprehensive laws addressing prostitution, pimping, and pandering. However, most states did not have laws focused on human trafficking. The Department's law was designed to raise awareness of the issue of trafficking and to encourage states to closely examine cases to ensure that cases involving fraud, force, and coercion are not labeled as prostitution offenses. The Department believes the law has been successful in accomplishing this goal.
21. Section 231
The Department opposes any statutory changes to the annual report. The change in subsection (1) is unnecessary as this language is currently included in the annual report. The information requested in the new subsection (1) would be excessively burdensome to gather.
22. Section 232
DOJ opposes this addition as unnecessary. Human trafficking laws that do not require the proof of force, fraud, or coercion, namely laws that concern minor victims of severe forms of human trafficking, are already discussed at the annual conferences. To the extent that this provision would require the Department to discuss human trafficking laws pertaining to adult victims that do not require the showing of force, fraud, or coercion, such laws would not fall under the definition of human trafficking and the annual conference would be an inappropriate venue for the discussion of such laws. However, DOJ trafficking prosecutors utilize a wide range of statutes in addition to Chapter 77 offenses to address all criminal conduct associated with human trafficking. This includes the Mann Act, money laundering, visa fraud, immigration offenses, criminal labor violations, and extortion, in addition to other criminal statutes. Accordingly, DOJ training at annual conferences, the National Advocacy Center, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and field training with the Department of Justice funded Human Trafficking Task Forces and provided through the Innocence Lost National Initiative include discussion on the importance of using all available criminal statutes as essential tools in charging decisions. Thus, this section is unnecessary.
23. Section 233
DOJ opposes the change to section 206 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, which would remove the discretion of agencies in informing the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) of grants. Such a change could be read as giving the SPOG oversight authority over grants. It also fails to take into consideration situations where grant-making agencies may be unable to notify the SPOG of the grant.
10
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012381
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document