In the United States today, sex trafficking is a widely recognized problem. There is a well-developed legal framework in place to address such cases; law enforcement and legal practitioners undergo training. Despite these efforts, human trafficking survivors often face the unjust perception of being perpetrators rather than victims. Their attempts to escape exploitation are not always seen as acts of self-defense. This paper delves into the reasons behind the low credibility of survivors and the factors that contribute to downplaying their traumatic experiences. I argue that individuals most at risk—such as people of color, women, those from low socio-economic backgrounds, individuals with disabilities, and those struggling with addiction—are disproportionately subjected to trafficking and exploitation. The convergence of multiple vulnerabilities further heightens this risk, both before trafficking occurs and after, when they find themselves in the criminal justice system. Various biases are ingrained on the institutional level, and state representatives inevitably reinforce them. These biases manifest in judgments based on race, gender, speech patterns, or simply neglecting information that does not meet original expectations. This paper aims to address the issue of prejudicial verdicts against sex trafficking survivors using a multidisciplinary approach. I claim that merely changing laws will not suffice; a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of all involved social actors is necessary to improve the situation.
Maria Bunina (Sat,) studied this question.