Human trafficking is the fastest growing crime in the world and is defined as the stripping away of rights from a person to turn them into property, whether it be for labor or sexual purpose. The victims of human trafficking are exploited through the threat of violence against themselves and potentially their loved ones as a way to force them to comply. These criminals are obsessed with keeping their victims as hostages because trafficking is a 99 billion dollar worldwide industry that destroys the most vulnerable of humanity while supporting the most vile. The International Labor Organization has released data stating that there are currently between 27.4 and 35.8 million victims of trafficking worldwide and 1/3 of these victims are believed
…show more content…
Examples include the Polaris Project, Hope for Justice, Switch, Lighthouse for Life and the International Justice Mission. Switch is an organization based in Upstate South Carolina that focuses on finding the locations of hidden human trafficking rings and reporting their findings to the police. This includes entering massage parlors and strip clubs and surveying the buildings and questioning workers to see if anything seems unusual. As a result of the work that Switch has done in Upstate SC, awareness of the issue has spread and over 200 women have been helped (SWITCH). After the police handle the law enforcement side, Switch stays with the victims to move them to a Restoration Home, provide therapy, and help them get to a place where they can work on a education or get a job and become functioning and happy members of …show more content…
This funding can originate from donated contributions, gifts, and government grants in order for the organization to provide its services. One argument against giving to charities such as those that fight against human trafficking is that the majority of the money goes to pay the salaries of CEOs or to corporate getaways. This is rooted in the ethical thinking that every man will first consider what is best for themselves before considering the needs of others. In Mortal Man and Immoral Society, written by Reinhold Niebuhr, Niebuhr states that there are "definite limits in the capacity of ordinary mortals which makes it impossible for them to grant to others what they claim for themselves" (Niebuhr 3). This ethical thinking does support the idea that CEOs may keep money for themselves and their peers or that people may use this argument as an excuse to hold onto the money that they have available to give to
Examples include the Polaris Project, Hope for Justice, Switch, Lighthouse for Life and the International Justice Mission. Switch is an organization based in Upstate South Carolina that focuses on finding the locations of hidden human trafficking rings and reporting their findings to the police. This includes entering massage parlors and strip clubs and surveying the buildings and questioning workers to see if anything seems unusual. As a result of the work that Switch has done in Upstate SC, awareness of the issue has spread and over 200 women have been helped (SWITCH). After the police handle the law enforcement side, Switch stays with the victims to move them to a Restoration Home, provide therapy, and help them get to a place where they can work on a education or get a job and become functioning and happy members of …show more content…
This funding can originate from donated contributions, gifts, and government grants in order for the organization to provide its services. One argument against giving to charities such as those that fight against human trafficking is that the majority of the money goes to pay the salaries of CEOs or to corporate getaways. This is rooted in the ethical thinking that every man will first consider what is best for themselves before considering the needs of others. In Mortal Man and Immoral Society, written by Reinhold Niebuhr, Niebuhr states that there are "definite limits in the capacity of ordinary mortals which makes it impossible for them to grant to others what they claim for themselves" (Niebuhr 3). This ethical thinking does support the idea that CEOs may keep money for themselves and their peers or that people may use this argument as an excuse to hold onto the money that they have available to give to