California recently, as of 2011, enacted an updated law for human trafficking. The law explains that traffickers must pay a fee along with their time in prison. With this law it is possible for victims to go through rehabilitating services. When there is adequate funding for rehabilitation victims are more likely to come forward (Harris). Thus, raising awareness of the issue and reduces rates of human trafficking. Minnesota did increase their programs for rehabilitation programs for victims, but could benefit from an increase in penalty. Increasing the penalty to have offenders pay a large fee for their crimes will then pay for the needed programs for therapy and rehabilitation for victims. Additionally, enhanced sentencing for traffickers keeps them off the streets keeping the community safer. Thus, increasing penalties for traffickers causes no extra money and in turn has many …show more content…
Although traffickers could possibly want to commit the crime again in anger of being sentenced to such a large amount of money and time, the rates of trafficking would be a lot less. When looking at North Dakota’s statistics, one of the most well known areas for sex trafficking with some of the highest rates also had the lowest punishment for traffickers (Dalrymple). But, with recent events and the major rise of sex trafficking in North Dakota they have then passed two laws increasing the punishment of traffickers. When the sudden rise in North Dakota of sex trafficking and violence hit there were no laws in place for the punishment of sex traffickers, allowing offenders to recruit, abuse, and sell women and children at mass amounts (Webley). This being stated, it is obvious that having loose penalties only increases the amount of offenses, not lower them. Thus, proving that having increased penalties for offenders is the best solution to lowering rates of sex trafficking and creating a safer