From ou
r discussion with Roddy Llewellyn (pictured), the scenario of the Vietnamese boy kidnapped and forced to work in a hydroponic cannabis lab presented us with an interesting context in which to ask our missional question: What should the law do? Here’s the scenario, excerpted from DS Llewellyn’s blog, The Slave Detective:
“One (scenario) is where a person was recognised by The Social Services as a minor, had been placed in a cannabis factory by a family he had worked as a domestic slave for and then locked into the premises having nothing to do with the cannabis plants. He was there for five days when the police arrested him for cultivation of cannabis, and he received two years imprisonment.”
The boy gets a prison sentence. But as Roddy asked in class, what about the people who kidnapped and placed him there? Who locked him up on the premises? Why is the “victim” in this also the perpetrator?
So, I’d like a comment on what the law should do in human trafficking instances and cases like this one, but to keep us honest, also answer how the law should do what you prescribe?
And realize as Roddy does that there are finite resources, that identifying, building a case against, arresting and prosecuting the higher level criminals in these networks takes years, and realize that political pressure is felt most in areas like conviction rates, street crime rates, etc. Remember Roddy asking Rachel what she wants her police doing — spending years going after these syndicate crime bosses, or finding the person who stole her TV (or whatever)?
Comment deadline: Tuesday, Nov. 6, 9am
In that wonderful alternate universe where everyone gets what they deserves, the boy locked in the house would be exonerated and the police would get down to the business of building a case against his captors. I wish it could be that way. But from what Mr. L told us about the message that would send to traffickers (essentially, that their labor supply will get off scot-free if caught by police), it can’t turn out for the best in this system. The victim escaping would set a precedent that’s just too dangerous.
What the law should do is invest either time or money into finding those “cancerous” higher-echelon criminals that bring these kids in. How? Maybe it will take a really high-profile case to make the extent of the problem so evident to the public that they’ll be willing to sacrifice some of their street-level services for the greater good. Likely? No.
I too wish that the boy was not punished in this case but was seen as the victim that he is. After all, even if he did water the cannabis plants, he was held in the house and did so against his will. He did not choose to be a criminal. So though I understand what Maxine is saying, I do not think the circumstances justify his mistreatment.
The law should put the wellbeing of the people first. Although I understand that people naturally want to look after themselves first (the point Roddy was making with his question to me), the priority of the law should be to protect human beings before possessions. The length of time, money required, etc. should not determine whether or not the police pursue a case. Human trafficking cases especially, even though they are difficult and time consuming, should be top priority because the law’s job is to protect and insure the safety and wellbeing of humans.
While I do concede Maxine’s point about the likelihood of the public desiring justice over personal benefit is low, I must agree with Rachel that even though this specific turn of events in the laws surrounding human trafficking will indeed be hard to come by, it is still possible. Such undertakings–weeding out “higher echelon” (ballin’ statement, Maxine; I just had to reference it) crime lords involved with human trafficking are indeed difficult and incur incredibly high costs due to the need for special staffing, covert operations, etc. However, it seems to me (and perhaps I’m wrong) that as Americans, our tax dollars are being spent on far less important things (e.g. many extraneous projects headed by the EPA and Obamacare) than “serving justice.” Why not cut those programs, or at least drastically reduce the amount of money going to those programs in favor of redeeming those lives essentially stolen by human traffickers? I didn’t intend to make this post about hating on Obamacare or the EPA–what I’m attempting to posit is the question: what’s more important as it regards the allocation of tax money? wind energy or getting that kid out of the hydroponic laboratory without a two-year sentence looming over him? Obviously I’m no expert in government expenditures, so it’s probably not that simple, but it’s still something to think about.
(sigh) Grammatical error: sentence one, “being,” not “is.”
I agree with Rachel that the law should prioritize the security and wellbeing of the people. Human trafficking is a public danger, so the government should work to eradicate it just as it works to eliminate other public dangers such as homicide.
The boy which Mr. Llewellyn told us about was actually the victim in this case. I don’t know how old the boy was, and if he was very young, he may not have been able to recognize the cannabis plant and been completely innocent. Regardless, he was locked in the factory against his will, and we cannot relate to his situation or the frame of mind he must have been in.
The law should take human trafficking seriously. It is worth the investment to make it a priority. As I said before, it is a public danger; traffickers exploit their victims, place them in dangerous situations, and can be violent towards them. There is also the issue of people being deceived into becoming victims and children who do not understand the danger present.
A portion of American citizens do not want the government to spend too much money because of the existing deficit, but if people knew how prevalent and dangerous human trafficking is, they would probably actually encourage the government to invest in combating it. For example, (most) people would oppose the government completely cutting funding for a police or fire department because they understand that these services are worth an investment. Funding can be found if the government decides to make it a priority–perhaps from oil subsidies, defense spending, or the prison system (that New Yorker article was really interesting, although we’ll be discussing that another day).
In an ideal world, the law would recognize the boy’s status as an individual who was forced to work in the hydroponic lab. That boy would be seen as the victim he is. The law SHOULD identify the individuals who were running the lab instead of sentencing the victim to two years in prison. Society would be outraged at the presence of such an abominable crime in their midst and they would be willing to vote for funding to eradicate this crime ring. In this ideal world, people care about others more than themselves. The law should identify all aspects of a crime before passing judgment and if the person on trial is a victim, then those who are actually responsible for the crime should be sought out and tried accordingly. The aforementioned victim should be let off and either returned to his/her home country or some aid should be found for them in the country they are in. To do this, the government would need to create (if it has not already) a human trafficking victims unit and also a special team to locate and eradicate these “upper echelon” crime rings. The costs would be high, but it would justified by the saving of many lives and livelihoods. Tax payers would vote to allocate funds to these teams because in reality, who really cares about their stolen television when peoples’ lives are at stake?
That was an ideal world situation. In reality, people will not be willing to help others when they care more about their stolen television. If the courts only recognize the victims as just that, and nothing is done to stop the crime syndicates, then their (the crime rings’) jobs become a great deal easier because their labor supply cannot be convicted. One cannot ideally be done without the other. So while those who are higher-minded may aspire for justice for the victims of human trafficking, the possibility of this justice is slim in today’s society.
The law should protect the person, possessions, rights, and ideas of the people that it governs. It should ensure stability and security within a society to allow it to flourish. In the case of the minor working as a domestic slave in a cannabis plant factory, the law is at odds with itself. To ensure stability, it must prosecute the cultivator of the cannabis but to ensure protection of personal rights it must exempt the slave from prosecution. The law, being only what can be shown and proven on the cave wall, sees only the violation made by the minor. It cannot extend to the larger picture of human trafficking, only focussing on the misdemeanors that are easily seen and solved on the cave wall of the courtroom. This is what the law does (at least in our society) but in this case it falls short of what it SHOULD do.
In order to accomplish what it SHOULD do, a new way of looking at law is in order, a broader view that extends beyond the cave wall. In view of financial obligations, the law should deal with smaller crimes first hand, though NOT overlooking the greater problem of human trafficking. Have the law operate under the same conditions (in the case of the stolen TV) but do not limit the law only to lower level crimes as this. In addition to a broader view beyond the cave wall, an element of human-ness must be added to the law. The sterile system of presenting limited facts, creating a narrative of “Law,” and deciding based on upholding the law creates a system that abuses the minor in the case of the cannabis factory. On the other hand, a more human approach sees the slave as not responsible, releasing him from the charges brought on by the law and having the law go after the real issue of human trafficking.
I think the law did what it should have done: put the boy in prison. This is unfortunate for the boy because he was kidnapped and locked in that house but he was the precedent for these types of situations and needs to be made an example; that no one will get away with the production of illegal substances. Ideally I think they should have just deported the boy and sent him back to wherever he was from in Vietnam. I don’t really know what would cost more: sending him back to Vietnam or having him incarcerated for 2 years. Like we have seen in the other court cases we have been studying, the law is not necessarily concerned with whether justice has been served as much as it is concerned with making sure that the law is developing properly. If they let the boy go Scott-free it would be sending the wrong message and giving the idea that these higher end criminals can just get away with the production of illegal substances with no real repercussions to themselves.
I think the law should keep an eye out for patterns in marijuana house projects like this one, so they may be able to catch the criminals who originally locked up the Vietnamese boy, but that they should not go out of their way to hunt them down. Like Roddy said, there are limited amounts of resources and tax payers are more interested in how their money is benefiting themselves compared to random slave children.
I also agree with pretty much everyone that the law should protect the people that it governs, but in this case the boy wasn’t even a U.S. citizen. I know this seems harsh but I think in this situation American citizens should come first and what was best for them in this situation was either locking up the boy or deporting him.
The boy should not be imprisoned. We can easily see why this is injustice. The boy is a slave and had no choice in his supposed crime. He was being completely controlled. Should he lose two years of his life? Two years in prison is a long time indeed and will likely result in the boy actually becoming a criminal– at least he will learn english while doing time. I do not think we are taking into account the loss of two years, the loss of time, and in reality the loss of life. Is it justice to suck away two years of this boy’s life?
The major problem asserted is that this will make cannabis cultivation more common and less risky because the workers will get off scot-free and go back to their owners. To combat this potential outcome the law should create a rehabilitation program that primarily focuses on teaching english. It would be easier to get volunteers or workers for than to man the prisons and would likely end up being cheaper because the rehabilitation program could include a sort of work-study program such that the minors could support their own system. This would educate them and keep them out of the criminal world. They could thrive instead of putting in time. After this the minors could attempt to become citizens or go back to their home (with the money they earned) and they would better their own community and educate them about human trafficking.
P.S. I assumed p.m. and thus this is late. Apologies.