It is unlikely that Ferrer was her pimp as it is usually understood. It looks like that the state wants to charge him as a pimp because he provided a venue for sex workers to advertise and therefore was effectively doing promotion. It is unclear at this point whether the court will agree with that interpretation or not. I am sure the 15 yo was brought into the charging documents as a sob story for the public (and later the jury) and to pressure the accused to make some sort of a plea deal.

>It looks like that the state wants to charge him as a pimp because he provided a venue for sex workers to advertise and therefore was effectively doing promotion

That's a bit disturbing to read, since sex workers use a lot of popular social networking sites to advertise their services. The effect of removing these venues is simply to push the trade further underground, thereby obstructing oversight and participant safety.

and it was based on a few reports of minors, who paid for ads on backpage.com, and that the sin was backpage.com took their money and should have known they were minors somehow. Out of millions of ads posted annually, they should have known that those three women were underage. Even after they checked the "I am 18" box.

Bad backpage. Or maybe someone is trying to get headlines on how they are tough on crime. Because elections.

I'm pretty sure backpage has been on LE radar at least since CL shuttered their adult services section. It's pretty widely known as a site used to hire prostitutes, those three women were probably more representative than you think.

yes, they wrote someone was republican and I thought 'who cares?!'

> The story itself says further down the page, "Ferrer was arrested on felony charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping." None of these are actually trafficking charges; they're run-of-the-mill prostitution charges.

Prostitution with anything other than free and full consent by someone with full capacity to give consent is sex trafficking; pimping a minor, therefore, is a sex trafficking charge.

> There are a variety of new state and federal laws on sex trafficking

Yes, there are a number of new laws that cover aspects of sex trafficking that were not adequately covered (either because they weren't already illegal, or because the specific lack-of-consent related aspects didn't enhance the offense beyond some base non-trafficking offense), but that doesn't change the fact that pimping a minor is inherently a charge that is based on factors which meet the definition of sex trafficking, even if it was already both prohibited and enhanced beyond the equivalent non-trafficking charge (simple pimping) prior the recent round of additional trafficking-related legislation.

> pimping a minor

> run-of-the-mill prostitution charges

I sincerely fucking hope that isn't "run of the mill".

> run-of-the-mill

> adj. Not special or outstanding; average.

"Run-of-the-mill" in that sentence modifies "prostitution". When I read that person's sentence I think, "So, what kind of prostitution charge is average or not special? That kind." That's what they think, anyway. Whether this is true or false could be validated by seeing what kind of prostitution cases are commonly brought vs uncommonly brought.

> So, what kind of prostitution charge is average or not special? That kind.

I don't even want to know how you consider a child prostitution charge "average or not special".

It's not that these charges are average, it's that trafficking charges are a distinct group from prostitution; prostitution charges are the far more standard group, and hence are run-of-the-mill, even though the specific charges within that group are not typical of that group.

> trafficking charges are a distinct group from prostitution

Incorrect. Sex trafficking includes (among other commercial coerced sex) any instance of prostitution which involves anything other than free and full consent from someone with capacity to consent to sex; minors by definition lack capacity to consent, so pimping a minor is an offense which falls completely within the bounds of sex trafficking. (Unlike simple pimping, solicitation, etc., which may overlap with sex trafficking, but also include acts which are not sex trafficking.)

Your comments here are based on emotion, others are approaching this analytically.

This stuff happens; just like murder, rape, arson, etc.

It's irrational to get upset about someone using a common idiom to convey that this isn't a typical instance of child prostitution.

> child prostitution

Child sexual exploitation. The vast majority of children involved aren't there through free choice.

Sure...?

I didn't intend to imply otherwise.

The term "child prostitution" is associated is a few countries with some severe failings of law enforcement to protect children from harm.

Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous.

Only in America you would think that a 16 or 17 year old would never choose to have sex for benefits unless forced into it.

I'm not american.

And I didn't say "never", I said in the vast majority.

And the child we're talking about here is 15, not 16 or 17.

Your comment was wrong on every point.

I've apologised for the 'US' comment in the other thread. It was out of place. However, I don't think you're being entirely fair either.

FWIW, you said 'Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous.', implying that what they said was incorrect, and children could never choose to become prostitutes.

If you only meant the 'vast majority' of children doesn't want to become prostitutes, then I don't know what the point of the quote was.

Similarly, nothing about your parent post mentions an age range more specific than 'children', which by default I take to mean anyone legally underage and thus not allowed to make decisions.

15, 16, 17, what's the difference? Somewhere between 12 and 18 both boys and girls become interested in sex; some of them will want to use it to gain higher status.

The person you're replying to is from the UK.

Why the anti-American sentiment?

Eh, apologies. Mostly a cheap shot. It does seem to me people in USA are more prudish about sex and overprotective of children, to the point of denying the underage any agency. But it's a more nuanced discussion, and it's easier to write a snark.

When we find a child who is paid to provide sex we almost always find someone who has been subject to coercive abuse.

It is very rare that we find children who freely make that choice.

Protecting children from that harm --and it is very severe harm-- is important.

Wouldn't this mostly be because of what your search process is biased to find? I won't pretend to know how this is investigated, AFAIK no agency is remotely interested in 'finding' the teenage girls who trade their bodies for either money or gifts in school or shopping galeries; it seems natural that most detected cases would be rape and/or abuse, as it's certainly more noticeable.

Yep, I generally agree with you; we are raising weak/sheltered individuals, and not just in America.

Shielding people from reality doesn't change it, just makes it's ultimate realization more painful.

I've just been seeing a bit too much 'America is evil/bad' lately, consider me triggered :).

calm down cowboy and read it again. nobody cares about your emotionally charged confused reaction nor does it make for any good conversation