Safe Harbor Legislation
Safe Harbor Legislation:
Minor Victims of Sex Trafficking Are Not Criminals & Should Not Be Treated As One
By Hannah Beaulieu1Oregon’s proposed HB 35842 failed to move forward when no public hearing was scheduled before the March 21st deadline.3 The proposed bill would have created a “safe harbor” law in Oregon, which would have prohibited prosecutors from charging minors with prostitution crimes. Safe harbor laws are meant to serve as “laws that insulate victims from a punitive response and direct them toward restorative and protective services”.4
In 2000, the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. §7101-§7115, statutorily defined a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons to be someone who is victimized by “sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.”5 In essence, a minor who is found to be committing commercial sex acts is a legal victim of human trafficking at the federal level. However, not all states treat minors as victims of a crime.
Safe harbor laws have been implemented across the majority of states; however, six states continue to have no laws providing safe harbor. Oregon is among these.6 These laws vary widely in the way they attempt to protect minor victims. For example, some state laws prohibit the criminalization of minors for prostitution offenses but allow for law enforcement to take minor victims into protective custody. The now-defunct Oregon safe harbor proposal would have fallen into this category. Other state safe harbor laws make immunity from criminal charges dependent on a victim’s compliance with law enforcement or mandatory social services. Variance in safe harbor laws has left ample room to analyze what laws effectively serve minor victims of trafficking and what laws need to be reevaluated for their effectiveness in ensuring that victims are afforded dignity through agency to make their own choices.
The model comprehensive safe harbor law in the country that serves to immunize minors from criminalization and provide restorative services is in Georgia. See Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-9 and Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-130.1. These statutes effectively immunize minors from prostitution charges and require law enforcement officers to refer suspected victims to a certified and available victim assistance organization specifically designed to provide trauma-informed care to trafficking victims. This model comprehensively immunizes minors from criminal punishment for prostitution crimes and directs victims to specialized and restorative services.7
Besides the states that are silent regarding immunity for minors for covered sexual acts, states with safe harbor laws with protective custody provisions could do more to protect minor victims from further harm. Law enforcement argues that protective custody is the strongest tool they have to remove trafficking victims from imminent harm and to prosecute traffickers; however, victims of other crimes are not treated as criminals who need to be placed in an isolated environment for the sake of protecting them. Other measures and methods are available that will encourage victim cooperation in investigations that do not diminish the dignity and autonomy of a child victim. States should look to model safe harbor laws like Georgia to begin to provide a path for minor victims to begin their journey of recovering their dignity, autonomy, and future.
Oregon HB 3584 was a step in the right direction to protect minor victims of sex trafficking in Oregon. By attempting to take away the ability to charge a minor with prostitution crimes, minor victims could have been prevented from facing further harm and isolation within the criminal justice system. If another safe harbor bill is introduced in Oregon in the future, the best practice to protect minor victims would not include a protective custody provision but would instead mandate law enforcement to refer minor victims to specialized services for human trafficking survivors. To ensure that specialized services are available for minor victims of human trafficking, the Legislature needs to commit to investing in providing these services statewide.
Protecting children who have been harmed by human trafficking is not a small task with an easy solution. State legislatures will need to commit to investing in the lives of minor victims and not take an easier way out that could run the risk of harming a child even more within the criminal justice system.
1 Third year law student at Lewis & Clark Law School. Researched safe harbor laws while externing with NCVLI during the spring 2025 semester. Research on file with NCVLI and author.
2 See, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB3584
4 See, https://reportcards.sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Safe-Harbor-Fact-Sheet.pdf
5 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 22 U.S.C. §7102 (11) (2000)
6 ORS § 167.007
7 O.C.G.A. § 15-11-130 does allow the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services to provide emergency care for minor trafficking victims that cannot excede 7 days.