Victim or Whore: The Similarities and Differences between Victim's Experiences of Domestic Violence and Sex Trafficking

Abstract

This research review addresses the similarities and differences between domestic violence and sex trafficking victimization. While there is evidence that domestic violence and sex trafficking often co-occur, there is a large disparity in the understanding and interventions utilized by law enforcement as well as the services available for victims of each crime despite the considerable overlap of victimization. This article explores current research regarding domestic violence and sex trafficking with a focus towards identifying areas of overlap and areas distinct to sex trafficking.

Keywords::

• Sex trafficking
• domestic violence
• victim
• violence against women

NOTES

Notes

1. Calvin Bradley v. The State (December Term 1824) Walker 156 Supreme Court of Mississippi. Ruling that moderate chastisement of wife is permitted. See also., The State v. Jesse Black (June Term, 1864) 60 N.C. 262 Supreme Court of North Carolina. (A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum or go behind the curtain. It prefers to leave the parties to themselves, as the best mode of inducing them to make the matter up and live together as man and wife should.

2. State v. Oliver, Supreme Court of North Carolina. (January 01, 1874) 70 N.C. 60 the court held “From motives of public policy and in order to preserve the sanctity of the domestic circle, the Courts will not listen to trivial complaints.… If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty, nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.”

3. 79 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 119 (Md.A.G.), 1994 WL 469880 (Md.A.G.) Office of the Attorney General State of Maryland Opinion No. 94-042 August 4, 1994 “The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was the first American court to recognize the marital exemption for rape, holding that it would always be a defense to rape to show marriage to the victim. Commonwealth v. Fogerty, 74 Mass. 489 (1857). Until very recently, virtually all courts and state legislatures adopted the view that a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife. See, e.g., Anonymous, 89 So. 462 (Ala. 1921); State v. Davis, 229 A.2d 842 (N.H. 1967); Commonwealth v. Schilling, 431 A.2d 1088 (Pa. 1981). See also, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 351, (1995) THE MARITAL RAPE EXEMPTION: EVOLUTION TO EXTINCTION.

4. Nebraska 1976 NEB. REV. STAT. § 28-319 (1991).

5. Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 (D. Conn. 1984) (Wife and son brought a civil rights action alleging a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because police protection was fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim had no domestic relationship, but the police consistently afforded lesser protection when the victim was a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend or when a child was abused by a father or stepfather.)

6. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).