Are Secure Shelters Detention for Trafficking Victims?
Guest bloggers Anne Gallagher and Elaine Pearson over at IntLawGrrls address this increasingly controversial and contested issue within the anti-trafficking movement: the issue of secure shelters for trafficking victims. Proponents of this type of shelter call them "secure shelters", and claim that physically preventing victims from leaving the shelter for a period of time is imperative to their safety and the safety of others. Opponents claim these victims are put in "detention", and that locked shelters are like jails for survivors.
Gallagher and Pearson recently authored a report condemning the practice and declaring it illegal by international standards. And while some of the examples they cite- victims being locked in shelters for extended periods of time and not allowed to leave- are certainly egregious, this is one of those situations with so much gray area, it's hard to make sweeping policy recommendations. Most professionals agree that trafficking shelters should be secure from the outside, so the traffickers can't just waltz in a grab the victims back. But what about about locks which keep the survivors in?
Here's one of those tricky scenarios: You manage a shelter for trafficked women, and you currently have 8 women living there. You take a new woman into your shelter who just left a situation of trafficking where she was romantically involved with her pimp. After a few days in your shelter, she tells you she wants to leave and return to her pimp because he's been calling her demanding that she return. You know, based on past experience, that if you let her leave, she'll tell her pimp where your shelter is and compromise the safety of the other women there. You also know that if she hangs on for a couple more weeks, she'll learn to trust your organization and be less likely to return to her pimp. But if you prevent her from leaving, you will be holding her against her will, when you want to offer her freedom.
So what do you do?
Image from superstock.com







COMMENTS (3)