Supreme Court to Hear "S&M Svengali" Sex Trafficking Case

When she took the job, Sotomayor might not have known she's be talking about whips and handcuffs at work. But that's what will happen when the issue of human trafficking with be put before the Supreme Court in early 2010. And how does human trafficking make it's first appearance at the SCOTUS? In the form of a case that involves S&M, slavery, and some other pretty unsavory sexual stuff. Glenn Marcus, the man dubbed the "S&M Svengali", was convicted of sex trafficking in 2001 and has appealed his case all the way up the legal food chain. It's a case that has potential ramifications for trafficking victims everywhere.

Here's what happened: Marcus had an S&M-themed website in the late 1990s which featured photos of women who were his "slaves" undergoing various levels of physical abuse. He met a woman who court documents just call "Jodi," and she agreed to be on the website. At this point, two stories diverge. Jodi claims Marcus took the relationship too far -- that he forced her to do things she didn't want to do and then write about them for the site. She couldn't escape, and was effectively a slave in real life, although she started out only portraying one on a website. Marcus, on the other hand, claims that everything was consensual and part of Jodi's employment contract. Apparently, even the parts where he carved the word "slave" into her stomach with a knife, shaved her head, and whipped her brutally were part of her contract.

The reason SCOTUS has agreed to hear this case is that the abuse Marcus inflicted on Jodi took place between 1999 and 2001. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the law under which Marcus was prosecuted and convicted, was passed in 2000. Marcus's lawyers claim that Marcus's behavior was so different before and after October 2000, that the jury may have only convicted him on evidence prior to the passage of the law. Even if that is the case, was none of his behavior illegal before? I'm pretty sure carving a word into someone's stomach against their will has never been ok.

I'm worried about the affect this case will have on the abolitionist movement for two reasons. One, I think the S&M connection will only confuse SCOTUS's understanding of sex trafficking. Human trafficking and S&M, with the notable exception of this case, are not really connected. Sex trafficking is not about the sort of activities which take place between the victim and perpetrator, but rather the victim's consent to the situation and ability to get out of it. I'm worried that the presence of S&M will bring the court's focus on the wrong set of issues. Secondly, this case could have an impact for victims who were trafficked before 2000. It is dangerous to set a legal precedent where being trafficked before 2000 and after 2000 (instead of just after) may weaken a case.

I'll be following this case closely and will keep you updated on what our good friends on the SCOTUS decide. Hopefully, they're be able to look past the chain-mail-and-leather packaging on this case and see the central issues beneath -- abuse, consent, and slavery.

Photo credit: laura padgett