Consent of the victim should be irrelevant to any proposed definition and scope of trafficking. Many victims initially consent to trafficking for prostitution, for example, having no idea of what they will be subjected to upon arrival. Many are propelled into the sex industry by poverty, past abuse, and by powerful social inequities. Any legislation that allows traffickers to use consent as a defense would not protect most victims of trafficking. Because the traffickers control the trafficking, they also control the evidence.
Many traffickers require women and children to feign consent.
Regardless of how women and children enter the sex industry, victims of sex trafficking suffer enormous harm, violence and human rights abuses. Regardless of how women and children enter the sex industry, most cannot exit without social support, legal protection, and economic alternatives. Thus, exploitation, rather than coercion, should be the operative concept in any definition and scope of trafficking . Such a restrictive definition and scope would unnecessarily burden victims and prosecutors at the same time that it would protect traffickers. Those who traffic, pimp, procure and profit from trafficking and sexual exploitation would be shielded from prosecution and accountability while the victims would be denied human rights remedies and the protection of law.