Protective orders: human trafficking: pimping: pandering.
The bill has potentially significant implications for state laws concerning protective orders. By formalizing the requirement to consider protective orders in more cases, the law reflects a commitment to addressing the serious threat posed by human trafficking and related offenses. This change not only empowers courts to act more decisively in protecting victims but also clarifies the legal framework surrounding such cases. Given that violations of these orders can result in criminal contempt charges, there is a clear enforceable mandate designed to enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable.
Assembly Bill No. 1735, approved on September 27, 2018, aims to strengthen legal protections for victims of human trafficking and sexual crimes by mandating that courts consider issuing protective orders in additional circumstances. Specifically, the bill requires courts to restrain defendants from contacting victims for up to ten years if they have been convicted of crimes related to human trafficking, labor exploitation, pimping, or pandering, irrespective of whether the victim is a minor. This amendment to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code broadens the criteria under which protective orders can be automatically considered, thus enhancing victim protection in the judicial process.
The overall sentiment regarding AB 1735 appears supportive among legislators and advocacy groups focused on victim rights and protection. Proponents argue that the bill addresses a crucial gap in the legal system concerning human trafficking, highlighting the necessity of protective measures for victims. This reflects a growing awareness and legislative priority towards combatting human trafficking and safeguarding vulnerable individuals. However, some may express concerns about the implications for due process or the potential for unintended consequences, such as increased burdens on the judicial system, although these views were less prominently featured in discussions about the bill.
While AB 1735 has a positive reception from many quarters, there are points of contention regarding the implementation and enforcement of the protective orders. Critics might raise concerns about how these provisions will operate in practice, particularly in ensuring that adequate resources are available for enforcement without overburdening local governments. Additionally, the bill’s failure to require state reimbursement for incurred costs under the California Constitution may lead to increased financial burdens on local agencies, which could be a point of debate in future discussions surrounding the integration of these protective measures.