“I heard this jury say, ‘guilty’ 288 times–24 questions, 12 jurors. That’s the multiplication. I haven’t heard you apologize once,” Berman said before sentencing Dahrun Ravi to 30 days in jail. The sentence also includes three years probation, 300 hours of community service and over $11,000 in fines, 10K of which will be donated to an anti-bias organization.

The defense, led by the bumbling Steven Altman, who said he knew he was “climbing a mountain” seeking a leniency, asked for a stay of the sweetheart sentence. Come on, guy! I know you were hoping for no time behind bars for your client, but with 15 felony convictions, that had to seem unlikely. For their part prosecutors, led by Julia McClure also asked for a stay on behalf of the state. The state, blind-sided by the short jail sentence, is seeking a prison term, the maximum of which could be ten years. The judge denied the stays. Barring action from an appellate court, Ravi will report to jail on May 31.

The sentence tossed a shocking lid on an emotional morning, filled with victim impact statements from Tyler Clementi’s father, mother and brother as well as a letter from “M.B.,” Clementi’s fellow victim of the notorious spy-camming. Both Ravi’s parents also spoke passionately on behalf of leniency for their son. But Ravi, who was expected to address the court,remained mum.

Had Ravi, who was only 18 and, like his roommate Tyler Clementi, in the first few weeks of his freshman year at Rutgers, when the notorious web cam spying incidents (described by his defense team repeatedly as juvenile pranks) occurred, publicly apologized such a sentence might sit better with the Clementi family as well as gay rights advocates, and the community at large.

Quick trigger Twitter fingers display a mixed bag of reactions. Some suggest Ravi got away with murder. Others call the sentencing “compassionate.”

My reaction is somewhere down the middle. It’s strange because before viewing the sentencing I was hoping for compassion, playing it out in my dramatist’s mind as coming from the Clementis. But that’s not how it unfolded. The Clementis, while not vengeful, certainly asked for accountability and justice. Without offering a term, I’m sure they didn’t have a meager 30 day jail stint in mind, when the spoke of “consequences.”

Listening to all the pre-sentencing arguments and letters, as well as the judge’s early harsh words, I believed a prison sentence was, in fact, warranted; hoped it would be on the short end, say 1-3 years. I don’t believe incarceration is the answer to every offense or offender, and I believe, despite the prosecution’s protestations to the contrary, had Tyler Clementi not committed suicide ( Ravi was not implicated or charged with his death) this case would never have come before the court. It would have been handled internally at Rutgers. Still, Ravi refused a plea deal that would have avoided any incarceration. He turned it down and put the Clementi family ( as well as his own) through an excruciating ordeal. In his self-serving newspaper and “20/20″ interviews, Ravi said he couldn’t take the deal because he couldn’t admit to any bias. Such an admission, he maintained, would be lying.

I’m not so sure Ravi understands the insidious ways cultural prejudices can seep in and take up residence in one’s heart and mind.

If Ravi truly learns any hard lessons those insights will most likely be uncovered as he completes the mandated anti-bias counseling program that his probation sentence includes. He is a young man, and surely does not need to be locked away–or deported ( both “M.B.” in his letter and later Judge Berman, indicated influence, on his behalf, with immigration.) And he doesn’t deserve to be the poster boy for anti-gay bullying.

I wish some measure of closure for the Clementis, though as Judge Berman said, that will be hard to ever achieve. I know they’ve started the Tyler Clementi Foundation and hope the work they do there will grant them some solace as it helps countless people fight bias, find refuge and lead healthy and joyous lives. And I hope Dahrun Ravi cultivates the empathy that eluded him as a teenager and grows into a generous and productive adult. Thanks to Judge Berman’s generosity, he’ll have an early jump-start on his second chance.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Just how peaceful the protest was, of course, was controversial at the time. In the days following the shootings, some people–including President Nixon–sided with the Guardsmen’s actions. “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy,” he said, referring to students running around with bricks and (possibly) torching the R.O.T.C. building.

Yet scrutiny by the media, the F.B.I. and Nixon’s Scranton Commission on Campus Unrest –along with multiple civil lawsuits–made it apparent that the students’ actions did not warrant 61 shots ringing into a crowded and chaotic campus quad. “Kent State was a national tragedy, ” the Scranton Commission concluded. “We must learn from the particular horror of Kent State and ensure it is never repeated.”

The military and police have, in fact, learned important lessons on crowd control and riot prevention from the massacre. No doubt countless lives have been saved as a result of more deliberate planning and careful handling of potentially volatile situations.

Still the legacy of that dark day, captured in Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s classic anthem “Ohio,” is a loss of innocence and a deeply embedded cynicism that pervades our national psyche and percolates particularly during tumultuous times. Something for protesters of all political persuasions to keep in mind.

Never forget.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

The latest act of our most recent high profile American tragedy played out in real time courtroom theatrics on Friday. George Zimmerman, the reviled Trayvon Martin shooter, now charged with second-degree murder, was granted $150, 000 bond. But the real drama, igniting audible gasps in the packed courtroom, came when Zimmerman took the stand and briefly testified.

“I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son,” Zimmerman, 28, said in a soft voice as he took the stand with shackles at his feet and waist. “I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not.” His lawyer, Mark O’Mara, later explained in a presser that his client was directly answering the Martin family’s public questions regarding Trayvon’s age and whether he had been carrying a gun.

Trayvon’s parents sat silently through the comments; his father Tracy Martin visibly shaken and weeping. They scurried out of the crowded courtroom after Judge Lester set bail. Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, labeled Zimmerman’s apology “self-serving” and described the family’s reaction to bond as “devastated.” It’s unclear if they were expecting a higher bail ( the prosecution had asked for a minimum of $ 1 million) or for a denial of bond altogether. In either event, it seems the prosecutor’s office hadn’t prepared them for the inevitable, Bail is a part of our system; granted frequently even in first degree murder cases.

Buckle up, folks. We’re in for another high-profile controversial case, and the full tilt media circus that surrounds it. In the bond hearing, alone, we gained insights into Zimmerman, O’Mara’s courtroom prowess and the strengths and weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Zimmerman’s past criminal record came under some scrutiny, including a violent altercation with police, described by O’Mara as his client “coming to defense of a friend.”

At the press conference, O’Mara, who is the anti-Jose Baez, exuding, in equal measure, both the savvy and humility of a truly seasoned defense attorney, made one possible slip-up. While discussing the incident with cops, he said Zimmerman acted because “in his head” they were doing something to his friend. If this comes before a jury, it may be evidence of Zimmerman’s propensity toward a paranoid mindset.

On the other hand, Zimmerman’s appearance and demeanor–both far more fragile than earlier photos–belie his media portrait as a quick-trigger racist vigilante. He may well be his own best witness.

Photographs just released showing bloody gashes on his head and what appears, at this point, anyway, to be a rather flimsy prosecution case may also serve to set him free.

Of course, we don’t know what will come; how all the evidence will play out in court (or exactly what that evidence is). “The special prosecutors don’t want to show their full hand,” Crump told reporters, indicating there is enough to warrant the second degree murder charge.

Let’s hope that’s true. Otherwise, if this prosecutor has over-charged what seems like a manslaughter case, the country, and most importantly the Martin family, may face another round of reckless Florida injustice deja vu. Such an outcome will surely bring them another brutal brush with devastation.

For now, at least the legal process, however imperfect it may prove to be, has finally started in earnest. That’s all the Martins had asked for. Now that they’ve gotten it, hopefully they’ll find some measure of justice in that.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

A few years ago, the much maligned prune hired a PR firm and emerged with a flashy new advertising campaign and new name: the dried plum. The other day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney shined up the controversial health insurance mandate by calling it “the personal responsibility provision.”

A prune by another name? Call it what you will, but that crucial heart of the Affordable Health Care Act, now the center of debate at the Supreme Court, could put a kibosh on the whole deal. While Court watchers say it could go either way, most lean toward a conservative 5-4 toss out, The question, then, becomes, can any of the health care overhaul be salvaged? Justice Scalia signaled all would be trashed, while Justice Ginsburg asked “why must it be a wrecking ball and not a salvage job?”

Some commentators suggest only the very fringe provisions, the overstuffed pork that swelled the Act to 2,700 pages ( the size inspired Justice Scalia to invoke a sardonic reference to the 8th Amendment and the Justices facing “cruel and unusual punishment” reading the darn thing). So while provisions for black lung and Native Americans may remain main intact, pre-existing conditions and the spiraling premium pricing blitz will be back in play. In other words, the insurance companies will be back in the driver’s seat without the “mandated” influx of new customers.

Politically, some on the left think a loss will really be a win. James Carville, who was around for the Clinton health care debacle offered his curious take on CNN’s “Situation Room” on Tuesday.

“I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party. You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, ‘We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority.’”

Okay, but how exactly is that good news for the Dems?

“Then the Republican Party will own the health care system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin,” Carville said.

Well, there may be some truth there, and certainly the Repubs have absolutely no alternative to what they’ve dubbed ‘ObamaCare.’ The Party of No has been all about shouting down anything that has the President’s fingerprints on it and doing their best to make Obama a one-termer ( something which, despite the economy and perhaps this defeat, is so far from good enough Sarah Palin could never see it from her back porch). And Romney, the likely GOP nominee, has his own problems as the “godfather” of Obamacare.

Still, politics aside, who will suffer? Millions of Americans, denied care do to pre-existing conditions and prohibitive costs. I know I’ve heard the leftist chants to re-energize and re-organize the Single Payer efforts, But how many years, realistically, will that take? The Affordable Health Care Act, as messy as the legislative sausage making was, holds so many vital provisions that would help so many Americans. Steps in the right direction now threatened by a perilous obstacle course.

If we continue the status quo, the skyrocketing costs will soar to levels that will surely toss many more out of the insurance market. And the burden will be passed on to those of us fortunate enough to cling to coverage.

Spin it any way you want, left, right or center, but regardless of your political affiliation, if The Supremes strike down the mandate and, with it, likely the whole shebang, it will be a lose-lose for all Americans.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

It’s not the first time our national albatross, racism, has collided with the mighty lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, but the Trayvon Martin tragedy has sparked an outrage, so loud and so visceral, it has re-opened wounds and re-ignited debates that simply cannot be quashed.

In a brief presser Friday (to announce the changing of the guard at the World bank), President Obama fielded one question about the Martin case. His response was measured and thoughtful. He called on all of us to do some “soul searching.” But it was his pointed and rather poignant acknowledgement, “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” that brings it home for so many. Black parents, especially those of teenage boys and young men, are angered and, frankly, petrified for their sons’ safety.

Just imagine what that feels like. For both the parents and the children.

Trayvon’s mother talked openly and bravely about her anguish on “Politics Nation” with Al Sharpton on MSNBC earlier this week. And Jonathan Capehart, a columnist for The Washington Post, talked first hand about the anxieties young African American males grapple with on a daily basis. Watch the excerpts from Thursday’s “Morning Joe.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The soul searching needs to start in Sanford, Florida. Police Chief Bill Lee’s “temporary” leave of absence needs to become a resignation or termination. George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch commando needs to, at the very least, surrender his gun before the Grand Jury convenes in April. Remember: when police officers are involved in a shooting, even one deemed a “righteous shoot,” they must surrender their weapons and go on desk duty.

Florida Governor Mike Scott has, after extensive pressure, finally, announced a task force to examine the case, and as we reported earlier in the week, the Department of Justice has already launched its own independent investigation.A local Grand Jury won’t meet until April 10. In the meantime, Zimmerman remains free. And, as far as we know, that means he’s still free to carry that same gun he used to kill Trayvon.

Meanwhile, Florida’s Senate President Mike Haridopolos rejected calls to re-examine the controversial Stand Your Ground law that emboldened Zimmerman to gun down Martin, and has, so far, kept him out of jail.

In an e-mail to Think Progress a spokesperson wrote:

“The Senate President feels that Governor Scott is currently taking all of the appropriate steps to address the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin. Additionally, the Senate President is confident that the circumstances surrounding this shooting will be closely examined by lawmakers, and if the Senate concludes that laws need to be revised they will be addressed in the future.”

The future is now, Senator. Since Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law took effect in 2005 the cases of justifiable homicide have jumped from an average of 13 a year to 36. Senator Chris Brown, a Democrat from Broward County, is penning a law that would prevent a shooter from invoking the controversial statute if he/she was at anytime during the altercation, the “aggressor or provocateur.”

Let our soul searching begin.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

By now the latest deaths of war correspondents covering the crisis in Syria is old news.  It does not take much to know there will be more deaths in the future. These latest followed the equally unfortunate death of Anthony Shadid as he was leaving Syria during an unauthorized trip to cover the story. Review what takes place in the Philippines, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and in other repressive and autocratic regimes. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, including the aforementioned three, 14 journalists in the world have already died in 2012. By the time I post this column, that number could well increase. Forty-seven journalists were killed in 2011. Since 1992, 909 journalists died doing their job.

Unfortunately, foreign correspondents, and even those journalists working in their home countries, are targets of anyone who opposes the truth and tried to keep it from surfacing. Reporters are now the enemy. Sadly, they die unnecessarily. They die more frequently than in the past. If they do not die, it is worth repeating that they remain targets of those they hope to expose for doing wrong.

The nature of the burgeoning civil war in Syria give me the chance to reflect on my days as NBC’s bureau chief in Saigon, during the Vietnam War, from early 1966 through late 1968.

It was a different war, a different time. I usually had five TV correspondents and one full-time radio reporter. I had at minimum five full TV crews composed of a cameraman, a soundman, and a correspondent. With the freelance cameramen at my call, I might, on any day, have as many as nine or ten cameras in the field covering the war.  It means that I could have fifteen or twenty people covering the war, not including staff drivers who got the crews to the ever changing front, where the troops were fighting, or to the airport for helicopter and fixed wing flights to cover the action.

We covered combat about 90 percent of the time.  I sent the crews into the field every day. Their lives were almost always in danger, especially when the fire zone they were in was hot with incoming enemy fire. But journalists were not targets.

With as many as 500,000 troops in Vietnam and usually upwards to 100,000 Americans in the field doing battle with the Viet Cong or main force North Vietnamese troops, it was not difficult to find the action that the producers in New York wanted for their news shows.

My staff knew the risks of being in combat. We often discussed what I called “ a considered risk.” In other words, know where you were, act accordingly, and do not do anything foolish that would endanger you or any member of your team. Especially be careful never to endanger the unit you were covering by doing anything irrational, always possible in combat. More importantly, always try your best to get out safely.

Though 63 journalists died in the Vietnam War, they did not die because they were targets of “enemy” troops. When in the field, unless one did something stupid or outrageous, you soon learned what you could or could not do in combat or under fire. That helped keep you alive and did not give the other side an opportunity to shoot your way. Terror was a frequent tactic of the Viet Cong, but that terror was usually directed against the South Vietnamese, and usually confined to the villages. Yes, terror made its way into the cities, but the Vietnamese troops and their allies – mainly American, Korean, and Australian troops – were the enemy of the Viet Cong, not the journalists who covered them.

Except for Iraq, when in full bloom, and in Afghanistan where troops still regularly patrol the country and frequently engage the enemy, most other conflicts around the world are of a different scale and type. Unfortunately, journalists will keep on dying. Unarmed, they are easy to kill. The true stories that journalists tell are necessary for freedom to flourish, and freedom is the one thing that terrorist groups and oppressive governments fear most.

As the furor over the “vigilante” murder of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Florida continues, the Justice Department has finally announced its investigation into a possible hate crime. The DOJ promises, “A thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation,” spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement. The probe will include the Civil Rights Division of DOJ, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida and the FBI. And, finally, the local grand jury will examine the case in April. The Million Hoodie March–protests seeking justice for Trayvon Martin–are planned all over the country Wednesday.

Listen to Neighborhood Watch vigilante George Zimmerman’s entire 911 call and you’ll hear the inherent racism. His family’s continuous claims to the contrary are debunked through Zimmerman’s own words. At the 2:20 mark you’ll hear him mutter an abhorrent racial slur under his breath.

Why this trigger happy thug–who has his own rap sheet, including charges of assault and domestic battery -is allowed to own and carry a concealed weapon–will likely re-open our national conversation on gun control. But why he didn’t follow the 911 dispatcher’s instructions to NOT follow Martin will likely land him behind bars. There was absolutely no reason for a person who felt so threatened ( and by the way, Zimmerman doesn’t sound particularly frightened or even anxious in the call) by this baby-faced kid armed with nothing but a cellphone and a bag of Skittles to pursue the “suspect.” None.

The National Neighborhood Watch guidelines expressly state:

“It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.”

Zimmerman alerted police, but violated the other two crucial rules. He carried a weapon and he followed Martin.

What exactly transpired between the two remains murky. Obviously there were only two witnesses. One is tragically dead, the other hiding behind Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute. But what has become painfully clear: Martin posed no threat to anyone, especially George Zimmerman. He was a young kid minding his own business, walking to his dad’s girlfriend’s house, chatting on the phone with his friends. His only “crime” was wandering through an unknown neighborhood while being black. One friend, who released her call to ABC News, was apparently on the phone with Martin at the time of the altercation. Martin told his friend he was scared; there is no indication that he was looking for trouble. She heard gasps and the phone drop. Other witnesses heard the gunshots; two have come forward to say they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin.

Zimmerman claims he acted in self defense. But Trayvon Martin didn’t have a gun. George Zimmerman did. Trayvon Martin is dead. And Zimmerman is still roaming around. With his gun. And the local police claim they have no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman? The Martin family–and the nation–are waiting on justice.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

The indefinite detention clauses ( section 1021 and 1022) in the legislation are a direct attack upon the civil rights of all Americans and are in essence in breech of the US Constitution.  The detention closes represent yet another step taken towards an erosion of the freedoms which are the very foundation of American society. The detention sections of the NDAA give the Executive branch wide and unchecked powers to detain, via the US military, any person “who was part of/ or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The law is ill defined and opened to interpretations. The provisions also target anyone who commits a belligerent act against the US or its coalition allies and aid enemy forces, under the “law of war without trial, until the end of the hostilities”. The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, or the transfer to “any foreign country, or any other foreign entity.” The NDAA, if applied, would make legal the “rendition” program run in secret by the CIA during the Bush administration.

After signing the NDAA, President Obama made the clarification that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” However, the only provision from which US citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals  accused of being members from al-Qaeda and other “terrorist” groups, military detention is mandatory. For US citizens it is optional. There is no exemption for US citizens from presidential power of detention, either by the military  or by civilian agencies such as the CIA, DHS or FBI, only from the requirement of military detention.

Civil rights organization such as the ACLU are vehemently opposed to the NDAA. In their view “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this or future presidents to militarily detain people captured from any battlefield.” The call for action by this coalition of activists concerned by freedom and civil liberties is “No more left, no more right, time to unite. Stand and fight”.

Joseph Snook, from Wake Up America Southern Oregon is one of the organizers of Monday’s protest. He made the following statement:” A group of conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party activists by the name of Wake Up America Southern Oregon is proud to unite with the Southern Oregon Occupy Movement to take a bold stand against the NDAA. Further, it is time that “We the People”, all of us unite!”

Emery Way from Occupy Ashland stated: “Occupy Ashland is standing with libertarians, progressives, conservatives and the Tea Party alike to speak out against the attack against our civil rights which is the NDAA. In times such as these, when the injustices of a system and a government become too large to ignore, it is vital that we stand together not as members of a political party but as fellow citizens and human beings to defend our precious freedoms.”

Indeed bills like the NDAA,  in combination with the Patriot Act, are “legal” slippery slopes giving the executive branch the legal tools to potentially impose  martial law and  crack down on political dissent in a similar repressive fashion than the one used in fascist states. Let’s hope that this type of protest and action-uniting citizens across the political spectrum- to defend basic civil rights enshrined in the US Constitution become the rule and not the exception.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Justin Norman.

BITAHR is a non-profit organization which ambitious goal is to eliminate commercial sexual exploitation. The event, Fighting Trafficking Through Film, organized in collaboration with The Suffolk University Law School, will be held at the Modern Theater at Suffolk University in Boston. The three days forum will showcase domestic and foreign films about sex trafficking. BITAHR has also invited speakers to the international event. More than 40 guests speakers will participate in the forum’s discussions to share their own experiences and perspectives, and to help define coherent strategies to fight human trafficking both domestically and globally. The speakers will include politicians, authors, survivors, and international activists against human trafficking. Among them will be Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Kathryn Bolkovac, Representative Eugene O’ Flaherty, Rachel Lloyd (survivor and author), and  Siddharth Kara (UN adviser on human trafficking). BITAHR’s Executive Director, Rebecca Merrill, took the time to give News Junkie Post an exclusive interview.

Gilbert Mercier: What triggered originally your interest in fighting human trafficking?

Rebecca Merrill: I was driven by the impact that “The Day My God Died”, a film featuring Anuradha Koirala and Maiti Nepal, had on me both personally and professionally. After nearly a year of research, and the development of my own documentary during law school, I had the opportunity to sit with Anuradha and to discuss life’s passion and how it often drives one’s career. During that meeting, Anuradha admonished me to listen to my heart and to open my ears. Her voice was delicate but commanding as she asked me simply: “How can you not be passionate when you listen to the stories of these women and girls? How can you not do something about it?” Those words, the stories had a lasting impact on my academic studies and now professional life. Alas. I think it is a wonderful complement to pair the human voice and images with the research and theory.

GM: Sex trafficking is a multi-billion global business which is getting more and more controlled by large organized crime networks and no longer by small time local pimps. Do you think we need a global strategy to fight such sophisticated criminal organizations, and if so what would you recommend?

RM: Absolutely. Second only to drug trafficking, human trafficking is the largest criminal industry in the world, and it is the fastest growing. We need a holistic and multifaceted international strategy just to keep up with the growth of the industry, never mind to eradicate it. There are numbers of non-profits, agencies and individuals doing great work around the world. That said, we really need national governments and law enforcement agencies to work together against trafficking. We need governments to recognize that victims of human trafficking are victims in need of social services, not criminals subject to detention and deportation. There are circumstances where return to countries of origin is appropriate, but agencies have the responsibility to ensure return isn’t directly into the hands of the victim’s traffickers. All too often, victims are simply deported to the countries from which they were recruited, most often subjecting them to the same vulnerable circumstances and a mixture of societal shamming, family rejection and condemnation, and an inability to rejoin the workforce. Moreover, the circumstances giving rise to vulnerability are not typically eliminated but rather exponentially and detrimentally worse. If  governments worked together to provide victims with social services after exploitation abroad and at home, re-exploitation would not be such a threat. In addition, while we are seeing an increase in transnational crimes of exploitation, the “independent contractors”, if you will, still operate and regularly increase in number. This can be linked in large part to economics. Where there is a profit, particularly of the margin available through CSE ( Commercial Sex Exploitation), entrepreneurial criminals will find a way.

GM: Some countries, such as Germany, have legalized prostitution. Do you think it is a valid approach to end sex trafficking?

RM: No. I cannot recognize the legalization of prostitution as a valid way to end the sex trade. Legalization would not end modern-day slavery; it would simply empower pimps to continue manipulation and exploitation with less likelihood of identification because the line between “legal” and “illegal” would be so fuzzy. The rationale for legalizing prostitution is relatively easy to understand. Legislators, often pushed by well meaning advocates, may believe or accept that prostitution will happen regardless of legalization and, if legal, the laws will at least document the industry and license the “workers”, making it theoretically easier to provide healthcare and other services to prostituted women. There is also the feminist argument that a woman should be “empowered” to do what she wishes with her body, including selling sex. These arguments are flawed. Legalizing prostitution does not reduce the enormously harmful physical and psychological effects that being sexually exploited inherently caused. Women and girls who engage in prostitution do not choose to do so. The idea that prostitution is a choice does not take into account that in order to choose something, one needs to have several options to choose from. The majority of those in the sex trade- admittedly not 100 percent- in countries where prostitution is legal and illegal alike, are vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation due to a complex set of circumstances often including economic desperation, unrest or instability in homes or even communities or countries, psychological manipulation and more, not because it is a viable choice.

GM: Traffickers make an extensive use of the Internet and even of social media site to lure, recruit and exploit victims. Should this type of activities be more closely monitored by law enforcement agencies with perhaps the help of anti-trafficking organizations, such as yours, acting as a network of whistle blowers?

RM: It is true. Traffickers may use social media sites to recruit underage girls into commercial sexual exploitation. Once recruited, sites like Backpage.com are used to advertise sex with the exploited individuals – children and adult alike. The illegal age of children is disguised using language like “youthful”, “fresh”, “barely legal”, “tight body”. The Internet provides anonymity for the exploiting pimps and endless “choice” and anonymous shopping and exploiting for johns who are purchasing sex. In some areas, ordering sex is easier and cheaper than ordering a pizza. Screen names and pseudonyms make it harder to identify and prosecute pimps. In addition the “handles” provide protection for johns from the negative stigma that buying sex should carry. In reality, companies that facilitate this type of exploitation like Backpage, for instance, are just as guilty as the pimps that exploit minors, because they too, are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off the sale of the bodies of very young girls. Not only should law enforcement agencies monitor this type of behavior, they should shut down websites. The problem is that regardless of our pointing out that commercial sexual exploitation is happening online, the criminal facilitation must be prosecuted and punished. In addition, advertisers must take some responsibility – if they voice their opinions by pulling ads and affecting the facilitators’ bottom line profitability.

GM: In a phone conversation we had sometime ago, you mentioned that we are living in a “hyper-sexual” world fueled by popular culture, online pornography etc, and that it could be one of the reasons why a substantial number of men seek commercial sex or indulge in “sex tourism”. Can you please elaborate on this?

RM: Of course. Over the past few decades we have seen a shift from the most risque magazines including one spread with a suggestively clad woman, to a society where pre-adolescent boys see literally hundreds of thousands of images of nudity before they even reach middle school. When sex education comes in the form of magazines, the Internet, song lyrics and popular culture instead of from teachers and parents, it can be a very confusing topic for young men and women alike. By hypersexualizing children at a disturbingly young ages, we have diminished the gap between buying the idea of sex in the form of a magazine subscription or a calendar to buying the act of sex in a massage parlor, in a hotel or car, or even in one’s own home. When we see so many sexual images of women in circumstances that suggest that they are happy naked, exposed, in sexually dominated manners, we are normalizing the notion that girls and women should be dominated, subordinated and subject to sexually violent and aggressive behavior. These progressive and persistent images make it harder to believe that exploited are victims. Moreover, products like “loungerie” or “lingerie for girls” for four to six year old girls feed into this idea of children as sex objects and “sexy” as ideal for children.

GM: A cynical view of commercial sex, and a stereotypical rationalization of it, would be to say that prostitution will never be eradicated because it is “the oldest profession in the world”. Do you think, one day, men and women will be able to free themselves from the sick correlation between sex and money?

RM: It is true that commercial sex has existed in various forms over centuries throughout most if not all countries. It is also true that women have historically been subjected to oppression, domination and silencing. I am not sure that as a society we will ever be able to eradicate the correlation between sex and money. It is my hope, however, that as this topic becomes a priority for the feminist movement and society at large- and as women everywhere continue to fight for equal opportunities- that one day women and girls will have sufficient opportunities that they will not be so vulnerable to coercion and forced to prostitution. Females need sufficient opportunity to utilize their skills and abilities in a productive way that positively contributes to society. It is also our organization’s goal to spread awareness- in collaboration with a global coalition- such that it minimizes demand by educating purchasers on the harmful, long-term repercussions their exploitative conduct has on children, families, and the community.

GM: In countries of origins for victims of traffickers, socio-economic factors play a huge role. Does your organization reach out to local organizations in human trafficking hubs such as Cambodia, Nepal, the Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Nigeria and Ghana?

RM: We are cognizant of trafficking atrocities around the world and do our best to spread awareness about it in each and among all countries. We are mindful, however, that to utilize our resources effectively we cannot work in every country or every issue in the complex effort to combat trafficking. We focus most intensely on domestic trafficking, that which happens within the borders of the United States. We are also working in conjunction with a Congolese-US NGO, Promote Congo, on a program that will focus on aid for girls and boys being trafficked for labor or sexual exploitation in the artisanal mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

GM: Do you think, realistically, that human trafficking can be one day abolished and how?

RM: At present human trafficking is extremely profitable for exploiters. If we apply a standard cost benefit analysis, we can see that the economic benefits of human trafficking far outweigh the miniscule risk(cost) of being prosecuted and the repercussions that might follow. As long as human trafficking is extremely profitable, criminals will continue to take the calculated risks. To reduce the occurrence of sex trafficking we must continue to raise the cost associated with prosecution, so that the risk of being caught and punished is no longer worth the economic benefits of trafficking while simultaneously reducing the revenue. To achieve this, we must change the way society looks at trafficking. We must realize that the victims of this exploitation are just that-victims. Instead of thinking of labor trafficking as poor individuals deserving of unfair labor standards or girls that “wear too much make-up” or “parade around in provocative clothing” as criminal prostitutes, we must identify these exploited people as victims and publish the traffickers. Without this identification, victims will continue to be plagued with negative stigmas, fear and vulnerability-some of the factors that very likely led to the exploitation at the onset.

GM: It is your organization’s first film forum. Do you have other events in preparation?

RM: BITAHR 2012 Film Forum: “Fighting Trafficking Through Film” is the second annual forum. Our first forum in December 2010 engaged audiences in compelling discussions. We also host periodic benefit concerts called (human) Traffic Jams, where we use music to bring together a community of young adults to raise awareness for the cause and begin a conversation that we hope continues throughout circles of friends, students, colleagues, neighbors, families, and more. This ongoing dialogue shines a light in what is currently hidden in plain sight-the commercial sexual exploitation of people. We also screen individual films throughout the year followed with gripping panels of experts in the field, again to generate a critical conversation and a reverberating call to action to end human trafficking. This March, we will host a conference on International Women’s Day entitled “Ending Impunity for Sexual Violence”. In addition, we will host a three part film series on organ trafficking in collaboration with a local university.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one and two (from top down) by Gilbert Mercier, other photographs and illustrations courtesy of BITAHR.

 

Muckrakers are important. They are good for society. They open our eyes to the underbelly of our lives. They often take us places where the average person either refuses to go or has no inclination to explore. More often than not, muckrakers lack style and art. Style suffers because what they want us to know is often more important than how they present it. Their interest is to expose injustice or evil, usually by revealing everything about the iniquity they are uncovering.

Muckrakers are usually investigative journalists who are interested in reform. They are watchdogs fierce in their approach to what is right, what is wrong. Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbell were seminal muckrakers, who, because of their tenacity and strong ethical principles, were able to effect change where none seemed possible before they became involved in a cause that moved them to action.

 ”Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory,” the documentary film by Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky about three men accused of murder, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, known as the West Memphis Three, is a muckraker’s delight. It recently had its world premiere on HBO in January 2012.

The filmmakers have been following this story for HBO since 1996 when they produced “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” followed by “Paradise Lost 2: Revelation in 2000.”  This is the third, and possibly the last of their documentaries on the subject, but the way this story keeps changing shape, and because the story still has life, you never know what will come next.

In 2011, after 18 years in prison, and the start of a new trial because of newly discovered DNA evidence, the state and the defense got together and created a plea deal for the accused men. They were allowed to plead guilty but to maintain their innocence. Once done, they were set free. But they have not been exonerated of the murders. Lawyers and support groups are working to properly clear their names of all guilt and a new trial is still possible.

 Though powerful in its heart, as art, the film has many problems. Terribly edited and poorly shot for the most part, it relies too much on local TV coverage of events surrounding the three then young men accused of killing three 8 year olds those many years ago. The film makes me think of an express train running out of control as it courses down what feels like an endless track. There is no voice-over narration and as such, the narrative comes from interviews and TV news reports. Though this technique is limiting, I can live with that.

 The filmmakers are so enamored with the idea that their cause is right, they seem unable to decide what information to leave in, what to leave out, and how to edit the interviews to allow the audience a better understanding of events. I doubt whether the filmmakers purposefully created a film where passion is the operating dynamic at the expense of quality and coherence. Because I cannot get inside the heads of the filmmakers, it is impossible for me to know if that was the case. But, I feel they rushed to put the film together. It is as if they felt they had to get it done before things change again, something they kept running into over the years. That is the reason why there have been three new versions of the story since 1996.

 I am sure than Berlinger and Sinofsky would say that my criticism is wrong. In making the film, or any film, there has to be a time when the audience can take a breath, when passion pauses and reason rises. It is as if the filmmakers are so anxious to convince us of the moral values of their cause, they forget that judicious editing would have helped the audience understand the information and process it better. In the film, sound bites are sound books. Mostly the local TV news spots move the narrative along with occasional headlines and the odd cutaway, but, in some cases, unless you know the story very well, you will not understand what the cutaway image means.

In most cases in a film, cutaways allow us to seamlessly move inside a sound edit. Here they fail either because the cutaway shot has nothing to do with the sound edit or it is so obtuse that only the editor who made the cut understands what he or she did. There is also a prurient strain to the film because most of the participants are what we would prejudicially call “rednecks,” not well-educated men and women, the poor of the poor. A strong film about underdogs gives people in the establishment an opportunity to appear sacred by exposing them to the profane, a place where they rarely go or spend much time.

 Nominated for an Oscar as one of five in the class of 2011, if heart and soul are all that matters, this film has a good chance of winning. Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are muckrakers. But in his film, they are not very good artisans. The passion that rules the story and the care for the victims is what makes people admire the film and makes the film worth seeing. As far as filmmaking goes, I think the producers, as experienced as they are, need a course in Filmmaking 101.