Treating Victims, Not Offenders: The Case for Replicating Los Angeles County’s STAR Court Nationwide
Every year, tens of thousands of children in the United States become victims of commercial sex exploitation (CSE). Yet depending on where they live, these children may be treated very differently by the justice system. Some states divert them into specialized programs designed to promote healing and reintegration into society, while others prosecute them as juvenile offenders. This disparity raises an important question: should a child’s access to justice depend on where they live? Specialized courtrooms such as Los Angeles County’s Succeeding Through Achievement and Resilience (STAR) Court, created to address this disparity, show that these children can be treated as victims rather than offenders. However, replicating this success nationwide demands more than simply copying its court model. That is, states must first enact strong safe harbor protections, specifically immunity paired with mandatory referral, and then commit the sustained funding and institutional coordination needed to sustain programs like this.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention defines CSE of children as “a range of crimes of a sexual nature committed against children and adolescents,” including prostitution, survival sex, child sexual abuse material, and performing in sexual venues in exchange for something of value, such as money, shelter, food, drugs, clothing, or other goods and services provided to the child or to a third party, such as a trafficker. [1] Unlike other forms of child sexual abuse, CSE involves an economic or transactional component in which another person profits from or receives value through the child’s exploitation.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 became the first comprehensive federal law designed to combat human trafficking, ensuring just punishment of traffickers and protecting their victims, predominantly women and girls. The law specifically addressed trafficking for “activities related to prostitution, pornography, sex tourism, and other commercial services,” which are often obtained through force, fraud, or coercion. [2]
Yet despite this federal recognition, state responses remain far from uniform. A comparative analysis found that, by the end of 2017, thirty-five states had enacted safe harbor protections to prohibit or limit the prosecution of young victims of CSE. In contrast, the remaining fifteen had not, with thirteen continuing to process these children through the system as delinquent offenders, and the other two allowing only for an affirmative “defense.” [3] More simply, commercially sexually exploited children may receive trauma-informed care in one jurisdiction while facing punitive processing in another.
This difference in processing is further complicated by the distinction between age of consent and the legality of commercial sex. Because prostitution law is determined at the state level, a minor above the age of consent may still be legally barred from participating in commercial sex. Whether that minor is treated as a victim or as a criminal defendant then depends entirely on whether their state has passed a safe harbor law. [4] This distinction is important in cases of CSE because it raises a fundamental question about whether a child’s participation in commercial sex should be treated as criminal conduct or as evidence of exploitation. Safe harbor laws resolve that tension by limiting prosecution of minors for prostitution and instead directing them toward protective services.
LA County’s STAR Court, created in partnership with the county’s probation department, is one of the nation’s most comprehensive efforts to address this national disparity. It diverts CSE victims away from punitive processing and instead connects them with trauma-informed care, educational support, and community-based resources. [5] The court’s focus on commercially sexually exploited children does not imply that other victims of child sexual abuse receive fewer protections. Rather, STAR Court addresses the specific injustice of minors historically prosecuted for “prostitution” despite being legally incapable of consenting to commercial sex, while other child sexual abuse victims are more commonly served through child welfare and dependency systems instead of delinquency courts. [6] Its multidisciplinary, collaborative model reflects a broader shift in understanding: children of CSE are victims in need of protection, not offenders deserving punishment.
STAR Court succeeds not because it is a specialized courtroom, but because California enacted the statutory protections necessary to treat these children as victims. Following the Court’s creation in 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed more than half a dozen bills decriminalizing prostitution and expanding protections for young trafficking victims, including Senate Bill (SB) 855 in 2014 and SB 1322 in 2016, both of which prevent law enforcement from arresting or charging minors under the age of eighteen with prostitution and instead recognize them as victims of child abuse. [7] These laws combine federal anti-trafficking protections with state child welfare and juvenile justice statutes such as the federal TVPA, which establishes national protections for victims of trafficking, and California’s Welfare and Institutions Code, which governs the state’s child welfare and juvenile dependency systems and authorizes protective services for abused and exploited children. [8] Together, these laws provide the legal authority for STAR Court to treat commercially sexually exploited children as victims rather than offenders.
Within that framework, STAR Court operates with a specialized docket where judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, educators, mental health providers, and community organizations collaborate to address each child’s individualized needs. CSE youth typically enter the justice system after experiencing abuse, homelessness, family instability, foster care involvement, or trafficker coercion. Therefore, the court emphasizes educational reconnection, counseling, housing assistance, medical care, and community reintegration rather than detention alone [5]. The active, collaborative participation of probation officers in the courtroom is also what differentiates STAR Court: rather than serving exclusively as supervisory agents, these officers become partners in coordinating services that reduce the likelihood of re-exploitation.
This approach also draws from the Supreme Court precedents. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court recognized that juveniles have diminished culpability compared to their adult counterparts due to developmental immaturity, heightened vulnerability to outside influence, and greater capacity for change, and therefore should not be classified as the most culpable criminals and sentenced to death [9]. Graham v. Florida (2010) expanded on this reasoning, holding that juveniles deserve the opportunity to demonstrate maturity and reform. [10] Thus, STAR Court’s emphasis on individualized rehabilitation directly reflects this philosophy.
Although STAR Court provides a compelling model for reform, many jurisdictions cannot simply replicate it because they lack the legal framework necessary to treat commercially sexually exploited children as victims rather than offenders. In other words, specialized trafficking courts cannot function as intended when state law continues to authorize the prosecution of minors for prostitution or fails to provide meaningful alternatives to delinquency proceedings.
Following a public call in 2013 for a shift within the justice system toward treating minors involved in commercial sex as victims, there was a proliferation at the state level of safe harbor laws that direct these youth away from the justice system in three ways—(1) immunity: from arrest and prosecution; (2) diversion: redirection towards treatment services or temporary custody; and (3) mandatory referral: placement in a youth-serving agency. [4] However, the use of these elements and supplemental ones, such as specialized services, is subject to each state’s discretion. Among the thirty-five states with safe harbor laws, three states (New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Tennessee) offer immunity alone, without mandated access to any specialized services. Sixteen (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and West Virginia) provide immunity from prosecution along with mandatory referral to youth-serving agencies. While four require law enforcement officers who detain prostituted minors to refer them to social services, without providing immunity and prohibiting the filing of criminal or delinquency charges. Lastly, twelve (Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin) allow deferred prosecution for prostitution-related charges contingent on the completion of a therapeutic treatment program. However, in some cases, these treatment programs are optional, meaning minors can still be prosecuted for prostitution and related offenses. [11] Therefore, the nationwide effectiveness and success of specialized courts such as STAR Court depends heavily on states adopting the strongest model: immunity with mandatory referral, like California.
Some case laws further illustrate the statutory differences of safe harbor protections for commercially sexually exploited children. In In the Matter of B.W. (2010), the Texas Supreme Court held that a thirteen-year-old could not be prosecuted for prostitution, because minors below the age of consent are legally incapable of consenting to commercial sex. [12] The decision reflected a growing recognition that commercially sexually exploited children should be treated as victims rather than criminals, which is the basis for STAR Court. In the Matter of Nicolette R. (2004) reached the opposite result: a twelve-year-old was prosecuted for prostitution in New York despite her inability to consent under the state’s own statutory rape laws. [13] The resulting public outrage and criticism of the decision served as the catalyst for New York’s Safe Harbor Act in 2008, showing how legal reform and public criticism can improve protections and outcomes for these young victims.
Together, these cases and STAR Court’s own foundation demonstrate that specialized trafficking courts require a statutory foundation. Establishing such a courtroom is insufficient if judges lack the authority to divert exploited youth away from prosecution. To replicate a similar model, states must adopt safe harbor protections that redefine commercially sexually exploited children as victims entitled to rehabilitation rather than punishment. Without those legal reforms, specialized courts risk reproducing the same punitive outcomes they are intended to replace.
Furthermore, even where states adopt safe harbor protections, replicating STAR Court remains difficult, because successful implementation requires sustained funding, political commitment, and coordination among multiple public agencies and community organizations. STAR Court functions because it integrates services across many institutions. Judges coordinate actively with probation officers, prosecutors, defense counsel, social workers, educators, mental health professionals, and community organizations to develop individualized plans addressing each child’s needs. This action plan requires substantial financial investment, administrative coordination, and long-term political support. However, many jurisdictions lack the resources necessary to sustain such comprehensive programs.
To this end, Sacramento’s Commercially Sexually Exploited Children Court and Caddo Parish’s Success, Treatment, Accountability, and Restitution Court illustrate both the promise and the challenges of adapting LA County’s model. Sacramento’s multidisciplinary team includes the county’s Juvenile Court, Probation Department, UC Davis Children’s Hospital CAARE Center, and nonprofit behavioral health treatment center Another Choice Another Chance. [14] Similar to LA County’s model, the team remains available to the youth around the clock, increasing trust in the system, building stronger relationships between the youth and the court team, and leading to better results in identifying sexually exploited youth. [15] Caddo Parish’s court pairs its juvenile court and probation department with the Caddo-Bossier Community Response Team and Specialized Intensive Probation Unit by using a phase system and incentives to encourage the youth to follow their conditions of probation and make better choices consciously while supporting them in their rehabilitation. [16] Both programs share STAR Court’s multidisciplinary, victim-centered approach, but their implementation varies with local funding, partnerships, and state law. This suggests that replication cannot follow a single national blueprint and must instead be adapted to local institutional capacities.
International comparisons reinforce this point. For example, several Scandinavian countries have adopted child-centered welfare systems emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration over criminalization, and South Korea’s juvenile justice framework recognizes the importance of protecting children coerced into unlawful conduct. [17] However, these international examples operate within countries that are substantially smaller than the U.S. in geographic size and population, making nationwide implementation of legal and social-service reforms more administratively centralized. Therefore, supporters of state-level authority in the U.S. may argue that differences among states are an expected consequence of American federalism rather than evidence of a broken system. But the fact that fifteen states have not adopted safe harbor protections raises a legitimate question about how much variation federalism should tolerate when the stakes are children’s treatment as victims or criminals. The international comparison, then, does not demonstrate that the U.S. should simply adopt a centralized model. Instead, it shows how the combination of legal protections, institutional capacity, and political commitment must all align before reform can occur.
LA County’s STAR Court offers one of the nation’s strongest examples of how juvenile justice can respond to CSE through rehabilitation rather than punishment. By combining judicial leadership, probation, education, mental health services, and community organizations, it recognizes that exploited children require support, not criminalization. Yet its success also reveals that specialized trafficking courts cannot simply be transplanted into jurisdictions that lack the legal authority and institutional infrastructure necessary to sustain them.
In conclusion, replicating STAR Court nationwide requires more than establishing specialized dockets. States must adopt safe harbor protections, specifically immunity with mandatory referral, that recognize commercially sexually exploited children as victims, invest in multidisciplinary partnerships to address the complex workings of rehabilitation from CSE, and commit the long-term funding necessary to maintain these services. International examples further confirm that child-centered approaches succeed when legal systems consistently prioritize recovery over punishment. If the U.S. seeks to meaningfully reform its response to child trafficking, STAR Court should serve not merely as a courtroom model, but as evidence that justice for exploited children begins with recognizing them as victims deserving protection, dignity, and a chance to rebuild their lives.
Edited by Adanur Nas
Sources:
[1] Institute of Medicine; National Research Council. Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States: A Guide for Providers of Victim and Support Services. (Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2014).
[2] Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. §7101 (2000).
[3] Stephen Gies et al, Safe Harbor Laws: Changing the Legal Response to Minors Involved in Commercial Sex, Phase 1. The Legal Review (Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2018).
[4] Institute of Medicine; National Research Council, Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States (Washington DC: National Academies Press).
[5] Judicial Council of California, and University of California, Los Angeles. An Evaluation of the Succeeding Through Achievement and Resilience (STAR) Court (San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2021).
[6] Rebecca Epstein & Peter Edelman. Blueprint: A multidisciplinary approach to the domestic sex trafficking of girls (Washington DC: Center of Poverty and Inequality at Georgetown Law, 2014).
[7] Senate Bill 1322: Decriminalizing Prostitution of Minors; Jazmine Ulloa, “California decriminalizes prostitution for minors after Gov. Jerry Brown signs bills to aid trafficking victims,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 2026, https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-california-decriminalizes-prostitution-1474918476-htmlstory.html;Edrina Nazaradeh, “There Is No Such Thing as a Child Prostitute: Why Decriminalization Is Only the First Step in California,” Pepperdine Law Review 45, no. 1 (2018): 189.
[8] California Welfare and Institutions Code, §300
[9] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. §551 (2005)
[10] Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. §48 (2010)
[11] Brandn Green et al, Safe Harbor Laws: Changing the Legal Response to Minors Involved in Commercial Sex, Phase 3. The Qualitative Analysis (Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2018).
[12] In the Matter of B.W. 313 S.W.3d Tex. 818 (2010).
[13] In the Matter of Nicolette R. 779 N.Y.S.2d 487 (App. Div. 2004)
[14] Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, CSEC (Commercial Sexually Exploited Children) Court (Sacramento: District Attorney’s Office). https://www.sacda.org/in-the-courtroom/commercial-sexually-exploited-children-court/
[15] Eraka Bath et al. “A specialty court for U.S. youth impacted by commercial sexual exploitation.” Child Abuse & Neglect 100, 104041 (2020); Judicial Council Briefing. Juvenile Collaborative Court Models: Girls’ Court and CSEC Court (San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2020).
[16] https://www.caddoclerk.com/juvenile/StarCourt.html
[17] Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, Nordic Youth Justice (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2011), 40.; Juvenile Protection Act of South Korea, §15353 (2018).