Written by Maggie Hufnagel, L’27
Sex work exists on a global scale and has for as long as there is historical record, and yet still no country can maintain a consistent and effective way to address this industry. The United States takes a layered approach making sex work illegal under both federal and state laws.[1] The Mann Act, passed June 25, 1910, uses the phrase “immoral purpose” which has historically been utilized as the basis for broadening the definition of who could and should be prosecuted.[2] In recent years, women are globally being incarcerated at a higher overall percentage than men, with the United States representing the highest numbers.[3] Because sex work is a contributing factor to these rising numbers, it seems intuitive that there would be evidence of the integration of restorative justice into the sex work sphere. . [4] However, there is little to no evidence of this happening, and the few instances where this has occurred has been met with varying results.
Restorative Justice and Sex Work in the United States.
The most common option when it comes to restorative justice for sex workers are Prostitution Diversion Programs. [5] Through the court system these programs provide alternative options to incarceration for sex workers. Prostitution diversion programs are created with the legislative intention of “solving” the societal problem that is sex for sale.[6]
The issue with these programs is that the methods used to “fix” people often result in much further harm. [7] More often than not, prostitution diversion programs require treatments for trauma and substance abuse, without using trauma-informed methods.[8] There are many key elements of trauma-informed care; safety, trustworthiness, transparency, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, voice, choice, and cultural, historical, and gender specific framings.[9] When evaluating prostitution diversion programs, often most or all of these elements are missing from the program structures. As a result, sex workers are set up to fail and because the programs have such limited success many have ended their operations altogether. [10]
Another style of diversion programs implemented by legislators are programs that focus on the clientele, not the workers. In an interview with VICE detectives and a Victims Services Advocate representative in Henrico, Virginia, I had a chance to discuss Henrico’s attempt at a prostitution diversion program.[11] This program was referred to as “John School”.[12] According to the interviewees, their experiences had shown that most sex workers clientele were men purchasing the services of women, with most of those women not actually being consenting sex workers, but coerced sex trafficking victims.[13] The purpose of “John School” was to educate these men that their actions were causing harm to the mental and physical wellbeing of the women they were hiring, whether they knew of the coercion or not.[14] The Victims Services Advocate, who helped with the coordination of “John School”, claimed that it was very rare to see a participant of the school reoffend once they were instructed on how to view these women as people instead of products.[15] Those that did were often presumed by the interviewees to be pimps that slipped through the cracks during prosecution.[16] Henrico’s “John School” is now closed due to a lack of funding.[17]
Restorative Justice and Sex Work in the United States.
In the past few years, there have been studies done on Canadian efforts to incorporate restorative justice into sex work conversations.[18] The efforts analyzed were separated into two categories: Community conferencing and health and safety classes.[19]
“Community conferencing” stemmed from court mandated diversion programs.[20] Canadian prostitution diversion programs were designed to allow people facing sex work charges to interact with community members not engaged in sex work and discuss how their actions impact those around them.[21] The overall purpose of these programs was to show sex workers the “errors of their ways” and reduce the supply side of the supply and demand needed for the sex work industry.[22] There was not effective coordination between the parties involved in this conferencing and the result was a form of psychological punishment in which sex workers were shamed and had their actions moralized by the public.[23] Set up to fail, the community conferencing was not effective in reintegrating sex workers that wanted to leave the sex work industry back into a more conservative community with their neighbors, instead it just created a further divide.[24]
Health and safety courses were designed to curb the high recidivism rates of first-time client offenders.[25] This is the equivalent of the Henrico John School.[26] By framing their actions as harmful to the community, immoral, and in need of rehabilitation, these courses prime their participants to internalize the teachings of the available health education or treatment courses.[27]
Evaluation of the Program Structure.
There is a consistent theme surrounding these sex work specific ‘restorative justice’ efforts: All the effort focused on saving an individual from the immoral thing we call sex work. The voices of the clientele and especially the voices of the workers are silenced by the indignation of those that participate on the community’s behalf. How does this structure allow for any restoration? Each of these restorative justice alternatives are structured around the assumption that all sex workers are victims, and that workers would only participate in these kinds of actions if they were either uneducated, self-sabotaging, or forced. Sex trafficking and coercion are, of course serious problems too, but they ought to be treated as a separate issue from consensual sex work. To conflate independent, autonomous choices with forced or coerced actions is a dangerous and slippery slope. Should legislators proceed with creating and enforcing prostitution diversion programs, they should be structured around the goal of education supported by trauma-informed communications and rehabilitations.
Censorship in Education and Community.
Recently, I also conducted an interview with a sex worker about their experiences in the sex work industry.[28] They made sure to impress upon me the impacts made by SESTA (Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act) and FOSTA (Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act) in the sex work community. [29] Both of these Acts were designed to better protect people in the digital space from sex trafficking.[30] One of those impacts being that these Acts censored a lot of resources that were being used to help protect both sex workers and sex trafficking victims.[31] The end result has been a more dangerous working environment and a shift of power towards exploitative sex.[32] Just because something is created with good intentions does not mean it always works out that way, and it is our duty to right something that has gone wrong.
Conclusions.
In my interview, the sex worker discussed the negative impacts social stigma has on their ability to be safe, be heard, and be seen as human.[33] This is where the restorative portion of the existing restorative justice efforts are failing. When examining the community conferencing model, there is the potential to be beneficial, so long as the conversation format changes from the community ‘talking at’ sex workers and the community ‘talking with’ sex workers. There needs to be acknowledgment of the systematic harm and shame put on the sex work community, historically and continually, for any form of restoration to occur.
—
Burdun, Photograph of a Lady Justice statute, scales, and gavel on a pink background, from Freepik.
[1] See, Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421.; Va. Code Ann. §18.2-346 (2025).
[2] See id.; Mann Act, Legal Info. Inst., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mann_act (Sep 22, 2025).
[3] Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide, Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide, World Prison Brief, https://www.prisonstudies.org/news/female-prison-population-growing-faster-male-worldwide (2025).
[4] Id.
[5] See, Put Your Metrics Where Your Mouth is: An Evaluation Rubric for Prostitution Diversion Programs, Global Health Justice Partnership, law.yale.edu, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/area/center/ghjp/evaluation_rubric_for_prostitution_diversion_programs.pdf (2025).
[6] Shelly A. Wiechelt, Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care: How Prostitution Diversion Programs Miss the Mark, 27 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y, 108 (2024). https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp/vol27/iss1/3.
[7] See id. at 110; Reports on prostitution “diversion” programs, Yale Law School, https://law.yale.edu/ghjp/projects/gender-sexuality-and-rights/reports-prostitution-diversion-programs (2025).
[8] Supra Note 6.
[9] Id. at 110.
[10] Supra Note 7 at 112.
[11] In Person Interview: Interview with Three Anonymous Vice Detectives, Henrico, Va. and Anonymous Victims Services Advocate Henrico, Va., (August 27, 2024).
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Lewis, Shifting the Focus: Restorative Justice and Sex Work, 52 Canadian J. of Criminology and Crim. Just., Volume 52, No.3, 285-301 (June 2010). https://muse.jhu.edu/article/381536/pdf.
[19] Id at 290.
[20] Id.
[21] Id at 287.
[22] Id at 289, 290.
[23] Id at 290.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Supra Note 11.
[27] Supra Note 18.
[28] Remote Interview: Interview with Anonymous Sex Worker, Burlington, Vt. (April 26, 2023).
[29] Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, S. 1693, 115th Cong. (2018); Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, H.R. 1865, 115th Cong. (2018).
[30] Id.
[31] What is Sesta/Fosta?, Decriminalize Sex Work, https://decriminalizesex.work/advocacy/sesta-fosta/what-is-sesta-fosta/#What-Impact-Does-SESTA-FOSTA-Have (2023).
[32] Id.
[33] Supra Note 28.