When the FBI Comes Calling…®
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND SMUGGLING (continued)
Involuntary Servitude
As discussed on our peonage page, involuntary servitude is the forced labor of a person, whether it is for pay or not. It is distinguishable from slavery, which involves the total subjugation of the slave to the master. However, the terms are often intermingled, and therefore, both are discussed on this page. The phenomena of the slave trade, and the transportation of people for labor are discussed on subsequent pages.
18 U.S.C. § 1583
The Crime
Under section 1583, there are two distinct crimes involving involuntary servitude. It is a crime for a person to do either of the following:
- Kidnap or carry away any other person, with the intent that such other person be sold into involuntary servitude, or held as a slave; or
- Entice, persuade, or induce any other person to go on board any vessel or to any other place with the intent that he may be made or held as a slave, or sent out of the country to be so made or held. 18 U.S.C. § 1583.
Jurisdiction
There is no jurisdictional statement in section 1583, but, as seen in the discussion of section 1581 on the previous page, because section 1583 implements the Thirteenth Amendment, the jurisdiction would seem to be wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends.
Case Law Interpreting Section 1583
Section 1583 often works in conjunction with section 1581. Unlike section 1581, indebtedness is not a factor in determining whether the law has been violated. Therefore, if a prosecutor can not demonstrate indebtedness, she can always attempt to show that there is involuntary servitude nonetheless. Courts look to the type and degree of control exercised over the person claiming involuntary servitude.
Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D.R.I. 1978).
Turner, discussed on the previous page, is such an example. The court in Turner determined that involuntary servitude usually includes both elements of physical restraint and complete psychological domination. The court was concerned, however, whether section 1583 should be applied when there is solely psychological control over the alleged servant. Ultimately, the court decided that it should not be so expanded. Turner at 375-76.
United States v. Mussry, 726 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1984).
Unlike Turner, Mussry stated that the means or method of coercion is not the determinative factor in determining whether a person was being held for purposes of section 1583. Mussry at 1453. Instead, the court determined that "[t]he crucial factor is whether a person intends to and does coerce an individual into his service by subjugating the will of the other person. A holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform the labor." Id. Recognizing that "economic necessity may force a person to accept jobs that they would prefer not to perform or to work for wages they would prefer not to work for," Id., the court determined that those are societal conditions and not results of an employer's conduct. Id. What is determinative is first, whether the employer's conduct was improper or wrongful, and second, whether "the challenged conduct would have had the claimed effect upon a reasonable person of the same general background and experience." Id.
Mussry was criticized in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 960 n.7, 961 (1988), discussed below in conjunction with section 1584, but Kozminski was itself criticized by Congress when Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.