Children Are Not for Sale Act
HB1082, titled the "Children Are Not for Sale Act," would expand Colorado’s human trafficking statute for minors by adding a new form of trafficking for sexual servitude. Under the bill, a person commits the offense not only by selling, recruiting, harboring, transporting, or otherwise making a minor available for commercial sexual activity, but also by trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor whom the person knows is being trafficked for sexual servitude. The bill also states that in a prosecution under this new provision, lack of knowledge of the minor’s age, or a belief that the minor was 18 or older, is not a defense.
The bill makes a major penalty change: human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude would be reclassified from a class 2 felony to a class 1 felony, and the court would be required to impose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The bill also preserves the governor’s authority to grant a pardon, clemency, or commute a sentence. If enacted, it would amend Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-3-504 and significantly increase the punishment available for this offense.
The stated legislative purpose is to respond to what the General Assembly describes as an alarming increase in human trafficking, especially involving children, and to strengthen deterrence because current penalties allegedly allow parole eligibility too soon. The bill’s framing emphasizes child protection and a zero-tolerance approach to commercial sexual exploitation of minors.
The available voting history shows the bill did not advance in House Judiciary: it was postponed indefinitely on a 7-2 vote using a reverse roll call. That outcome suggests the bill faced enough opposition or concern in committee to stop it at that stage, even though the bill text itself reflects a strong punitive policy response. No committee transcript was provided, so the specific arguments for or against the bill are not available in the record here.
Overall, the bill appears to have been supported in principle as a child-protection measure, but the extreme sentencing change likely raised concerns about proportionality, mandatory life imprisonment, and the scope of criminal liability. The main point of contention appears to be whether escalating the offense to a life-without-parole felony is an appropriate and effective response to trafficking, versus whether it is overly severe or inflexible.
HB1082 would amend Colorado’s human trafficking statute, section 18-3-504, by adding a new trafficking-related act involving trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor known to be trafficked for sexual servitude. It would also eliminate the existing class 2 felony penalty for human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude and replace it with a class 1 felony carrying mandatory life imprisonment without parole, while preserving the governor’s clemency and commutation powers. The bill would therefore substantially increase criminal exposure for defendants and intensify sentencing for this offense.
The bill’s stated purpose and title reflect a strong pro-child-protection and anti-trafficking sentiment, with lawmakers describing the measure as necessary to combat an alarming rise in child trafficking and to ensure children are not treated as commodities. However, the committee outcome indicates that the proposal did not receive enough support to move forward, as House Judiciary postponed it indefinitely on a 7-2 vote. That suggests broad agreement with the goal of fighting trafficking, but not necessarily with the bill’s mandatory life-without-parole penalty or its overall severity.
The main point of contention is the sentencing provision: HB1082 would convert the offense from a class 2 felony to a class 1 felony and require life imprisonment without parole, which is a much harsher punishment than current law. Another likely point of debate is the new offense’s scope, including the provision covering trading anything of monetary value for sexual activity with a trafficked minor and the rule that lack of knowledge of age is not a defense. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence and child protection, while opponents may view the bill as overly punitive, inflexible, or disproportionate relative to existing trafficking penalties.