An Act to amend 20.455 (2) (hd) and 48.48 (19); to create 20.437 (1) (hf), 814.75 (28), 814.76 (21), 944.35 and 973.05 (2m) (fr) of the statutes; Relating to: prostitution crime surcharge and making an appropriation. (FE)
SB138 creates a new mandatory $5,000 “prostitution crime surcharge” for people convicted of specified prostitution- and child-sex-related offenses, including patronizing or soliciting prostitutes, pandering, keeping a place of prostitution, soliciting a child for prostitution, and patronizing a child. The surcharge would be imposed in addition to any sentence, probation, fines, costs, or other fees, and would be collected through the circuit court clerk and county treasurer system.
The bill directs the surcharge revenue to two purposes. Half would go to a new appropriation for treatment and services for sex-trafficking victims, and half would support criminal investigative operations, prosecution, and task force activity related to Internet crimes against children. The bill also makes the surcharge collectible like other court obligations and applies only to offenses committed on or after the effective date.
SB138 would add a new mandatory court surcharge to Wisconsin’s criminal code and court fee statutes, creating new statutory sections and cross-references in chapters 20, 48, 814, 944, and 973. It would require courts to impose the surcharge upon conviction or probation for the listed offenses and would establish a dedicated funding stream for victim services and child-exploitation investigations. The bill would also expand the state’s appropriation structure by creating a new account for sex-trafficking victim services and by directing surcharge revenue into existing Internet-crimes-against-children enforcement funding.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no detailed debate is available. Based on the bill’s structure and purpose, the measure appears framed as a tough-on-crime and victim-services funding bill, with the stated goal of supporting trafficking victims and child-exploitation investigations. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.
The main policy tension in SB138 is between using a large mandatory surcharge on defendants and the bill’s stated funding goals. Supporters would likely emphasize the surcharge as a way to finance sex-trafficking victim services and law-enforcement efforts against Internet crimes against children, while critics could question whether a $5,000 surcharge is proportionate, collectible, or likely to burden defendants who may already face fines, restitution, and incarceration. Another possible point of contention is the allocation of revenue between victim services and law-enforcement operations, though no specific objections are documented in the provided record.