331 – Retribution and Restitution, with Daniel Varon

Dr. Sandie Morgan is joined by Daniel Varon as the two discuss the important of retribution and restitution for victims of trafficking and abuse.

Daniel Varon

Daniel Varon joined the Zalkin Law firm in 2020 bringing his experience as an attorney in the Office of the District Attorney in Orange County.  He is an experienced trial attorney, having tried approximately 60 jury trials during his work as Deputy District Attorney. The California District Attorney Investigators Association recognized him as Prosecutor of the Year in 2017. While at the Orange County DA’s office, Daniel worked in the Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit (HEAT). He maintained a full caseload and tried the first human trafficking of a minor case, following the passage of Prop 35. As a Senior Deputy in the DA’s office, he handled pre-trial writs in the California Court of Appeals, drafted and argued appeals in the California Court of Appeal and Superior Court appellate department, and drafted requests for review in the California Supreme Court. During his time with the Orange County DA, he was also deeply involved in developing and presenting comprehensive human trafficking training programs for law enforcement and prosecutors in 12 counties across California. He served as a subject matter expert for California’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and training for development of its human trafficking training video and the Post Institute of Criminal Investigations, advancing human trafficking investigations. Before his work at the Orange County District Attorney’s office, he worked for the law firm of Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley and Jennett in Los Angeles.

Key Points

Resources

Transcript

Sandra Morgan 0:14

Welcome to the Ending Human Trafficking Podcast here at Vanguard University’s Global Center for Women and Justice in Orange County, California. This is episode #331: Retribution and Restitution, with Daniel Varon. My name is Dr. Sandie Morgan and this is the show where we empower you to study the issues, be a voice, and make a difference in ending human trafficking. Our guest today is Daniel Varon, and he joined the Zalkin Law firm in 2020 but I knew him a long time before that. His experience as an attorney in the office of the district attorney in Orange County was a huge part of the battle against human trafficking in my backyard. He is an experienced trial attorney, having tried approximately 60 jury trials during his work as Deputy District Attorney. He was recognized as Prosecutor of the Year by the California District Attorney Investigators Association in 2017. That’s an amazing honor, and I congratulate you. While at the Orange County DA’s office, Daniel worked in the Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit. Colloquially, we called it the “HEAT Unit,” because they put heat on those traffickers. He maintained a full case load and tried the first human trafficking of a minor case, following passage of Prop 35. As a Senior Deputy in the DA’s office, he also handled pre-trial writs in the California Court of Appeals, drafted and argued appeals in the California Court of Appeal and Superior Court appellate department, and drafted requests for review in the California Supreme Court. Now to my listeners, you know I don’t usually do long bios, but I think this could be like a timeline for those aspiring attorneys that have talked to me, who want to be in the battle as an advocate. So I’m going to do just a little more than usual. During his time with the Orange County DA, he was also deeply involved in developing and presenting comprehensive human trafficking training programs for law enforcement and prosecutors in 12 counties across California. He served as a subject matter expert for California’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and training for development of its human trafficking training video and for the Post Institute of Criminal Investigations, advancing human trafficking investigations. This is really important because we need those who have gone and been pioneers to help all of us reach the same level. Prior to his work at the Orange County District Attorney, he worked for the law firm of Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley and Jennett in Los Angeles. He has done so many outstanding things, and I think learning more about him outside of when he was serving here in Orange County, my favorite new thing to learn is that when he was at Southwestern University School of Law, he received the Best Advocate Award. I think we could all agree that he still qualifies in that area. Danny, welcome to the Ending Human Trafficking Podcast, and I apologize for that long bio.

Daniel Varon 4:33

Well, thank you, Sandie. It’s great to be here, it’s great to see you. I think I did your podcast, I think seven years ago, while we were in the midst of all of this. Maybe longer, actually. It was great to see you in Orange County a few months ago, and it’s great to do your podcast. Thank you for having me.

Sandra Morgan 4:50

I plan to put the link to that podcast in the show notes, so people, if you want more of the content we’re going to talk about here, you can go back and listen to our previous conversation. Let’s get a little history on what happened here in Orange County and what it was like for you to be on the first HEAT team.

Daniel Varon 5:15

Well, it was amazing. And I have to say, I was thinking over those days, back in 2011/2012 when we were envisioning what the HEAT unit would look like. It’s hard not to feel like I was the Forrest Gump of human trafficking. Honestly, and you remember back in those early days, we were law enforcement led. We had a grant from the federal government, from the FBI. We had a wonderful federal agent, Steve Wrathall, who kind of spearheaded that effort. They created a task force at Anaheim Police Department, I think in 2010, and part of what they were obligated to do as part of receiving that grant was to learn and then train on human trafficking. In 2011 I happen to be assigned to a felony prosecution unit that dealt with the Northern District of Orange County, and that included Anaheim. I happened to get a few piping cases on my caseload, and we happened to get one close to trial, and that’s how I met those police officers. Greg Freeze, Shane Carringer, Paul Delgado, and others, I don’t want to leave anybody out, I probably did. I really followed their lead. I mean, these were guys that were willing to learn and do new things. They were vice officers at the time, and they took a new approach, and I learned the approach from them. It’s embarrassing to hear my bio read like that. Thank you for the kind words and the kind introduction, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, like I said, I was the Forrest Gump of human trafficking that happened to be in the right place at the right time, and if I was smart on anything, it was I was smart enough to follow the lead of really good police officers.

Sandra Morgan 6:53

Thank you. That’s great. I worked with police officers before we had a vertical prosecutor, and I left the Office of Admin for the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force just as you were coming on. The difference in the outcomes for our victims were astronomical with the vertical prosecutor being available. Can you explain what that means?

Daniel Varon 7:32

Sure, Orange County, I think, is different from a lot of DA’soffices, in that it really does have a vertical prosecution model for the serious felonies. What that means, as opposed to a non vertical prosecution model is, the best way I could illustrate it is the difference between what I would say are garden variety felonies, simple assaults, burglaries, robberies, non gang crimes, non sex crimes, non homicides, those garden variety felonies are handled by different units at different times. So somebody gets arrested, police officers prepare reports, they submit it to a preliminary hearing unit, and they’re the unit that’s just designed to go to court to show the judge that there’s probable cause to hold the defendant to answer on those charges, and then once that happens, it gets submitted to a general felony unit, which is the unit that I was speaking about earlier, that I was assigned to the north team for. Then it’s prosecuted to trial by a trial deputy, and then if there’s a conviction and an appeal, the appeal gets handled by the Attorney General’s Office. Vertical prosecution means, instead of having these two separate units within the DA’s office that handle the first and the second phase of the case, the vertical prosecution teams tend to be assigned to specific crimes. Because they’re assigned to specific crimes, they get very involved with the police officers who investigate those crimes. We get very involved in understanding how the crimes work, how they’re investigated, how they’re prosecuted, and we get involved from the very earliest stage. The moment that a crime occurs, the police officers know who the assigned prosecutor is going to be, they can have conversations to make sure that the evidence is collected in the right way, that all of the elements to the crime are accounted for, it’s the DA who reviews those search warrants, reviews all the evidence as it comes in, and is able to meet the victim at the earliest possible stage. And then it also creates consistency for the victim of crime, because the victim has one prosecutor that she knows is handling her case and as it works through the process. It’s, in my view for serious crimes and for complicated crimes, it’s a much more effective and meaningful way to present a case through the process. It’s more effective for the victims. It’s more effective for law enforcement, and, quite frankly, I think it’s more effective for the courts. If you think about homicide, homicide is very complicated, and you want an attorney on the case who really understands the intricacies of the law of homicide. Human trafficking is no different. Human trafficking is very complicated in many respects. It’s complicated because of the social and the psychological components of it, you really have to understand what makes that trafficking relationship tick. You really have to understand the victimization. We used to call it, in the trainings, we used to refer to it as victimology. How does a trafficker recruit their victims? What are they looking for? What characteristics? How do they manipulate them? How do they bring them in? How do they keep them trafficked? You need somebody that has really immersed themselves in that culture, so to speak. And then you also need somebody who understands how to take that information and apply it to the laws. In our case with trafficking, we also were involved in drafting laws. If we thought things needed to change, we were not quiet about drafting proposals to send them to the legislature as well, and I think over time, that vertical prosecution model gave us a lot more credibility with the courts. As we got more and more cases through the court system, the judges knew that we were the trafficking attorneys, that we understood the law. It felt like, at times, since I’m not in the the DA’s office anymore and I don’t practice criminal law in Orange County, I could say it, but there were many times that we felt that we were educating the bench, and that was a really, really important facet of what we felt our role was and what we were doing.

Sandra Morgan 11:31

That speaks to one of the elements we talk a lot about on this podcast, is collaboration and federal grants, for the last decade or so, have focused on an enhanced collaborative model. Without building trust, it is not possible to really collaborate, and that’s what I observed with the HEAT unit. I worked in the juvenile courts, and could see the trust between all of the partners supporting one youth who was now involved in this case. So kudos for the emphasis on including the folks on the bench, the law enforcement, the victim service people. I always felt, as a part of the task force, that I was personally part of the victories that we then had with the convictions.

Daniel Varon 12:34

Actually, if I can just add one crucial component there, which is that the way that the task force was structured at the beginning, and that I think it’s still supposed to be structured, but I haven’t been there for four and a half years, is it wasn’t just police, and that’s to your point, right? It wasn’t just police and law enforcement. The trust was absolutely crucial. We had to earn the trust of the juvenile defenders, the attorneys who were representing minors who were going through the juvenile court process, we had to earn their trust that if there was a minor that we recommended for detention in a juvenile facility for a short period of time, we had to earn their trust so that they understood that we were doing it to protect the minor from being trafficked, from being abused, from being victimized further. There were some wonderful juvenile defenders who understood that, and we were able to work with them to figure out what’s really in the best interest of the minor. That’s the crutch of California’s juvenile delinquency program. Really, the obligation is for everybody to look at it from the perspective of what’s best for the minor, and we did that, and I’m really, really proud of the work that we were able to do through the juvenile court system. As you know, we had an amazing judge during my time there, Judge Maria Hernandez. She was somebody who was just so dedicated to trying to figure out how to use the courts in the proper way to try to help the minors. She was instrumental in that process. The public defenders who were assigned there that we worked with, some of them were really, really terrific as well. The trust that you’re referring to, it has to go much further beyond just law enforcement and prosecutor, it has to go system wide.

Sandra Morgan 14:16

Absolutely. Thank you for that, and thanks for the shout out for Judge Hernandez. We’ll put her interviews in the show notes too, because she has some great comments to add to this. But now you’re not here in Orange County, and you’ve moved from criminal law to civil. What is that about?

Daniel Varon 14:38

You know, it was just the right time for me. I had a very long commute, and that wasn’t the only thing, certainly. But the work that we were doing in human trafficking is very taxing. We really, like I’ve alluded to, we really made it our business to be involved. It was never a nine to five job for us, in the unit. Brad, Shane, Laban, who you know obviously, and the others, Julia and the others that we worked with, Brian who is now a judge, we worked a lot. I think when we each came in, the entire emphasis of the HEAT unit and what we were doing was the victim centered approach, that we were taking the perspective of the victim and really trying to do what was in the best interest of the victim, and to achieve justice. Our jobs as prosecutors, fundamentally, were to achieve justice, and we were dealing with crimes that, by their nature, are recidivist. They’re not crimes that, they’re not one-offs. Somebody commits an assault in a bar, a lot of times that could be a one-off offense. Somebody steals a car, you hope that’s a one-off offense. The very nature of human trafficking is that it’s a crime that continues, it’s of a continuing nature. They recruit and victimize somebody so that they can sell them over and over and over and over. And every time they do it, it’s the money maker for the perpetrator. And so we know that when people get out of prison in this arena, they reoffend. I don’t know what the percentages are, but I venture to say it’s in the high 90s. We saw recidivist offenders over and over again. From our perspective, achieving justice meant that if you had an offender, it was our obligation, within our ethical bounds and ethical constraints, to use admissible evidence to ensure that they were convicted and that they were sentenced appropriately. We were focused on it, and we knew that learning and understanding and growing was key to that, so we went out with our law enforcement partners on ride alongs a lot. I spent many, 12:00 till 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning on Harbor Boulevard in Santa Ana to learn. I’ve been out to Anaheim’s tracks on Harbor and Beach Boulevard a lot. There were times when juveniles werelocated, where I’d go in at five o’clock in the morning so that I could interview her with the police officer. Those are things that we did, and so it’s very taxing. It’s taxing our families, it’s taxing physically and emotionally, obviously, the subject matter is very difficult. After my time in the HEAT Unit, around 2019, I was moved into the writs and appeals unit, which was a welcome change of pace for me. At that time, I kind of started to reassess where I was at. I did sort of a mental check in, because I don’t share this very much, but in my mind, as a prosecutor, every three or four years, I’d sort of reassess where I was at. I did that because I felt like it was my obligation to either recommit, mentally and emotionally to what I was doing, or find something else that I would commit to. Because if you’re just going along like, “Oh, it’s going to be a 30 year career,” you get stale. You don’t bring the same passion to your work, and it’s not fair to the victims that we try to achieve justice for. It’s not fair to our colleagues. It’s not fair to the office. It was 2019, I was kind of going through that mental check in, sort of, to see where we were. I knew Irwin’s Zalkin and I’d actually given a presentation. He asked me to give a presentation at IVAT down in San Diego, which is – you’re nodding. I think you know what IVAT may be, right?

Sandra Morgan 18:20

But for our listeners.

Daniel Varon 18:22

Well, I’m going to get the acronym wrong, but it’s an institute that focuses on violence against women, essentially sexual abuse and domestic violence. I gave a human trafficking presentation there, and we had remained in contact. By early 2020, we were in touch, and I ended up here. This is really, it’s a perfect progression for me. What we do in our firm, the vast majority of the work we do is representing victims of childhood sex abuse. Some of that overlaps, obviously, with human trafficking. What we had seen, we never actually got deep into the statistics, but it was very obvious to us that many of our human trafficking victims have been sexually abused when they were minors. Whether they were adult or child victims, when we got them in human trafficking, we learned that a lot of them were abused early. You’ve heard me say this before, Sandie, but we wanted to learn From traffickers and traffickers themselves talk about targeting young women who have been sexually abused when they were minors, it’s one of the risk factors to getting trafficked. The damage that’s done to a child who’s sexually abused is incalculable. It’s a lifelong, life lasting impact, and obviously it impacts everybody differently. For some people it made them more vulnerable to sexual abuse beyond the initial abuse. For others, it made them more vulnerable to human trafficking. For others, it makes them more vulnerable to alcohol abuse or drug abuse, difficulty with relationships. I mean, the manifestations of harm that are done when a child is sexually abused you really just can’t put to words the lifelong impact. For me, this is like the perfect place to be, it’s really where my passion is, is helping people who have been victimized in that way. The natural progression for me was, when I came here, is to look at, well, what about the civil component to human trafficking? And it’s something that we’ve spent a lot of time talking about and looking at, and researching. That’s an area that we’re certainly open to as well, it’s trying to find restitution for people who are victimized in that way as well.

Sandra Morgan 20:31

In some of my focus groups with victims of human trafficking, one of the consistent themes that comes up is what justice looks like. It began to concern me that their response was more about restitution so they could build a new life, and they really didn’t care if the sentence was five years or 25 years. If they were out of the system and independent, self reliant, it was a new life. I began watching restitution. I watched some restitution cases in the civil courts in Los Angeles, and I talked to those victims. Can you compare criminal justice with civil justice?

Daniel Varon 21:32

There’s a lot of misconceptions, I think people don’t fully appreciate what the role is of a prosecutor. I alluded to it earlier, that as much as we felt that we were trying to achieve justice for the victims, the main distinction between civil and criminal law, I think, if you wanted to just pick one, the main one is that as a prosecutor you don’t represent the victim. In civil law, if you’re a plaintiff’s attorney and you represent somebody who’s been trafficked or been sexually abused, you represent that person. So everything you do is geared towards achieving some result for that person. On the criminal side, you represent the people of the state of California. That might sound a little cheesy. When you look at a criminal complaint, it says the people of the state of California vs., and then it names the defendant. When we would stand up in court as prosecutors, we would say, “Daniel Varon for the people.” Some people might say, “Well, that sounds a little bit strange or a little bit cheesy, or hokey, or whatever,” but it’s not. Every individual in California has an interest in the Fair Administration of Justice, and part of that means that when somebody commits a crime against society by victimizing another member of society, it’s up to a prosecutor to stand up on their behalf, to ensure that justice is done for what happened. We know that there are many, many crimes out there, human trafficking oftentimes is one of them, where the victim, like you said, has no interest in their perpetrator going to jail there. How many domestic violence cases do we know about where the victim goes sideways and she doesn’t want her partner or spouse in jail? It happens over and over again, but the role of a prosecutor is, we can take into account what a victim tells us, but at the end of the day, it’s not a victim’s decision whether a case is brought or not brought. On the flip side to that is, a victim can yell and scream that she wants somebody to be prosecuted, but again, we have ethical obligations to represent the people, and if we don’t have admissible evidence of the crime, we don’t get to bring case, right. One of the hardest things that you ever do as a prosecutor is, a crime that you know was committed against a victim who you know was victimized, but you know that you don’t have admissible evidence to prove it to 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. That was our burden, and so you have to decide not to file the case. It’s an agonizing decision at times, but it’s one of the most important decisions that you make as a prosecutor, is the decision whether to file or not to file. On the civil side, obviously we have ethical burdens on when we bring a case or file a case on behalf of a client, but we represent the client, and we try to achieve an outcome for the client. You make recommendations to the clients, but there are certain things that only a client can decide. It’s not the same on the criminal side.

Sandra Morgan 24:31

In your work, on the civil side now, how is that impacting justice for victims?

Daniel Varon 24:40

Well, our justice system is, I would argue we have the best in the world, in my opinion, but it’s not perfect. We can strive for perfection, and I think the fact that, as a society, I think we’re always moving the ball forward, but we’re not there yet. One of the imperfections, I think, is that there really is no way that I have found, to achieve full restitution for victims on the criminal side. That doesn’t mean that in all cases you’ll never get restitution, but in the vast majority of cases that I’ve seen, it’s really difficult to get full financial restitution for victims. We’re not talking about somebody stole your car and you lost $5,000, and then you got $5,000 back and got a new car. Okay that, fine, you get restitution. But when you talk about sexual abuse of a child, or you talk about human trafficking, which involves obviously sexual abuse of a child or a young woman, and I know I’ve been very gendered, by the way, but in my time at the DA’s office, I hadn’t prosecuted any cases where they were male victims. I don’t mean, at all, to suggest that there are not male victims of human trafficking, we know there are, but in my experience that I had dealt with, it was always female victims, and so that’s why I keep using ‘she,’ so please don’t take anything by that. But, you talk about the lifelong needs of somebody who’s been trafficked or sexually abused as a child, the cost is astronomical. The impact to that person is potentially lifelong counseling. Which estimates show that somebody who’s sexually abused as a child could cost anywhere from 250 to $400,000 over the course of their lifetime, just in therapy costs. What about their ability to go to school, housing, change in their employment outlook? What about all of the things that we really don’t talk about a lot, like sexual dysfunction? I’ve dealt with a lot of cases with male victims of child sex abuse, and there are ramifications for them that a lot of people don’t like to talk about. Sometimes we’ll question sexuality. Sometimes we’ll have sexual dysfunction. These things interfere with relationships. There’s no criminal court that will look at an 11 or 12 or 13 year old child who’s sexually abused and say, “Well, I’m going to award $500,000 or 600,000, or a million or 2 million, or ten million dollars to account for all of these things that we expect you to be impacted with over the next 65 years of life expectancy.” It just doesn’t work that way. The side note to that, Sandie, is that even if it did in the perfect world, where the abuser is caught and prosecuted and sentenced under California’s laws, they’re going to be away for a while. So, if they don’t have money sitting around, they’re not going to pay any kind of judgment. Even if a judge ordered hundreds of thousands of dollars of restitution on a criminal case, what happens from a practical standpoint is the victim gets a restitution order, then he or she can go in and try to enforce the restitution order. It becomes a judgment, and then it’s enforceable as a judgment. So go and enforce the judgment against somebody that doesn’t have any assets to speak of, and doesn’t have any prospects for future earnings. It’s just a piece of paper.

Sandra Morgan 28:05

So with the civil approach, how does that overcome that hurdle?

Daniel Varon 28:11

The civil approach, what we really emphasize in our cases is, whether there are other entities that are responsible for the abuse that happened. If there was a school or a church, or a business or something that was aware that somebody was a risk to abuse, and they turned a blind eye, they covered it up, or what have you, they didn’t follow their own policies and procedures, things like that. If there’s an entity that’s responsible, then you can bring a lawsuit against the entity and you can achieve restitution that way. A lot of the entities are insured, for example, for negligence. If they’ve negligently failed to protect somebody from a known abuser, or they negligently fail to supervise their agent, their teacher, their priest, whatever, then that’s something that they can be held accountable for, and that’s a way to achieve restitution for a victim of some of these offenses.

Sandra Morgan 29:10

I’ve worked in the public, non-profit sector for decades, and this is always, in my job description, under ‘risk management,’ because we know that we need to follow certain guidelines. For me, I’m curious if you feel that this approach supports maybe transferring some of the, I can’t really find the right words, but I’ve gone into hotels, to hospitals, to churches, and done training, but it’s always been- not always, I don’t want to say always- it often feels like I’m just checking a box. But when you hit the bottom line, it’s more than checking a box. Can you give me your understanding of that aspect on restitution?

Daniel Varon 30:15

Yeah, well, that’s 100% right. The reality is that there are, in our society, there are institutions that we put our trust in all the time, and we trust them with our most precious also. We’re talking about schools. We trust the school to supervise our children, we don’t even think about it most of the time. You have a kid, kid’s in second grade, you go to the first day of school, you drop them off at school. If it’s a private school, maybe you looked at the school, you interviewed there, and you looked at the facilities and all of that. But how many of us are going into the personnel records and checking to see if somebody’s had a prior complaint of abuse? We don’t get to do that, even if you wanted to, but most of us wouldn’t even think to ask that. And we kind of take for granted that these schools that have, really by having a name on the door, we trust them. If it’s a public school, it has the added credibility of being a government institution, and we trust them. We just drop our kids off, and then we come back six hours later and pick them up. And that’s it. If you want to make sure that institutions are doing what they’re supposed to do when you entrust your most precious things in the world, your children to them, then you have to hold them accountable when they fail to do it, because, like you said, the last thing that they want to do is lose funding. Whether it’s a private or public institution, they don’t want to lose funding. Most of these institutions are insured, and insurance companies are in the business of managing risk, and if you can’t follow the insurance company’s guidelines on managing your risk, you’re not going to get insurance, which means you’re going to be exposed as an entity to the liability. Some insurance policies have exclusions. One of the exclusions they have is that they don’t insure things that are expected or intended. So think about it this way: you get in your car, you get into an accident, god forbid, you’re insured. Because you had an accident. It’s negligence on your part or somebody else’s part, or both your parts. That’s what insurance is for. We buy it and hope we never need it, that’s what it’s for, it’s for those accidents. You drive your car and you see somebody you don’t like on the sidewalk, and you decide to intentionally drive your car up on the sidewalk and run them down, that’s intended. Now, insurance company is going to say, “Sorry, we have an expected or intended clause, you’re excluded. We’re not covering that. You’re on your own.” Well, let’s say you had a teacher in a school that was continually accused by students of sexual abuse. They keep reporting it, and the school investigates it, and then they don’t really do much about the teacher. Well, at some point, an insurance company could look at that and say, “This is expected or intended, we’re not covering this,” and then the schools on the hook. They don’t want that. It’s a way of giving them a negative incentive to do what they should do anyway, and how it translates into trafficking is, ou’ve got civil laws that specifically allow a plaintiff who’s been trafficked to hold institutions, the one that always comes to mind is hotels and motels, accountable. If they’re not doing their part to prevent human trafficking on their premises, and that’s another avenue for victims to achieve restitution, is through those institutions that were in a position to help, had an obligation to help, and didn’t.

Sandra Morgan 33:44

I have so much hope in how this translates in our communities to more corporate responsibility, more government responsibility. Because even if the initial response is not because I presented a passionate cry to protect our children, but because the board of directors is expecting that the bottom line is met. This is like a new tool, maybe not so new, but certainly you’re fine tuning the approach so that it actually is, like you said earlier, a progression in your work. In our final moments here, I’d love to hear, what have you changed your mind about since you started this journey as an advocate fighting human trafficking?

Daniel Varon 34:45

You know, I’ve given that a lot of thought, and it’s a complicated question. Because I feel like I’ve gone through this evolution, not only as a prosecutor, not only as an attorney, but as a human being, and as a father, as a husband. I mean, I’ve learned so much in the process. I started my life as a prosecutor in Orange County, which we always refer to it as being ‘behind the orange curtain.’ We said there was such a difference between the way they prosecute crimes in LA and Orange County, and we really prided ourselves on what we viewed as the relative safety of Orange County, and we felt that we were an integral part of that, and that meant that our job was in seeking justice, to hold people accountable for what they did. We believed very strongly in personal responsibility, and so that’s how we approach the job. As a young and naive prosecutor in the mid i2000s, let’s say 2006/2007-2010, if you saw a young woman come into court with prostitution charges, you would see the same thing. That she had been in three or four, or five different jurisdictions. She got arrested and then failed to appear in each one of those jurisdictions. I would look at that, say, “She’s thumbing her nose. She’s giving the big middle finger to the courts. She’s just saying, ‘I don’t care about you. Your law doesn’t matter. Whatever.'” You would say, “Well, Judge, she needs 90 days of jail. She’s got to be in jail,” and that’s the only tool we thought we had, right. When we get to 2010/2011 and I start working with the guys I mentioned earlier, started to learn the victimology component and what it was that was driving this set of crimes. We didn’t stop to think, ‘How does this young woman, who’s been to five different places to get arrested, how does she get here? She doesn’t live here, but she’s got no phone and she’s got no wallet, she’s got no money.’ We never stopped to think about that, right. Part of it was learning that in 2011 let’s say, and understanding the bigger picture to the crime, and understanding that these were victims that were being brought there, that were being exploited. That changed everything. What it gave me was a sense of greater empathy and understanding to the human trafficking world, and I think that we try to operate,as much as we can, with that empathy and understanding and victim centered approach. But I say it’s an evolution because empathy can be great, but empathy can go too far. I know that in today’s day and age, that might be a very controversial thing to say, and if my wife listens to this it may be controversial in my own house, but it can be. I think where I’ve come today, through this evolution, is that what we do needs to be informed by an empathetic approach and an understanding of both sides of an issue and who we’re dealing with, but blind empathy can also be very dangerous. It can remove from us skepticism, which can be very important, especially as an attorney, you have to have a skeptical eye about a lot of things. But it’s also counterproductive for the person that you’re empathetic towards. You can kill somebody with kindness, and I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it with an approach to victims sometimes, and I’ve seen it with an approach to clients sometimes, where you want to do everything for a person because you care so deeply about what they’ve been through, and you want to help them, but you remove their ability to learn to help themselves. If somebody doesn’t learn to help themselves, they’re never going to get out of the human trafficking life. They’re never going to heal from sexual abuse. They, I think more than anything, what I’ve seen is that people who’ve been victimized, just like the rest of us, they need empathic understanding from people around them, but they also need structure and guidance, they need to have confidence, and they need to know that they have the ability to stand on their own feet and walk forward. Sometimes empathy can be an impediment to that.

Sandra Morgan 38:51

Wow. Okay, a little choked up here. I’m going to spend some time thinking about that, and I’m so grateful, Daniel, that you came to the podcast today. I’m probably going to call you again once I process all of that. Wow, that was not what I thought you’d say, but really valuable. And I ask listeners to maybe go back and listen to that part again, just hit your rewind button. As we’re winding up here, I want to tell our listeners thank you, and go to the endinghumantrafficking.org website, and in the show notes you’ll find previous interviews and interviews with the people that Daniel mentioned here. Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, and I’ll be back in two weeks. Danny, thank you so much.

Daniel Varon 39:49

Thank you, Sandie, it’s such a pleasure to talk to you.