On April 20, 2017, Francisco Prado-Contreras, a community volunteer soccer coach, was arraigned in Philadelphia for allegedly committing criminal acts that resulted in his impregnating a teenage girl who played on his team. Specifically, Prado-Contreras was charged with eight criminal counts, including statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of minors.
Two days prior to Prado-Contreras’s arraignment, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) received a tip—which it relayed to police—that the seven-month-old baby of a now-fifteen-year-old girl may have been fathered by Prado-Contreras, who was thirty-nine years old at the time. To their enormous credit, the Philadelphia Police Department responded quickly to interview the potential victim. The girl informed the officers that, while she was being coached by Prado-Contreras in 2015, she approached him to request a job with his house-cleaning business. Prado-Contreras instructed the girl to meet him at an apartment that he cleans, but when she arrived, he instead coerced her into having sex with him in exchange for money. The girl further alleged that Prado-Contreras paid her for sex on four additional occasions over the course of the subsequent month until she learned she was pregnant.
At Prado-Contreras’s arraignment, bail was set at $750,000. As of this publication, Prado-Contreras was still in custody at the Curran-Fromhold County Correctional Facility, where he recently spent his fortieth birthday.
The CSE Institute applauds the vigilant citizen who took action to notify authorities of suspected commercial sexual exploitation in the community. We further commend the Philadelphia police and prosecutors for acting quickly to investigate, apprehend, and charge Prado-Contreras. However, we are disappointed that Prado-Contreras was not specifically charged with crimes of commercial sexual exploitation. We strongly encourage the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to consider bringing additional charges against Prado-Contreras.
Given the allegations against Prado-Contreras, there are several charges that were notably missing at his arraignment. First, Prado-Contreras allegedly purchased sex from the potential victim on five separate occasions. As such, he can and should be charged with five counts of “Patronizing prostitutes” under 18 Pa.C.S. 5902(e). That statute reads, “A person commits the offense of patronizing prostitutes if that person hires a prostitute or any other person to engage in sexual activity with him or her.”
Additionally, Prado-Contreras’s alleged actions constitute the crime of “Trafficking in minors” under 18 Pa.C.S. 3011(b), and accordingly, he should be charged with this crime. In relevant part, this statute provides that a person commits the crime of trafficking in minors if the person “entices, solicits, . . . [or] obtains . . . an individual,” resulting in “any sex act . . . for which anything of value is directly or indirectly given, promised to or received by any individual . . . and is induced or obtained from . . . [a] minor.” Here, Prado-Contreras allegedly enticed a fourteen-year old girl to come to an apartment with the promise of a cleaning job, but then solicited and obtained sexual intercourse from the child in exchange for something of value—money. Thus, his actions fall squarely within the definition of the crime of trafficking in minors.
While we congratulate police and prosecutors for their quick response, we encourage the DA’s Office to look closely at Prado-Contreras’s alleged criminal acts and consider bringing charges specifically relating to commercial sexual exploitation. By charging crimes of commercial sexual exploitation, prosecutors can help to effect a paradigm shift that will appropriately recognize the worth of exploited girls and women, will hold their exploiters accountable, and will contribute to ending demand for commercial sex in Philadelphia and across the Commonwealth.
 See Criminal Docket at 1-2, Pennsylvania v. Prado-Contreras, No. MC-51-CR-0011065-2017 (Mun.Ct. Philadelphia Apr. 20, 2017), https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=MC-51-CR-0011065-2017 [hereinafter Docket]; Stephanie Farr, Cops: Girl, 14, Impregnated by South Philly Soccer Coach Who Paid Her for Sex, Phill.com (Apr. 20, 2017, 5:45 PM), http://www.philly.com/philly/news/crime/Cops-teen-impregnated-soccer-coach-paid-for-sex.html.
 See Docket, supra note 1, at 2.
 See Farr, supra note 1.
 See id.
 See id.
 See id.
 See Docket, supra note 1, at 1.
 See Philadelphia Prison System, http://www.phila.gov/prisons/inmatelocator/inmatelocator.aspx (last visited Apr. 29, 2017) (searching “locate inmate” system for “Francisco Prado-Contreras”).
 For a detailed discussion of why this Pennsylvania statute should be renamed “Commercial Sexual Exploitation,” see Recommendations for Anti-Demand Legislation for Commercial Sexual Exploitation, The Villanova Law Institute To Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation, http://cseinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/National-Demand-Analysis-and-Model-Legislation.pdf.
 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5902(e) (emphasis added).
 See id. § 3011 (defining crime of Trafficking in individuals); Id. § 3001 (defining sexual servitude).