According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the full fiscal impact of SB 1278 cannot be determined due to insufficient data on how often the proposed affirmative defense would be applicable in real-world prosecutions. While the bill establishes an affirmative defense for individuals who are victims of trafficking or compelling prostitution, there is currently no quantifiable data on the number of cases where this defense would be successfully invoked, making it difficult to estimate the extent of its impact on the criminal justice system.

However, the bill may lead to a reduction in the demand for both state and local correctional resources. By allowing certain defendants to avoid prosecution or conviction when they demonstrate that their conduct was coerced due to victimization, SB 1278 could decrease the number of people who are either incarcerated or placed under community supervision (e.g., probation). This may result in potential cost savings for both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and local jails or supervision agencies, although the magnitude of those savings is speculative at this time.

Local governments may also benefit from reduced caseloads and detention costs associated with individuals who otherwise would have been prosecuted and potentially confined. Nevertheless, because the specific frequency and success rate of this affirmative defense remain unknown, neither the state nor local jurisdictions can forecast precise budgetary changes.

In short, while the bill has the potential to generate modest cost savings within the criminal justice system by diverting some victims of trafficking from prosecution, the fiscal implications remain indeterminate until additional data becomes available.

The bill creates a narrowly tailored affirmative defense for individuals who were victims of human trafficking or compelling prostitution and who committed criminal acts under coercion, duress, or threat by their traffickers. The bill modernizes Texas duress law by recognizing that the control traffickers exert often goes beyond immediate physical harm—it includes psychological manipulation, threats to family, and financial dependency.

The bill strikes a careful balance between compassion for trafficking survivors and the integrity of the legal process. By requiring the coercion to originate from the trafficker and applying a “reasonable person” standard, the bill ensures that only those who were truly compelled into unlawful conduct may benefit from the defense. It also guards against misuse by excluding cases where the defendant simply had an opportunity to commit the act without coercion. These conditions strengthen judicial clarity while offering legal protections to survivors of extreme abuse.

While the fiscal note indicates the bill’s financial impact on state and local correctional systems is indeterminate due to data limitations, it does suggest that the legislation could reduce the burden on incarceration and community supervision systems over time. More importantly, the bill reflects a policy shift toward victim-centered justice, one that aligns with broader bipartisan criminal justice reform goals across party platforms in Texas.

In sum, SB 1278 represents a principled and practical reform that recognizes the lived experiences of trafficking victims, reinforces due process, and affirms the state’s interest in preventing the re-victimization of vulnerable individuals within the criminal justice system. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1278.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly reinforces individual liberty by recognizing the humanity and autonomy of individuals who have been victimized by human trafficking or compelling prostitution. It provides these individuals with a narrowly defined affirmative defense when their criminal conduct was coerced or compelled by traffickers. By acknowledging that such victims acted under duress—not free will—SB 1278 protects their right to be treated justly and fairly under the law, reflecting a core belief that liberty includes freedom from unjust punishment when one's autonomy has been violated.
• Personal Responsibility: SB 1278 does not abandon personal responsibility but rather puts it into proper context. Victims of trafficking are often forced into criminal activity through threats, manipulation, or physical harm. The bill preserves accountability by setting clear limits on the defense—it only applies when a reasonable person would have acted similarly under coercion, and it is unavailable if the defendant was merely given an opportunity to commit the crime without pressure. This ensures that personal responsibility remains intact for those who act voluntarily while shielding those who acted under extreme duress.
• Free Enterprise: SB 1278 does not directly touch on market activity or the regulatory environment. Nonetheless, it indirectly supports the kind of rule-of-law foundation that allows free enterprise to flourish—one in which the justice system operates predictably and justly.
• Private Property Rights: The legislation does not directly affect property rights. However, by supporting the broader integrity of the legal system and fair adjudication, it indirectly supports the protection of all individual rights, including property.
• Limited Government: By limiting the power of the state to prosecute individuals who are victims of coercive crimes, the bill promotes a more restrained and humane exercise of governmental authority. It prevents the state from further victimizing individuals who were exploited by traffickers and ensures that the coercive arm of criminal law is not applied unjustly. This aligns with the principle that government must exercise power with precision, restraint, and respect for the rights of the individual.

• HB 2772 (Same As)