Saturday Ramblins, Vol. 2, No. 6 (March 20, 1999)

It was suggested in Part 1 of this series that you and I can do more than just say, "Somebody ought'a do something," in the case of missing, abused or murdered children. There are things that can be done, that must be done, if we want to ensure greater protection for children. Remember, every missing child, every abused child, every murdered child is my child, is your child.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has set forth a multi-layered agenda for states in dealing with those who prey on children. It is realistic; it is workable. But it will take a great deal of work on the part of average people like you and me to see that state legislative officials, judges and prosecutors become informed.

A range of responses for offenders is what the NCMEC proposes. It begins with the maximum sentences for those who represent the greatest danger to the community. But the response must not stop at those individuals judged "violent" by their actions. Many offenders who prey on children are not violent in the traditional sense. The first level of an effective response is to pressure state legislatures to address penalties for violent and/or predatory sex offenders. Secondly, states, counties and municipalities must develop a mechanism for evaluation of offenders at the earliest possible stage. The NCMEC cites research that suggests more than half of adult sex offenders reported that their first offenses occurred before age 18.

The NCMEC reports further since, in many cases, the victim knows the perpetrator (a family member or friend or other trusted adult), he or she will often express a desire that one result of prosecution be supervised treatment either in prison or in the community. If a community response does not include at least some treatment for some offenders, it may have the effect of undermining victim cooperation with prosecutors. It's been demonstrated, according to research presented by the NCMEC, that those offenders whose motives to change are sincere may be helped by treatment.

Any treatment, of course, must have post-release supervision and a follow-up priority built into the program. Treatment, release and follow-up have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The standard must be to reduce harm in every case and ensure the greatest level of community safety over the long term.

States must begin by evaluating existing sex offenses statutes, programs and strategies. On the level of prosecution, cases for which there is legal sufficiency must be prosecuted with all possible vigor. Victims must be encouraged to cooperate with prosecutors and all unnecessary system-induced traumas for these victims must be brought to a minimum.

Judges must assess sentencing on community safety. While victim wishes should be heard, where they conflict with community interest and safety, they should not determine the outcome of penalties imposed.

Treatment for offenders must be construed as an opportunity, not a right. Treatment for victims must be balanced into this equation. A priority must be given to research that focuses on what works in treatment (and for whom) and what does not.

If this program is to work, sex offenders must be correctly identified and appropriately charged within our state courts. Offenders need to be identified early in their careers and charged with the offense they commit. Prosecutors must seek convictions that build records of sexual offenses, not allow the offender to plea to nonsexual offenses.

Further, thosed charged with sex-related crimes must not be allowed to plea bargain out of sex-offender registration. For those charged or convicted of a nonsex offense that was sexually motivated (e.g., burglary or murder), a special finding of sexual motivation should be established.

Younger offenders (under the age of 18) who have victimized other children should be identified and addressed at the instance of their first offence. Child-enticement laws must be enacted that would help identify would-be sex offenders.

Child pornography, which research has identified as an indicator of active sexual exploitation of children, must be aggressively investigated and prosecuted within states.

Bear in mind, it is illegal to produce, distribute and/or possess material in which children are depicted in sexual activity. This includes the use of the Internet to distribute such materials or as a means of child enticement for sexual purposes. States should develop the equivalent of "cyberpolice" units to investigate and pursue offenses of child sexual exploitation, pornography or enticement.

This outline, if explored with local, county and state law-making bodies, begins the first step away from "Somebody ought'a do something," and moves toward really doing something. If readers read this and nod their heads, "Yeah, that's good stuff," but go no further then I'm just preaching to the choir here. I hope that is not the case because the child we protect anywhere in this country, or beyond, is my child, is your child.

(Part 3 of this series will examine a systematic decision-making process regarding dispositions of sex-offender cases.)

Note: This information is summarized from A Model State Sex-Offender Policy and used with permission of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). © NCMEC 1998. All rights reserved. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children ® is a registered service mark of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.