Saturday Ramblins, Vol. 2, No. 7 (April 3, 1999)

A man was arrested recently in my area and charged with an aggravated sex crime against a minor girl. His record revealed that he had several previous convictions for related crimes. A question springs to mind: what was this man doing on the streets, not on probation or not under some kind of supervision for sex offenders (especially those whose crimes were against children)? There's a sad but simple answer. In the previous arrests, he had been allowed to plead to a lesser charge than criminal sexual misconduct with a minor. In other words, there was no clear record indicating he was a sexual predator of children.

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we looked at what must happen in states to bring about a comprehensive response on the part of the criminal justice system in dealing with sex offenders. It is part of a model developed by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). One of the key points we tried to stress in these pages was that prosecutors must never allow an offender to plead to a lesser charge. If there is legal sufficiency, the person must be charged and prosecuted to the extent the law allows, even for a first offense. By doing so, records begin to build a profile of the individual as an offender.

Any such program instituted by states and municipalities should place community safety above all other concerns. When considering an offender for treatment versus confinement, a clear record of the person's criminal past will weigh heavily on the disposition of the case.

Treatment must be a part of a comprehensive program. It may be combined with prison time or supervised probation. But it must never be considered a "right" of the offender. In a case where the crime committed was of a violent nature or in a case of a repeat offender, the safety of the community demands this person be confined.

Treatment is only effective in certain situations. Persons charged with non-violent or first-time offenses might be candidates, but in all cases a pre-sentencing investigation should be done with the results presented to the court. Anyone who has pleaded "not guilty" or "nolo contendere" or entered an Alford plea** should be disallowed treatment. To make an honest attempt at change through treatment, a person must accept responsibility for his actions. It's the first and necessary step.

And finally, every state should have a mandatory registration program for convicted sex offenders. This may (and probably should) include public notification dependent on the level of risk the person presents.

The information provided in this series of articles from the NCMEC's Model State Sex-Offender Policy is by no means complete. At best, it has touched on some of them major points. . Any glaring omissions are the responsibility of the author not the proposal from NCMEC. The model may be seen in its entirety by going to the Center's web address, the URL of which is given at the end of this article.

What will it take to see this proposal become policy and law in the several States? That's easy: determination, commitment, hard work, persistence, and education (legislators, judges, prosecutors, social agencies, probation and parole boards and agencies, police, citizens), for starters.

You may ask, where do I start? Do I have to gather a group of like-minded individuals? Form an organization? The answer to that is clear, too. Many of us already belong to established groups in which we are likely to find many like-minded people: PTAs, church organization, business, civic or social organizations, to name a few. It's a matter of motivating existing groups to educate and to promote change where change is needed in one's home state. Most of these organizations already have status and prestige so you wouldn't have to "make a name" for yourself to get standing before legislative or judicial bodies. Most of these organizations already have established communication protocol among members and with other groups and organizations, including, in some cases, lobbying groups.

I believe, too, the potential of the Internet (worldwide) has yet to be tapped when it comes to missing and exploited children. There are a number of groups already active on the web such as the NCMEC. Smaller, individual efforts are made through groups like the Angel Friends Internet Group in alerting members to specific missing children. It is the hope of this service, Angel Friends, that through a call to arms, we can begin to explore the potential of the Internet in this cause. What must happen is an understanding of the Internet's effectiveness followed by a coordination of efforts among the many individuals and groups already committed to children.

What do you think? Where do we begin? Are you willing to join in and develop an effort online? What if we do all this and it only results in saving the life of one child? If that be the case, then our work is fulfilled because that one child is my child; that one child is your child.

________________

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.

Visit the NCMEC web site at: http://www.missingkids.com/