This text is found at:
http://www2.phillynews.com/inquirer/96/May/30/opinion/CATHY30.htm
By Cathy Young
Two years after 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and killed allegedly by the twice-convicted child molester living across the street, legislation known as Megan's Law - requiring communities to be notified when a sex offender moves in - has passed in 47 states. Recently, it became federal law. Yet civil libertarians argue that the law is unconstitutional because it punishes the offender after he has done his time. Community notification remains tied up in legal challenges and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.
All this sounds like a classic case of public safety vs. criminals' rights. How can people who would be the first to defend the parents' rights to know if a toxic dump might pose a risk to their child's health, oppose the parents' right to know about a dangerous neighbor?
Yet the critics have points worth considering. If we release criminals from prison and expect them to re-enter society, they say, it makes no sense to impose conditions that will prevent them from leading a normal life. When flyers with a man's picture and the words ``sex offender'' are on every street corner, how much luck will he have getting a job or getting a neighbor to say hello? And if he doesn't deserve a normal life, why put him on the streets? Why not keep him in a clinic or a halfway house?
One paradox we face in trying to protect kids from sexual predators is that what we know about the compulsive nature of such crimes is at odds with the principle that we don't punish a person for future crimes. We want to keep certain people from doing something that we know they are liable to do
There are other problems. The registration and notification rules often fail to differentiate truly dangerous sex offenders from those unlikely to pose much risk. In a bizarre New Jersey case, a boy who, at age 12, confessed to fondling his 8-year-old stepbrother in the bathtub, and has completed his sentence of three years' probation, is being required to register as a sex offender for no less than 15 years.
Or take the case of 59-year-old Joseph Rossillo of Armonk, N.Y., who pleaded guilty to statutory rape in 1995 for having sex with a 16-year-old relative five years before. The young woman didn't turn him in until last year, after failed attempt to extort $100,000. Rossillo received five years' probation and 60 days' house arrest. But the district attorney, a crusader on the issue of crimes against women and children, sent out a news release trumpeting his status as the first sex offender registered under the state's version of Megan's Law. As the story became a media event, authorities demanded that Rossillo vacate his $800,000 home because it's near an elementary school. I am not condoning the actions of a middle-age man who beds an underage girl. But is he a danger to 7-year-olds? Compare this to the controversy in New Jersey over community notification regarding one ``E.B.,'' released after serving 15 years for murdering two boys and molesting several more. Here, the real question is: What is this man doing walking the streets? Notification is no guarantee that he won't find an opportunity to lure another child.
In less extreme cases, we know little, unfortunately, about effective treatment. The offender who is pronounced cured may just be good at telling evaluators the things they want to hear. Another may be labeled dangerous for refusing to admit his guilt - even though, perhaps, he really isn't guilty.
It used to be quite tough to convict someone of child molestation. A child's testimony was not enough; there had to be corroboration, such as medical evidence. In the 1970s, as awareness of sexual abuse rose, laws were passed requiring health professionals, law enforcement officials and educators to report suspected abuse. Corroboration requirements were relaxed or abolished. New techniques were designed to get children to ``disclose'' victimization
new breed of experts sprung up, ready to explain everything as a symptom of molestation
In the old days, there were undoubtedly too many obstacles to obtaining justice for abused children. Now, many argue, we've gone to the other extreme: Too often, the accused is presumed guilty. Take the case of U.S. Army Master Sergeant Robert Nasuti of Myerstown, Pa., charged in Dover, N.H., in 1993 with molesting his niece 10 years earlier, when she was 3 (she claimed she had previously ``blocked'' memories of the incident). Obviously, there was no physical evidence; the girl's parents conceded that Nasuti never baby-sat her at the time of the alleged crime, was never alone with her, and indeed worked the same factory shift they did. Nevertheless, he was convicted. Evidently sensing the wrongness of the verdict, the judge sentenced Nasuti to just one year in jail - and caught hell for being soft on molesters.
The consequences of a wrongful conviction of a crime as repugnant as child sex abuse are always devastating. With Megan's Law, they become more horrible than ever.
Let's by all means protect the kids, but let's look before we leap. Some sex offenders should never see the light of day. Others deserve a second chance. Others still may only be branded sex offenders because of an overzealous court system and societal hysteria over child abuse.
Cathy Young is a frequent contributor to the Commentary Page.
Philadelphia Online - The Philadelphia Inquirer, Opinion -
Copyright Thursday, May 30, 1996