|
Not The Answer
Bravo to the Valley News for its outstanding series on sex abuse (March 10-13) — and for the follow-up stories on what Vermont and New Hampshire are doing about the perpetrators.
The series was cited on the N.H. House floor March 22 to make some important points before House members voted to toughen supervision of sex offenders. Members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on which I serve also
read the series as we deliberated under great political and time pressure. The information truly helped to bring issues into focus.
This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold hearings on the bill to establish a New Hampshire Sexual Predators Act. The Senate should not try to reverse the House's carefully reasoned stand against 25-year minimum sentences
for first-time offenders. The legislature's focus needs to be on rehabilitation.
As legislators in Concord read, revised and debated with staff from the attorney general's office, with public defenders, chiefs of police and disability rights attorneys, with civil libertarians and victims' rights advocates, with survivors
and family members and with prosecutors and prisoners, the complexity of the issue became clearer and clearer: There are no winners — only losers. Victims and their families might wish to extract their pound of flesh in retribution, but sometimes
they are more hurt by the system's emphasis on vengeance than helped by it. The big question in our minds: What can be done to sweep aside the political grandstanding and help all concerned reach a more equitable solution to a terrible situation?
First, we had to work with existing laws. New Hampshire laws on sex abuse are not the harshest — but far from the least punitive — among the states. We had to consider that adolescent dating and the inappropriate behaviors with which we are all aware are often subject to the same penalties as those handed out for brutal rape or sexual abuse against children. The committee had no trouble accepting the latter two as crimes that should be severely punished; but we did struggle with the notion that all transgressors should be punished equally.
Some of us are fortunate enough to live in counties with prosecutors who strive for even-handed, reasoned justice. But in other communities, prosecutors who aspire to political fame sometimes choose to capitalize on sex offenses committed with¬
in their jurisdictions. Punishments often vary, depending on where an offender lives and on how he or she is treated by elected county attorneys. Early on, the majority of the subcommittee charged with studying the House bill concluded that we would be better served having judges use their discretion in sentencing rather than having prosecutors call the shots. This became a bone of contention, and will continue to be so as the Senate takes up the debate.
What we did accomplish was: establishment of civil commitment for mentally insane offenders — people deemed by a board of experts after careful review to be a serious threat to society if released from prison; severe sentencing of those who re-offend after they have been offered counseling; and (at the committee's insistence) the establishment of a study committee to address issues such as classifying different kinds of offenses, monitoring offenders released from incarceration, assessing risk of recidivism, and to look at the role of counseling. Treatment, aimed at an eventual return to society, should be humane and ideally should benefit all involved — the taxpayers, the victims, the offenders and the families of both victim and perpetrator.
The key, in my opinion, is education. Relying merely on the "stranger danger" pitch (public announcements on TV and reinforced in school) is not enough. We must also raise awareness of what is acceptable behavior in contemporary American culture. We need to educate young people about what are legally and socially responsible behaviors.
We have much to learn about sexuality and the compartments of the human brain that control sexual urges. Let us not rush to punish too harshly those who differ from us; rather, let's attempt to help others understand the harm perpetrators can do and encourage potential offenders to seek the help they require to prevent sex abuse from ever occuring.
Lee Hammond
|
The Sex Offender
One conservative talk show host occasionally mentions a solution for child molesters: incineration. Of course, he uses this illustration for shock value, but it reflects some truth. Child molestation is one of the most heinous crimes, and heinous crimes deserve similar punishment. I always thought we should throw the book at these sick people. Then it happened in my family.
My genial, jovial sister called on the phone one day. "I don't know how to tell you this," she sobbed. "Just tell me," I said.
My nephew, her only child, was accused of raping a 15-month-old girl and molesting her infant brother. He was on the run from the police. The news clip we watched on our computer showed a picture of police taking boxes and boxes of incriminating videotapes out of his house. "We have enough evidence to lock him up for the rest of his life," said the district attorney.
That was over four years ago. Because of the vagaries of the judicial system, the case never went to trial. On a plea bargain, my nephew is serving an 11-year sentence in Ohio.
I went to visit him for the first time last month. He looks so much older than he is. He struggles to keep healthy on high-sodium, institutional food and little exercise. Once a doctoral candidate in computers, he isn't even allowed on the Internet.
The prison he is in is a special one, designed for offenders like him and configured more for his protection than for anyone else's.
The ripple effects of his sin are many. His marriage is dead. My nephew is not allowed ever to have contact with his children. My sister is estranged from her only grandchildren.
Once he gets out, he will have to register in every town he lives in, and he will be a marked man to the end of his days. And that's just the effect on him.
I can't imagine the pain and the betrayal his former wife feels. My biggest prayer is that his two small children will forget everything.
I am fortunate to be far enough away that I can live in denial sometimes. It wasn't my last name that flashed across the evening news. I don't have to spend every other weekend traveling 100 miles for visiting day. I find myself glad that both his grandmothers passed away a long time before this happened, because this would have shattered them.
But now it is time to look to the future. He isn't going to be locked up for the rest of his life. His sentence will be served, and he will be released from prison sometime in the next seven years. The plea bargain and relatively light sentence for such an awful crime surprised everyone in the courtroom when he pleaded guilty. News blogs registered lots of comments from outraged citizens, many of whom recommended actions similar to incineration. He was called a creep, subhuman, a monster.
What I saw at the correctional institution wasn't a monster; what I saw was my nephew. We talked and joked just like old times. But the unspoken question was always, "What happened?" It's hard to do any soul-searching when you are in a well-guarded visiting room with 30 other inmates and their families. But that question will have to be dealt with, along with a new one: "What now?"
The Vermont and New Hampshire legislatures are facing similar questions as they look to the future and debate sentencing of sex offenders. It is my hope that as they deliberate, they will maintain the position of a loving aunt — far enough removed not to let passion and emotion and pain rule the day, yet close enough to the situation to care about the victims and see that justice is served.
Margaret Drye
The writer lives in Plainfield.
Thank you for your well-balanced series of articles on sex abuse ("Sex Crimes: Fears and Facts," March 10-13). Valley News reporters took a difficult and sensitive subject and presented it in a way that the average person could understand.
I worked in the Vermont Department of Corrections for over 30 years. Much of my service involved the supervision of high-risk offenders and the supervision of probation and parole staff, including community correctional officers. These individuals are the backbone of community supervision of sex offenders. These professionals complement a network of treatment providers who are also skilled in working with sex offenders.
I can't support lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for "all" sex offenders, since decades of studies clearly indicate that certain types can be safely managed in a community setting. I do support imposition of lengthy sentences for certain other types of sex offenders and repeat offenders who have demonstrated they cannot be safely managed in the community.
To impose identical or near identical sentences across the board would bring its own set of problems from a fiscal standpoint. I recall hearing that, per capita, more tax dollars go to corrections than to public education. If we must spend more tax dollars, I suggest that it go to victim services, as well as to education, rather than to widening the existing gap.
Winston E. Riley
Woodstock
Thirty years ago this month, a pedophile moved into the community I then lived in in northern New England — as the pastor of our small church. Within months, he had begun preying upon the first of at least five victims. He raped two and unsuccessfully attempted to rape a third.
Nine years ago, I took my first tentative steps toward healing when I made an appointment with a mental health professional. The pedophile had been completely successful in convincing me that I was the perpetrator and that he was the victim of my wily advances. After many difficult years and thousands of dollars in medical bills, I finally understood that none of the abuse was my fault. Having no legal recourse to hold the perpetrator responsible for his actions, I chose to take away his last safe haven by telling his family about my experiences with him. His estranged daughter thanked me for telling her mother the truth.
This is the first year that I have fully recovered from the effects of childhood sexual abuse. It is a heady feeling to finally experience the results of years of the hardest work I have ever done in my life.
Therefore, it may be surprising that I was initially glad when Judge Edward Cashman handed down a 60-day minimum sentence to Mark Hulett, an admitted sex abuser, and in so doing courageously brought to light the irresponsible way in which child molesters are treated in Vermont. In a society where there has been a sometimes disingenuous emphasis on "family values," I find it immoral that an "admitted child molester" is considered a low-risk offender and was thus denied in-prison treatment.
While I can't excuse pedophiles for the gross harm they perpetrate on their victims, I do understand the harm done to them as victims of abuse in their own childhoods. My own experience leads me to believe that all sex offenders should receive treatment during the time they are separated from society. I urge New Hampshire's Gov. Lynch to be as tough on providing treatment during incarceration as on the duration of incarceration. That would be an important action to show that "nothing is more important than keeping our children safe."
Lorraine Harriman
Hanover
The other morning I picked up the Valley News expecting to find an article on stiffer prison sentences for sex offenders. Instead, I could not believe I was reading an article downplaying the seriousness of sex crimes. It implied that we should not be worried about increasing prison terms for sex offenders because law officials have been doing just fine.
It also led the reader to believe that as a society we should not be worried, because sex crimes against children are usually committed by a family member or an acquaintance. We should not fear sex abusers because very few are out there lurking after our own children. Nor should we be concerned because there are fewer crimes committed by adults, and many offenses are only fondling. In trying to educate people on the facts about sex crimes, the article compromised the seriousness of the subject.
Until we can say as a society that not one child has been violated in any way should we ever stop fighting for stiffer sentencing. No assault on anyone should ever be downplayed. The fact that most assaults on children are committed by someone they know should cause more worry and disbelief. This should only bring about a stronger desire to fight for stronger action. A child who is assaulted in any way is affected for life. The offenders should not be able to walk away with a slap on the wrist. I support Gov. John Lynch in fighting for stronger sentences for sex offenders.
Anyone who would want to compromise the safety of our children should feel ashamed.
Sylvia Bickford
Canaan
|
What are your views on sexual abuse and the current drive by New Hampshire and Vermont politicians to slap sex criminals with tougher prison terms? Send your comments, in 350 words or less, by e-mail to forum@vnews.com. You may also send by fax (603-298-0212) or mail: P.O. Box 877, White River Junction, VT 05001. Please include your name, town and (for confirmation purposes only) daytime telephone number. |
It saddens me deeply that we have to think outside the box when getting help for those who desperately need it. I'm not entirely convinced that states should mandate longer prison terms; I would like to see sex offenders out in the community again with mandatory lifetime probation and with weekly check-ins, as well as mandatory lifetime counseling. I believe this could help both the community, which wouldn't have to pay to support sex abusers in prison, and the offender, who would get back some self worth. Perhaps offenders would even gain back some of the community's respect for doing what it takes to make positive changes.
Donnalyn Lyon
Bradford
I didn't read the recent articles on sex offenders in their entirety because my mind's been made up for years. However, the only "statistic" that matters is the one on recidivism rates, stating that the 30 percent of sex offenders who don't receive "treatment" become repeat offenders, while "only" 5 percent of those who do receive "treatment" become repeat offenders. These statistics imply that "treatment" is six times more effective than no treatment; in reality these statistics suggest that one out of three offenders released without treatment will re-offend, as will one out of 20 who receive treatment.
The obvious solution isn't finding more effective treatment; the solution lies with abolishing the entire concept of trying to treat sex offenders at all in order to attempt to modify their behavior. Sexual preferences are hard-wired, and no amount of counseling is going to rewire them. The only goal of treating sex offenders is to release them back into society and hope they will behave normally. Society does not have any obligation to teach perverts how to behave normally; its obligation is to the victims and society as a whole. Society doesn't fail sex offenders; sex-offenders fail society.
Sean P. Keating
Enfield
The Valley News series on sexual offenders has been marvelous.
I have learned a great deal and as a result have altered my thinking. The series makes clear that all the simple answers and rules that we so desperately seek cannot replace judgments based on the facts of each situation. The reporting seems very balanced. I do not detect that the authors have an ax to grind. The newspaper has provided its readers with a wonderful opportunity to get some understanding about a very complex and painful subject.
The role of the newspaper is in a state of flux today. Current events can be followed in a variety of ways that compete with what newspapers traditionally have done. However, only the newspaper, geared toward local issues, can do a series like this.
As I read this series, I wished that other series had been done on school budgets, teacher pay, teacher utilization and student performance. Such a series would help me and others vote intelligently on key local issues. As the same time, series on such topics would get readers more involved in reading the newspaper.
Pat Colt
Lebanon
I read the Valley News series on sex offenders. I have been a victim of sex abuse.
I believe there are different categories of sex crimes. The first is sexual assault of adults. Although this type is traumatic, I am sure an adult victim is better equipped to understand the crime and seek help than a child victim. The second category involves a guy who believes his partner is of age and then gets slapped with statutory rape. Anyone who misrepresents her age and then partakes of sex is partly to blame, and I don't believe the man should be jailed for 25 years.
The third and most heinous category is sexual assault against a child. The rape or molestation of any child for any reason deserves the harshest penalty. There is absolutely no excuse for touching a child under any circumstance. These people never change. This has been proven over and over. How many child rapists have been convicted on previous charges and served jail time?
The politicians are never going to address sexual abuse against children, which I consider to be a national epidemic. Our children need to be protected at any cost. If laws don't protect your child, then it is your duty to protect them by any means. We have become a nation of tree-hugging whiners. It is time to show some backbone and put an end to this foolishness. You touch a child, you are out of here — no exceptions, no excuses.
Linda Miller
Enfield
May not be reprinted without permission