As a victim advocate for more than 20 years in this community, I found both the headline and the slant of your front-page story, "Megan's Law may endanger parolees," (Star-Bulletin, May 17) to be misguided, sensational and offensive. Sex offenders must
get used to public scrutinyThe story, which recounted a paroled rapist's fears of vigilantism and public harassment, focused on the alleged negative aspects of Megan's Law statutes, instead of on the positive. It gave deference and credence to the offender, not the victim and to the greater, law-abiding community.
"Megan's Law" statutes, which require paroled sexual offenders to register with authorities, are first and foremost about acknowledging the devastating effects that sexual assault has on victims and their families and protecting communities, to the extent possible, from being victimized by sex offenders.
The passage of HB 108 by our state Legislature signals a victory, not only for victims of sexual assault and their families and friends, but each of us as members of society.
It sends a broader message that the rights of victims and innocent, law-abiding citizens will be preserved, that the safety of the greater community outweighs the concern of a diminished sense of privacy for those who have committed sexual crimes.
The article began with the words, "A paroled rapist fears..."
First, individuals should fear legal penalties. Penalties, in theory, are part of what prevents individuals from committing unlawful acts.
That sex offenders will not only serve jail time if convicted but also are required to register and be scrutinized by any community in which they might live should be seen as the total penalty a person who commits this type of crime will be required to pay.
Second, that an offender would fear that an individual or a community would "target their anger" at them or "hunt them down and harm them" makes them, in essence, like each one of us -- as potential victims or survivors of any crime which is targeted, planned and a result of anger.
In particular, survivors and potential victims of sexual assault, especially children, are stalked and hunted down. They are harmed; the anger of the perpetrator is targeted at them.
In fact, however, children are at a far greater risk for being sexually assaulted than offenders are for being harassed. Twenty- five percent of girls and 17 percent of boys can expect to be sexually assaulted before they are 18 years of age.
Statistics from a survey of law enforcement throughout Washington, conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, found that 3.5 percent of the "community notifications" made from 1990-96 resulted in acts of "harassment."
One case gained national attention: A house was burned down before a sexual offender moved into it.
While this is only a survey from one state out of 45 which have enacted sex offender registration and notification statutes, it supports assertions that the safety of our community and the protection of individuals from the long-term trauma consequences associated with sexual assault outweigh the risk of "retaliation" against an offender.
Lastly, if a criminal act is committed against a registered offender, they as citizens have access to the same criminal justice system we all do. None of us receives any special consideration.
In covering an important and emerging public policy issue, we must put into perspective and balance the claims and concerns of all the citizens in our community and present available factual data. This is what the Star-Bulletin's article failed to do.
Adriana Ramelli is the director of the
Sex Abuse Treatment Center in Honolulu.
The opinions expressed in View Point columns are
the authors' and are not necessarily shared by the Star-Bulletin.