[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING OUR NATION'S CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL PREDATORS AND VIOLENT
CRIMINALS: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-658 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Sokul, Special Counsel for Intelligence
and Homeland Security
Michael Volkov, Deputy Chief Counsel
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 9, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Mark Green, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin [presiding] and Member of the Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Tracy Henke, Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. Ernie Allen, President & CEO, National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Ms. Amie Zyla, Student, Waukesha, Wisconsin
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Mr. Fred Berlin, M.D., Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins
University
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security....................................................... 35
Letters submitted by the Honorable Mark Green, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Wisconsin and Member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on
behalf of Allsion Gullick, Marc Klaas, and Eric and Michelle
Wilkinson...................................................... 36
PROTECTING OUR NATION'S CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL PREDATORS AND VIOLENT
CRIMINALS: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:05 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Mark
Green presiding.
Mr. Green. [Presiding.] Good afternoon. I want to welcome
everyone to the third in a series of important hearings held by
this Subcommittee addressing the problem of sexual predators
and violent criminals who attack our Nation's children.
The first two hearings this week have shown once again the
devastating tragedy of crimes against children. We've heard
testimony--and I expect to hear more at this hearing--that
paints a grim picture. The threat to our children is real, and
it is growing. And it is time for us to act.
No longer can we simply urge and rely on others to do what
needs to be done. Congress must take steps to provide greater
safety for our most vulnerable, our children. When considering
what needs to be done, we must be mindful that Congress has to
provide needed resources to the States. We must ensure that
Federal actors have the ability to provide necessary
protections and assistance to the States.
Some might say that we need to treat sex offenders and to
rehabilitate them; that we must address the problem by throwing
money at sex offenders to break their silence and perverse
behavior, to stop them from attacking again and again, from
molesting again and again.
My view is quite the opposite. One victim, one child
harmed, one child raped, one child molested, is one crime too
many. I'm not willing to cross my fingers and hope the problem
does not occur again and again. To me, a sex offender who
commits one of these heinous offenses has forfeited the right
to live with the freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. The
sex offender has forfeited the right to move without compliance
with registration requirements; whether it be for a job, for
school, or simply to live.
If the sex offender violates the terms of supervision, the
terms of probation and parole, or registration requirements,
the sex offender must be swiftly and effectively locked up, so
that he cannot touch one more innocent child.
The fact is that right now in our country there are at
least 100,000 sex offenders roaming our communities--
communities where law-abiding citizens are raising their
families without any knowledge of the risk that these offenders
pose to their children.
So as I see the problem, Congress must act now, must act
quickly, and must act with a comprehensive plan aimed at
accomplishing the following:
First, redoubling our efforts to register each and every
sex offender in this country;
Second, adopting new and stiff criminal penalties against
sex offenders who fail to comply with registry laws, probation
requirements, or other laws;
Third, providing States with the infrastructure necessary
to use new technology, such as the Internet, tracking devices,
and other mechanisms, to protect our communities from these
predators;
Fourth, giving States resources needed to apprehend sex
offenders or those that cross State lines to work, live, or go
to school;
Fifth, ensuring that State registries cover all classes of
sexual offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to children,
including juvenile predators who are not covered by the
existing Jacob Wetterling Law;
Sixth, promoting proactive notification systems for States
to use to inform law enforcement, schools, public housing
agencies, and others when sex offenders move into their
communities to live, work, or attend school;
Seventh, ensuring that the Justice Department and other
Federal agencies support the States and provide technical
assistance for national efforts to assist the States and the
public;
Eighth, providing law enforcement with the tools, DNA
collection, and testing resources needed to identify and
prosecute sex offenders who have escaped prosecution but now
may be caught with powerful forensic evidence;
And ninth, provide new civil procedures to incapacitate
Federal sex offenders who suffer from mental abnormalities and
pose a serious risk of harm to our communities.
I, along with many others, will aggressively seek to enact
legislation following such broad principles. We do so because
we remember the suffering caused by crimes committed against
Jessica Lunsford, Jetseta Gage, Sarah Lunde, and from my home
State of Wisconsin, Amie Zyla, who courageously agreed to
testify here today.
I'm anxious to hear from our distinguished panel of
witnesses. And I now yield time to the Ranking Minority Member
of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby
Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding
this hearing on what we can do to protect children from sexual
predators and other violent criminals. It's good actually to
hold the hearing. Usually, we pass the bills and then hold the
hearing. In this case, we're actually considering the bills. At
such a time, we can actually consider the research to make sure
we're doing the right thing.
Child deaths as a result of sexual abuse or other violence
is so tragic as to shock the conscience, and our reaction will
be to strike back with all the punitive weight of government.
As policymakers, it's also incumbent upon us not to simply
strike back after the events have happened, but to see what we
can do to reduce the incidence to begin with.
We know that the vast majority of abusers are either
relatives, friends or individuals known to the child and
family--90 to 95 percent, according to ``Be a Child's Hero
Network.'' Most of the cases of abuse are never reported to
authorities or ever dealt with in an official manner.
Furthermore, we know that some child offenders are
predatory, and repeat their crimes. The vast majority do not,
after conviction, create other similar crimes. Studies by the
Department of Justice indicate that less than 5 percent after
conviction are found guilty of other sexual crimes against
children.
So any repeat offense against children is horrible, but we
have to consider what we can do in the most cost-effective way,
most cost-effective strategies, to reduce the chance that it
might happen again.
Mr. Chairman, most of the bills we're going to consider are
the public notification bills. I want to make it clear that
having police and supervision authorities aware of all location
and identification information about child offenders is not
subject to debate. They need to know this information and have
this information available.
The question before us is whether or not this information
ought to be available on the Internet, and whether that's
productive or counterproductive in reducing the incidence of
child sexual abuse.
We have limited amounts of money, and we ought to make sure
that that money is used as strategically as possible to reduce
the incidence of child sexual abuse. Some of these bills cost a
lot of money to implement, and we have to consider whether or
not it could have been used more effectively other ways to
reduce child sexual abuse.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses on what we can do to actually address the problem.
And I thank you for convening the hearing.
Mr. Green. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
Witnesses, it is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses appearing before it. If you would, please
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Green. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Please be seated.
We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. Our
first witness is Ms. Tracy Henke, Acting Assistant Attorney
General and Deputy Associate Attorney General for the Office of
Justice Programs for the Department of Justice. In this role,
Ms. Henke is responsible for the overall management and
oversight of the Office of Justice Programs, guides the
development of policy and priorities, and promotes coordination
among OJP bureaus and support offices.
Additionally, she serves as the national Amber Alert
coordinator, responsible for encouraging coordination of
regional, State, and local efforts to establish Amber Alert
plans to aid in recovering abducted children. Ms. Henke is a
graduate of the University of Missouri, Columbia.
Our second witness is well known to most of us here, Mr.
Ernie Allen, President and CEO of the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, which has helped to recover
more than 92,000 children, at a 96 percent recovery rate. Mr.
Allen has spearheaded efforts to launch a new international
center and build a global network to track missing children in
16 nations.
Previously, he held several positions in public service,
including chief administrative officer of Jefferson County,
director of public health and safety, and director of the
Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission. He is a graduate
of the University of Louisville.
Our third witness is Amie Zyla. Amie is a junior at Sussex
Hamilton High School in Waukesha, Wisconsin. She hopes to one
day become a hairdresser and own her own salon. She is here
today to recount her personal story of abuse at the hand of a
convicted sex offender. We look forward to Amie's testimony of
this horrific experience.
Our final witness today is Dr. Fred Berlin, Associate
Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine. Dr. Berlin is the founder of the
National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of
Sexual Trauma, where he currently serves as the director.
He is the author of numerous publications, including ``The
Impact of Surgical Castration on Sexual Recidivism,'' ``Risk
Among Civilly Committed Sexual Offenders,'' and ``Sex Offender
Treatment and Legislation.'' Dr. Berlin was named Distinguished
Fellow in 2003 by the American Psychiatric Association. He
earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Pittsburgh,
and his M.D. and PhD. from Dalhousie University in Halifax,
Canada.
I welcome all the witnesses. And now, Ms. Henke, welcome.
We look forward to your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF TRACY HENKE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Henke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott. I am Tracy
Henke, and I'm the Deputy Associate Attorney General for the
United States Department of Justice, as well as the current
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs.
I want to thank you all for having this hearing. I'm
pleased to be here on behalf of the Department of Justice to
discuss the steps we are taking on this issue. Specifically, I
want to explain the implementation of the new National Sex
Offender Public Registry.
As you might know, the Attorney General directed the Office
of Justice Programs to expedite the design and delivery of a
National Public Registry website, which he announced on May
20th. The public registry will use Internet technologies and
the Department of Justice's Global Justice Extensible Markup
Language--or what we like to call XML--to find and display
information from a State's existing online public sex offender
registry. The search will deliver results based on a name, zip
code, geographical area, or other query.
While citizens can already search existing public State
offender registries, that search must be conducted on a State
by State basis; a cumbersome and time-consuming process.
Limited for-profit sites also offer information from various
States by data mining their public registries, often without
the States' knowledge. However, no government system currently
exists to link these public registries.
In contrast, the National Public Registry creates a single
focal point for citizens to search public sex offender
information nationwide, providing timely and accurate
information to the public. It is a partnership effort between
the Department of Justice and the States to offer secure,
reliable, and free-of-charge public sex offender information to
citizens nationwide.
The National Sex Offender Public Registry will not collect
or retain control over any State data, and there will be no
cost to the State or territory to link to the national search
site. States and territories need not change or alter the
design or functionality of their existing sex offender
registries in order to participate.
It is important to note that by allowing States to maintain
control over their own data they can remain consistent with
their own State laws regarding release of offender information.
In addition, because data is maintained under State control, it
can be more closely monitored and validated between the States
and the local law enforcement agencies providing the
information.
I stress that the public registry can be implemented
quickly. The Attorney General has challenged us to have at
least 20 States participating and a site available for public
searches in just 60 days from May 20th, with additional States
linked in the following months.
The Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance
has already developed a working prototype with Maryland, New
Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Since the Attorney General
announced this initiative nearly 3 weeks ago, States have been
calling to find out how they can be in the first 20
participating.
The key advantages of this registry are that it promotes
public safety by using already existing public State and
territory sex offender data. It is cost-free to both the States
and the citizens. And it requires no special certification or
training, and provides an additional resource for effective sex
offender management.
In addition to the implementation of the public registry,
the Bureau of Justice Statistics provides NCHIP funds to States
that can be used to improve their own sex offender registries.
Since 1998, States have used over $37 million in Federal
funding for this purpose.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance manages the Comprehensive
Approaches to Sex Offender Management Program, which provides
funding to help jurisdictions implement sound approaches to
managing sex offenders in the community, while keeping citizens
safe. In fiscal year 2004, jurisdictions in 12 States received
a total of more than $2.8 million for these projects. An
additional $2.3 million should be awarded this fiscal year.
While these OJP programs are useful, and the National
Public Sex Offender Registry is an immediate contribution in
helping protect our Nation's children, we recognize that
citizens need more than just a search site to help protect
their children from sex offenders. We are committed to a
comprehensive effort that includes providing a wide range of
training and technical assistance and technology to help States
and communities address this complex crime problem.
We will also continue to take an active role in the Federal
Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children, which
promotes a coordinated Federal response to these issues.
We pledge to work with the Congress to address the issue of
how best to protect the public from dangerous sex offenders,
including through the public availability of sex offender
registration information.
As the Attorney General has said in announcing the
registry, ``We must fight violent crimes, especially crimes
that steal the future from our children. Names like Jessica
Lunsford and Megan Kanka highlight the importance of this new
technology. Their smiles, wiped away forever by sex offenders,
are a constant reminder that we must keep parents and
communities informed and engaged.''
I'm pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tracy A. Henke
Mr. Green. Thank you; appreciate the testimony.
Mr. Allen.
TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we are
honored to be included in the hearing today. And thank you for
your long-time leadership on this issue.
Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge. Most of their
victims are children. Most of those children are not members of
their own family. Most of these offenders are not in prison.
And those that are, tend to serve limited sentences.
While most sex offenders are in the community, historically
their presence has largely been unknown to the citizens of that
community. Sex offenders represent the highest risk of re-
offense. And while community supervision and oversight is
essential, the system for providing such supervision is
overwhelmed.
There's strong empirical data that address this issue.
According to the Department of Justice, 67 percent of reported
sexual assault victims in this country are children; one out of
three under the age of 12.
In 1997, the Congress mandated the National Center to
create a CyberTipline, a national resource for reporting child
sexual exploitation. Since 1998, we've handled more than
325,000 reports, resulting in hundreds of arrests and
prosecutions; 112,000 reports last year alone.
In 1994, Congress passed the ``Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children and Sexually Violent Predators Act.'' As a
result, today all 50 States and the District of Columbia have
sex offender registries. This was groundbreaking child
protection legislation. However, 11 years later, there are
problems in the State programs that we believe thwart the
original congressional intent.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned it in your opening remarks.
Today, there are 550,000 registered sex offenders in the United
States, but at least 100,000 of those offenders are non-
compliant--literally, missing.
A great deal of discretion is left to the States--
appropriately--in how they implement their registration
programs. But the result is that there is a significant lack of
consistency and uniformity from State to State. There are
loopholes that permit sex offenders to cross State lines and
remain undetected. We know that registered sex offenders often
forum shop in order to achieve anonymity.
Let me just cite a few examples of the discrepancies we
believe exist. In eight States, the burden to notify
authorities in the new State to which the offender is moving is
solely attached to that offender. So only he has the obligation
to tell the State to which he's moving. In two States, neither
the offender nor the State authorities are required to notify
authorities in the new State. In another three States, this
issue is not even addressed in the law.
There are only five States in which probation and parole
must be revoked when an offender fails to comply with
registration responsibilities. There are only eight States in
which an offender's probation or parole may be revoked for
failure to comply with registration.
In 31 States, the penalty for failure to register is just a
misdemeanor. In three States, offenders have more than 10 days
to notify authorities when they change their address.
We suspect that those who represent the greatest threat to
children are also the least likely to be compliant. There are
at least 100,000 non-compliant offenders; people like the
killer of Jessica Lunsford, who was not where he was supposed
to be and whose presence was unknown to police or Jessica's
family, even though he lived 150 yards down the street from her
and had worked construction at her elementary school.
We need to do a better job of identifying those who
represent the greatest risk, and those whose criminal histories
should forfeit any right to be on the streets and close to
innocent children. But at a minimum, we must know where all of
these convicted sex offenders are, and what they're doing.
Yet the challenge to do that is daunting. We recently
surveyed the State registration agencies, and heard almost
universally about a lack of funding, a lack of personnel,
outdated technology, lack of centralized communication systems.
In many instances, registration verification is by mail, and
not in person.
Tracking the location of these offenders is only part of
the challenge. Equally important is community notification. In
1996, Congress amended the Jacob Wetterling Act to include a
Federal Megan's Law, mandating State community notification
programs. States are given broad discretion, but in practice,
that notification is either passive, requiring the public to
initiate contact to get information, or active, by which law
enforcement officers initiate contact themselves through
community meetings or posting fliers or visits to residences
within a radius of the offender's address. Today, in 17 States
that notification is passive only. Thus, it's up to the public
to continually seek out this information on their own
initiative.
We commend the Attorney General for his recent initiative
in creating a nationwide sex offender database. Public access
to this information is vital to preventing sexual crimes
against children.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Wetterling Act and Megan's
Law represented a giant step forward a decade ago. We believe
that Congress needs to preserve that foundation. But America
has changed. Today, there are more offenders; there are new
technologies; and there are more, and younger, victims.
We understand that resources are scarce and that there are
many competing demands. However, it's hard to imagine a greater
or more pressing priority. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ernie Allen
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I
welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss crimes against
children. Chairman Coble, you are a tireless advocate for child
protection and I commend you and your colleagues for your leadership
and initiative. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
(``NCMEC'') joins you in your concern for the safety of the most
vulnerable members of our society and thanks you for bringing attention
to this serious problem facing America's communities.
Let me first provide you with some background information about the
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC is a
not-for-profit corporation, mandated by Congress and working in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice as the national
resource center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited children.
NCMEC is a true public-private partnership, funded in part by Congress
and in part by the private sector. Our federal funding supports
specific operational functions mandated by Congress, including a
national 24-hour toll-free hotline; a distribution system for missing-
child photos; a system of case management and technical assistance to
law enforcement and families; training programs for federal, state and
local law enforcement; and our programs designed to help stop the
sexual exploitation of children.
These programs include the CyberTipline, the ``9-1-1 for the
Internet,'' which serves as the national clearinghouse for
investigative leads and tips regarding crimes against children on the
Internet. The Internet has become a primary tool to victimize children
today, due to its widespread use and the relative anonymity that it
offers child predators. Our CyberTipline is operated in partnership
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI''), the Department of
Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(``ICE''), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service,
the U.S. Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, as well
as state and local law enforcement. Leads are received in seven
categories of crimes:
possession, manufacture and distribution of child
pornography;
online enticement of children for sexual acts;
child prostitution;
child-sex tourism;
child sexual molestation (not in the family);
unsolicited obscene material sent to a child; and
misleading domain names.
This last category was added as a result of enactment of the
PROTECT Act in 2003.
These leads are reviewed by NCMEC analysts, who visit the reported
sites, examine and evaluate the content, use search tools to try to
identify perpetrators, and provide all lead information to the
appropriate law enforcement agency. The FBI, ICE and Postal Inspection
Service have ``real time'' access to the leads, and all three agencies
assign agents and analysts to work directly out of NCMEC and review the
reports. The results: in the 7 years since the CyberTipline began
operation, NCMEC has received and processed more than 325,000 leads,
resulting in hundreds of arrests and successful prosecutions.
Another one of our programs to prevent child exploitation is our
partnership with the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (``ICE''). This initiative, called
``Operation Predator,'' is the hallmark of the Department's efforts to
protect children from pornographers, child prostitution rings, Internet
predators, alien smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals.
NCMEC's alliance with ICE is designed to facilitate the exchange of
information on missing children, as well as investigative and
intelligence leads. An ICE Senior Special Agent has been assigned to
NCMEC to coordinate leads developed by NCMEC that require ICE law
enforcement capabilities. This alliance has proved enormously
successful: more than 5,000 individuals have been arrested nationwide.
More than 85% of these arrests are of sex offenders who are foreign
nationals living in this country and who have been deported. In
addition, more than 1,000 arrests based on ICE leads have been made in
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
However, despite our progress the victimization of children
continues and there is evidence that it is increasing. The number of
reports of child pornography to the CyberTipline increased 39 percent
in 2004. Our records show a significant and steady increase in these
reports over the years. This upward trend is very disturbing and shows
the seriousness of this issue. But this is not the only evidence.
Recently, we consulted with some of the leading scholars and
researchers in the field. There has been much attention to the question
of how many children are actual victims of sexual offenders, including
retrospective studies of adults. The researchers with whom we spoke
agreed that on the most conservative basis there was general agreement
that at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized
in some way before they reach adulthood, and just 1 in 3 will tell
anybody about it. Clearly, those numbers represent a broad spectrum of
victimizations from very minor to very severe. Nonetheless, the numbers
are powerful testimony to the fact that children are at risk and that
we must do more.
There are strong empirical data as well. According to the U.S.
Department of Justice, 67 percent of reported sexual assault victims
are children \1\--more than two-thirds. And these are only the ones
that law enforcement knows about. Most crimes against children are not
reported to the police.\2\ This means that there are many, many more
victims of these heinous crimes than the statistics show.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Snyder, Howard N., Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported
to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, July 2000, page 2.
\2\ 1999 National Report Series: Children as Victims, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2000, Page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, these children are being victimized at increasingly
younger ages. One out of every three victims of sexual assault is under
age 12.\3\ Reports to the CyberTipline include images of brutal sexual
assaults of toddlers and infants. These are images that no one here
could previously even imagine. But they have become all-too-common in
the new world of child pornography and child sexual exploitation.
Today, children of all ages are potential victims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent months, millions of Americans have followed with horror
the devastating stories of Jessica Lundsford, Sarah Lunde, Jetseta Gage
and others. These tragic cases have generated anger and indignation
nationwide, and epitomize what has been an increasing area of concern
for NCMEC in recent years: the challenge of tracking, registering and
managing the nation's convicted sex offenders effectively. Sex
offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers. They evoke
unparalleled fear among citizens. Their offenses are associated with
the greatest risk of psychological harm. Most of their victims are
children and youth. As policy makers address the issue of sex
offenders, they are confronted with some basic realities:
1. Most sex offenders are not in prison, and those that are
tend to serve limited sentences;
2. While most sex offenders are in the community, historically
their presence was largely unknown to citizens;
3. Sex offenders represent the highest risk of reoffense; and
4. While community supervision and oversight is widely
recognized as essential, the system for providing such
supervision is overwhelmed.
Currently, there are nearly 550,000 registered sex offenders in the
U.S.\4\ At least 100,000 of these are non-compliant, in most cases
literally ``missing.'' They moved and failed to register their new
address with law enforcement, or they provided the wrong address or
some similar variation. The number of offenders required to register is
only going to increase as new cases work their way through the criminal
justice system. This problem is not going to go away. These offenders
will be in our communities. The question is: what more can we do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In May 2005 NCMEC contacted the registering agencies for all 50
states and the District of Columbia. The total number of sex offenders
reported for all jurisdictions is 549,038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We commend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his bold and
decisive new initiative in creating a nationwide sex offender database.
Public access to this information is vital to preventing sexual crimes
against children. We are grateful to the many Members of the United
States Congress for their leadership on this issue as well. The
dedication of two branches of government to this problem gives us
confidence that real progress will be made toward making our
communities safer.
In 1994 Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Predators Act. As a result, all 50 states
and the District of Columbia have sex offender registries. This was
groundbreaking child protection legislation. However, 11 years later
there are many problems in the state programs that thwart the original
Congressional intent in passing the Act. The federal scheme leaves a
great deal of discretion to the states in how they implement their
individual registration programs. As a result, there is a significant
lack of consistency and uniformity from state to state. There are also
serious discrepancies among the states, creating loopholes in the laws
that permit sex offenders to cross state lines and remain undetected.
We know that registered sex offenders often ``forum-shop'' in order to
achieve anonymity. Some examples of the discrepancies in the state
statutes are the following:
in 8 states the offender alone has the burden to
notify the authorities in a new state when moving into that
state
in 2 states neither the offender nor the state
authorities are required to notify the authorities in a new
state--in another 3 states this issue is not even addressed
in only 5 states probation or parole must be revoked
when an offender fails to comply with registration duties
in only 8 states an offender's probation or parole
may be revoked for failure to comply with registration duties
in 31 states the penalty for failure to comply with
registration duties is only a misdemeanor
in 3 states offenders have more than 10 days to
notify the authorities when they change their address
The challenges are basic. We must assume that those who represent
the greatest threat are those least likely to be compliant. They are
the most likely offenders to attempt to disappear. There are at least
100,000+ non-compliant offenders, people like the killer of Jessica
Lundsford, who was not where he was supposed to be.
We need to do a better job as a nation of identifying those who
represent the greatest risk, those whose criminal history forfeits any
right to be on the streets and close to innocent children. But at a
minimum, we must know where all of the convicted sex offenders are and
what they are doing.
Yet, the challenge of doing that is daunting and is compounded by
the increasing burden on law enforcement to track offenders throughout
their period of registration, in many cases for the offender's
lifetime. A recent survey by NCMEC of state registering agencies
revealed the following problems:
lack of sufficient funding
lack of personnel
lack of law enforcement personnel dedicated solely to
sex offender issues
outdated computer hardware and software
lack of centralized communication systems between
jurisdictions for tracking offenders
registrants' verification is by mail and not in
person
lack of funding to conduct community notification of
sex offenders
lack of technology to easily identify fake addresses
lack of clarity regarding law enforcement authority
across jurisdictions, including tribal lands
lack of legal requirement to keep registry
information current
lack of a national registry of sex offenders
inability to track homeless registrants
lack of notice by jails of offenders' release
Tracking the location of these offenders is only part of the
challenge. Equally important is the issue of notifying the public about
the location of these offenders. According to the National Institute of
Justice, child abusers have been known to reoffend as late as 20 years
following release into the community.\5\ In 1996 Congress amended the
Jacob Wetterling Act to include a federal Megan's Law, mandating state
community notification programs. This was named after 7-year-old Megan
Kanka of New Jersey, who was killed by her neighbor, a convicted sex
offender whose presence in her neighborhood was unknown to her parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues, National Institute
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,
June 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Megan's Law section of the Wetterling Act requires all states
to conduct community notification but does not set out specific forms
and methods, other than to require the creation of internet sites
containing state sex offender information. States are given broad
discretion in creating their own policies. In practice, community
notification methods are either
(1) passive notification, requiring the public to initiate
contact with law enforcement, such as publicly-accessible
websites; or
(2) active notification, by which law enforcement officers
initiate contact with the public, such as community meetings,
posting flyers, or visits to individual residences within a
radius of the offender's address.
Because the federal law leaves it up to the states to create their
own programs of community notification, current state programs vary
widely. In 17 states law enforcement is authorized by statute to
conduct only passive notification to the public about the presence of
sex offenders in their communities--it is up to the public to
continually seek out this information on their own initiative in order
to protect themselves. Furthermore, many states do not provide
information about their entire registry of sex offenders, only a
portion of them, usually those designated as posing a high risk of
reoffense, which can also vary widely between states. The public has a
right to know about all registered sex offenders living in our
communities. The amount of protection a child is given shouldn't depend
on the state in which that child lives. There is clearly a need for
more uniformity among state programs of community notification of sex
offenders.
The Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan's Law represented a giant step
forward a decade ago. We must preserve that foundation. But America has
changed. Today, there are more offenders to register and manage, there
are new technologies, and there are more and younger victims. We
understand that resources are scarce and that are many competing
demands. However, it is hard to imagine a greater or more pressing
priority.
NCMEC urges lawmakers, law enforcement and the public to take a
serious look at the dangers threatening our children today, and to move
decisively at the federal level and the state level to create a
seamless, coordinated, uniform system that works. Now is the time to
act.
Thank you.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
And now, Amie, welcome. We look forward to hearing from
you.
TESTIMONY OF AMIE ZYLA, STUDENT, WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN
Ms. Zyla. Thank you. My name is Amie Lee Zyla. I'm here to
tell you my story, and ask you to change the law to prevent any
future victims. I relived my nightmare because the law gave my
abuser, Josh Wade, a free ticket to continue abusing children,
and as a result so many more kids and their families have been
hurt.
Nine years ago, I was sexually assaulted at the age of
eight. My abuser hurt me in my own home, where he had gained a
level of trust--and then so brutally violated it. He stole my
self-esteem, and made me feel so afraid--so afraid that I
almost did not go to my parents, because I thought he would
hurt me again. After I was able to fend him off, I then had to
watch him assault my little friend, and endure a threat to my
life, until he was put away.
While it was a very difficult time, I came forward when it
happened, to stop him from hurting anyone else ever again. I
also expected to never have to deal with my abuser again.
Then, one day about 9 years later, Josh Wade walked back
into our lives. I saw him on TV, and was stunned to see that he
was not only out in the community again, but that he had done
it again.
When I first saw him, I was so disappointed. I was scared,
and couldn't believe he was out. All those old feelings
returned, and I was so sad for all the new victims. I couldn't
believe there were so many new victims. How and why were there
so many more victims? Why wasn't he caught earlier? And how did
the system break down?
The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. I was
so mad that what happened to me seemed like it didn't matter.
It just didn't count. I didn't count, and the new victims
didn't count.
It was wrong that my parents and I did not know he was out.
He hurt me, he hurt my friend, and threatened my life. On top
of that, no one could tell the community what he was capable
of, because his rights were considered more important than my
safety. My right to safety came second, in fact, to the fact
that he hurt me when he was a juvenile--a fact that didn't seem
to stop him from hurting anyone else; but it did allow so many
more other children to be assaulted.
Isn't it so very obvious this has to change? I decided my
anger, and that of my family, needed to be expressed in a
positive way. We decided to contact our government officials
and change the law to protect our communities. No matter how
old an offender is, Josh Wade proves that sexual predators will
continue seeking out new victims, and hurt more people.
In Wisconsin, the community and government agreed with us,
and enacted Amie's Law. But that is not enough. We cannot sit
back and allow kids to continue to be hurt. The simple truth is
that juvenile sex offenders turn into adult predators. Kids all
over the country need the same kind of protection as in
Wisconsin.
I pray that by coming forward again sexual abuse victims
who can hear the sound of my voice understand that it is not
their fault; that they must come forward and find healing and
purpose.
Stand up to your abusers, and help law enforcement stop
them from hurting anyone else. Abuse does not have to affect
your whole life. If I can overcome the hurt and trauma, then so
can you.
That began to make my attacker pay for his actions.
Unfortunately, that was not the end of my journey. I had to
come back and work to change the law to prevent juvenile
offenders from getting the chance to harm other victims.
At this very moment, somewhere in this country a child's
heart is being stolen. He or she is young, afraid, confused,
and feeling dirty. That child is being terrorized by the most
horrible kind of criminal. It happens every day, and it still
hurts me deeply to hear another kid is experiencing that same
kind of pain I did at 8 years old.
I want to challenge you to look deep down inside. Isn't it
time to put our kids' safety before the rights of the sexual
offender, adult or juvenile? When is enough going to be enough?
Must we have even one more Jessica Lunsford, or one more Sarah
Lunde, or even one more kid like me who must keep reliving the
nightmare?
We need a national sex offender registry that includes
juvenile sex offenders. Mr. Green has introduced a bill that
will do just that; a bill that will ensure all offenders,
regardless of their age, will be on the registry, and not able
to work with children or hurt anyone else. I ask you to support
Mr. Green's bill and the many other proposals you have heard
about today. I ask you to help protect kids--kids like me.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zyla follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amie Lee Zyla
Hello Everyone,
My name is Amie Lee Zyla. I am here to tell you my story and ask
you to change the law to prevent any future victims. I re-lived my
nightmare because the law gave my abuser, Joshua Wade, a free ticket to
continue abusing children and as a result so many more kids and their
families have been hurt.
Nine years ago I was sexually assaulted at the age of eight. My
abuser hurt me in my own home where he had gained a level of trust--and
then so brutally violated it. He stole my self-esteem and made me so
afraid. So afraid that I almost didn't go to my parents because I
thought he would hurt me again. After I was able to fend him off I then
had to watch him assault my little girlfriend and endured a threat to
my life until he was put away.
While it was a very difficult time, I came forward when it happened
to stop him from hurting anyone else ever again. I also expected to
never have to deal with my abuser again.
Then one day, about nine years later, Josh Wade walked back into
our lives. I saw him on TV and was stunned to see that not only was he
out in the community again, but that he had done it again. When I first
saw him I was so disappointed. I was scared and couldn't believe he was
out. All those old feelings returned and I was so sad for all the new
victims--I couldn't believe there were so many new victims. How and why
were there so many more victims? Why wasn't he caught earlier? How did
the system break down?
The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. I was so mad
that what happened to me seemed like it didn't matter. It just didn't
count. I didn't count and the new kids didn't count.
It was wrong that my parents and I didn't know he was out. He hurt
me, he hurt my friend and he threatened my life. On top of that no one
could tell the community what he was capable of because his rights were
considered more important than my safety. My right to safety came
second to the fact that he hurt me when he was juvenile--a fact that
didn't seem to stop him from hurting anyone else, but it did allow so
many more children to be assaulted.
Isn't it so very obvious this has to change? I decided my anger,
and that of my family, needed to be expressed in a positive way. We
decided to contact our government officials and change the law to
protect our communities--no matter how old an offender is Josh Wade
proves that sexual predators will continue to seek out new victims and
hurt more people.
In Wisconsin the community and government agreed with us and Amie's
Law. But that is not enough, we can not sit back and allow kids to
continue to be hurt. The simple truth is that juvenile sex offenders
turn into adult predators. Kids all over the country need the same kind
of protection as in Wisconsin.
I pray that by coming forward again sexual abuse victims who can
hear the sound of my voice understand that it's not their fault. That
they must come forward and find healing and purpose. Stand up to your
abusers, help law enforcement stop them from hurting anyone else. Abuse
does not have to affect your whole life, if I can overcome the hurt and
trauma then so can you. That began by making my attacker pay for his
actions. Unfortunately that was not the end of my journey. I had to
come back and work to change the law to prevent juvenile offenders from
getting the chance to harm other victims.
At this very moment some where in this country, a child's heart is
being stolen. He or she is young, afraid, confused, and feeling dirty.
That child is being terrorized by the most horrible kind of criminal.
It happens everyday and it still hurts me deeply to hear another kid is
experiencing that same kind of pain I did at eight years old. I want to
challenge you to look deep down inside. Isn't it time to put our kid's
safety before the rights of secrecy of sexual offenders--adult or
juvenile? When is enough going to be enough? Must we have even one more
Jessica Lundsford or one more Sarah Lunde or even one more kid like me
who must keep re-living the nightmare? We need a national sex offender
registry that includes juvenile sexual offenders. Mr. Green has
introduced a bill that will do just that. A bill that will ensure all
offenders, regardless of their age, will be on the registry and not
able to work with children or hurt anyone else. I ask you to support
Mr. Green's bill and the many other proposals you have heard about
today. I ask you help protect kids--kids like me.
Thank you for you time.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Amie. Very well done. Nice job.
Dr. Berlin.
TESTIMONY OF FRED BERLIN, M.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, JOHNS
HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Berlin. Thanks for inviting me. I appreciate that very
much. Let me make it clear that I'm not here to support or
oppose any particular legislation today; but I hope to provide
some information that may be of some help.
I want to make it clear that I do support fully the
registration of sex offenders. That means having lists
available to proper legal authorities, names that can be
distributed to people that need to know, and so on. But I do
want to talk about concerns about two things. One is community
notification; and the second, I want to make a couple of
comments about the role of punishment.
First of all, with respect to community notification, I
want to make it clear that the verdict is not yet in on whether
or not that is proving to be successful. The State that's
probably had it in effect for the longest is Washington State.
I did a follow-up study, looking at what had happened in that
State. There was no evidence that it reduced criminal
recidivism.
Secondly, speaking out of my own personal clinical
experience and research background, it is a sad fact that there
are persons out there who want to offend. And if they are on a
registry and listed in a community as being present, if they're
listed in community ``A'' as being present, those people are
simply going to go to community ``B,'' where they're a lot less
known, and still commit an offense.
On the other hand, there are a lot of offenders out there
who are trying to succeed. I can tell you that out of personal
experience. We, for example, published a large study on over
600 men in treatment. Over 400 had a history of pedophilic
behavior. The recidivism rate was less than 8 percent.
The reason I believe that many of those men succeeded in
treatment is they were able to get a fresh start. They could
get jobs. They weren't feeling disenfranchised, angry at the
community. They succeeded, I believe, in part because they were
able to do those things. It begs the question whether, if we
drive these people underground, are we actually making the
community safer? Again, I think it's something we simply have
to take a look at.
In terms of sex offender recidivism, just a couple of
points that I think are important. The U.S. Department of
Justice, through the Office of Justice Programs, took a look at
sex offender recidivism. Surprised me. I worked in this area
for many years. As a group, sex offenders have a lower rate--
lower rate--of recidivism than people who commit other kinds of
serious criminal acts.
Asking about the recidivism rate of sex offenders is like
asking about the recidivism rate of drunk drivers. In other
words, there is no one right answer. There's a tremendous
spectrum.
At one end of the spectrum are people who really are going
to continue to get back in trouble; at the other end, those who
won't; and then there's the entire group in between. If you get
an over-zealous therapist here who says that most, if not all,
sex offenders will not recidivate, that's an extreme statement
that is not in keeping with the facts. Similarly, if you get
someone who comes in, who says, ``Once an offender, always an
offender''--and you will hear that--that's also an extreme
statement. It's simply not in keeping with the facts.
In looking at community notification, we also have to ask
whether it could be harmful. Keep in mind, when we identify the
offender, we identify his address. Much of offending has to do
with things, unfortunately, that go on within the family. There
is the risk of inadvertently identifying victims. There is now
concern that some victims of incest may be deterred from coming
forward.
I can give you a brief anecdote of a child that I was aware
of, where the teacher, meaning well, read out a sex offender
registry in school. The peers of this child looked over at him
and said, ``Hey, isn't that your dad? And by the way, were you
his victim?'' It's not clear how that was helping to make the
community safer. And these are not anecdotes that are simply
isolated examples. The verdict is not yet in.
In terms of the role of punishment, pedophilia is a
condition, to give an example, in which persons are sexually
attracted to young children. If the only thing we do is punish
these individuals, there's nothing about being in prison that
can either erase those attractions or enhance their capacity to
successfully resist acting upon them.
We need both the Attorney General and the Surgeon General
involved in this, if we're going to adequately protect
community safety. Let me make it clear, I very firmly support
the criminal justice stance. But what is often given very
meager attention in all of these discussions is the public
health side of this.
In terms of harsh mandatory punishments, again, people can
do that if they want to. But much of what goes on is within the
families. Many victims, in spite of the victimization, are
struggling to put their family back together. They are hoping
that the person who's done wrong can have a chance to succeed.
There are numerous instances of families doing well after these
kinds of tragedies have occurred.
Are we going to get to the position where we were when we
first started the war on drugs, where having an ounce of
marijuana led to mandatory sentences of an extreme length? Many
victims don't want their victimizer to go away for a long
period of time. That's simply a fact.
To finish up, if I may--and I may be using my time, so very
quickly--four points that I think need to be made, that are
often missing in these discussions:
Number one, what I'll call ``truth in language.'' We used
to talk about truth in sentencing. The word ``violent,'' in
terms of its everyday meaning, is clearly not what is being
used in many of the legislative bills that are out there.
Attempted touching can mean ``violent.'' The word ``predator''
often does not have its everyday meaning. Someone who's exposed
himself to a child who's 13 can be labeled a predator in many
of these statutes. Somebody who's been involved statutorily--a
17-year-old who was involved with a 14-year-old--can be labeled
a predator. Let's have truth in language, so we know what we're
really dealing with.
We don't have much discussion about what can help these
people succeed. Most of them, like it or not, are in the
community. We try to help bank robbers; we try to help
murderers, even. It's in all of our best interests to help
these people succeed.
There should be some discussion of public policy based on
the exception rather than the rule. We've heard a lot about
Jessica Lunsford. It is horrible. But kidnapping, sexual
assault, and murder is a fraction of a percent of the big
problem. Do we want to base public policy on the exception
rather than the rule? Is that likely to be the most effective
public policy?
Finally--and I thank you; I may have gone over. I'm close
to going over--the last point I want to make is that in almost
all legislation that we get involved with, and that you folks
get involved with, there is a system of checks and balances.
And that often, in my judgment, leads us to a consensus, which
often has as the result effective legislation.
As you all know, there's not really much of a balance of
advocacy when we come to these issues. We can ask two kinds of
questions. We can ask, ``How can society be made safe?'' All of
us want an answer to that question. And the point I would make
here today is, if we're asking how to make society safe, let's
make sure that what we're proposing has evidence that it's
really going to do that. That's the first point.
A second question we can ask is not exactly the same
question. That is, ``How, in the context of being safe, can we
also be just and fair?'' Now, when we're in this area, there
are people who are going to say, ``Why the heck should we be
just and fair?'' Well, I'll give you the answer to that. What
makes this country--or one of the things that makes this
country so great is, not only are we interested in being safe,
but we are also interested in being just and fair. That's what
this country is all about.
We need to do something for people like Amie. There isn't a
decent human being who doesn't want to do that. But we owe it
to her to get it right. And I hope some of the conversation
that I presented to you today will stimulate some thought and
help in this effort to get it right. We all want to do good
things for those who are victimized. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Berlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fred S. Berlin
My name is Fred Berlin, and I am an Associate Professor of
Psychiatry at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. For your
convenience, I am enclosing a brief professional biography as well as a
copy of my full Academic Vitae. My area of specialization within
Psychiatry is sexual disorders, a spectrum of conditions which includes
within it pedophilia. Therefore, I am also enclosing the draft of a
recent paper, soon to be published, regarding that topic. I have become
involved in this work, in part, out of the belief that doing so
contributes to the effort to protect the public by decreasing
victimization.
The primary focus of my current concerns will relate to two issues:
(1) the usefulness of community notification as a means of enhancing
public safety, and (2) the likelihood that enhanced punishments will
better protect the public from sexually disordered sexual offenders.
I have no problem with the notion that sexual offenders should
register, thereby making information about them available to legitimate
criminal justice authorities. However, it appears that at this point in
our history, lists of registered offenders can quickly be accessed
through the Internet, thereby, in many instances, making such
registration synonymous with community notification.
A number of horrible cases involving kidnapping, sexual assault,
and murder have recently been highly publicized, even though such cases
represent a fraction of one percent of the big picture when it comes to
the issue of criminal sexual offenses. Instead, the overwhelming
majority of sexual offenses are initiated by a family member, a close
friend, or an acquaintance whose prior background is, in many
instances, well known to both the victim, as well as to his, or her,
family.
It is important to appreciate that when community notification
occurs, in those cases involving incest, the identity of the victim, or
victims, may at the same time be revealed, even if he or she is not
mentioned specifically by name. I am aware of a recent incident in
which a teacher was reading out in class for educational purposes the
names of registered sexual offenders. That led one child to ask a
classmate whether it was his father on that list, and whether in fact
it had been he who had been a victim. As can be imagined, that child
felt traumatized by the experience.
There is currently emerging anecdotal evidence suggesting that
incest victims, and their families, may become less willing to come
forward because of the multitude of problems associated with their home
becoming a listed address on a registry of sexual offenders. The only
systematic study conducted so far regarding the effectiveness of
community notification has been done in Washington State. It failed to
find any reduction in sexual offender recidivism as a consequence of
such notification.
Sex offenders who are trying to reside safely in the community, and
there are many of them, can clearly be hurt by community notification
statutes. I was the senior author of a published study on over 400 men
with pedophilia treated in the community, which documented a 5-year
sexual recidivism rate of less than 8%. For those men who had been
fully compliant with treatment, the recidivism rate dropped to less
than 3%. In my judgment, many of these men had succeeded in treatment
because they were able to get a fresh start; they could obtain gainful
employment; the property value of their residences remained
uncompromised; and they were not feeling disenfranchised and publicly
stigmatized.
On the other hand, persons who want to commit a sexual offense, who
have been identified in community ``A'' can simply go to community
``B,'' where they are likely less well known, and do so there. That
doesn't solve the problem. It simply moves it to another location. In
my judgment, it is only those who are trying hard to live safely in the
community whose efforts, in many instances, may be compromised by such
legislation. That does little to make the community safer. If there is
to be community notification, much more information about level of risk
to the community must be given, along with the information about what
citizens should and should not be doing with that information. In my
judgment, all of this needs to be carefully considered before enacting
any further legislation.
Recently, a fully voluntary patient in our treatment program, who
was residing in a structured group home, under close supervision, was
forced to leave that home, after an individual who had seen his name
(and picture) on a list of registered sexual offenders threatened both
he and the home in question. It is difficult to see how such an act did
anything to make the community safer. Yet, acts of that nature have
reportedly occurred with some regularity.
Much of the recent legislation involving sexual offenders has been
based upon the assumption that they are at an inordinately high risk of
re-offending. Data gathered by the United States Department of Justice
has documented that, as a group, sex offenders have a lower rate of
criminal recidivism than persons who commit other sorts of serious
criminal acts. Asking about the recidivism rate of sex offenders is
analogous to asking about the recidivism rate of drunk drivers. There
is no one answer to that question. The overzealous therapist who argues
that the recidivism rate of all sex offenders is invariably low is
presenting an extreme point of view that is not in keeping with the
facts. On the other hand, the individual who argues ``once an offender,
always an offender'' is similarly presenting an extreme viewpoint.
Significant numbers of sexual offenders can, and do, go on to become
productive and safe members of society.
With respect to the issue of solving the problem of sexual
offenders by means of more stern punishments, I would want to point out
the following. If a man goes to prison sexually attracted to children,
incarceration alone can neither erase his pedophilic cravings, nor can
it enhance his capacity to resist succumbing to such desires.
Furthermore, sooner or later, like it or not, even in the face of
current proposed legislation, most sex offenders will be in the
community. As with drug addiction and alcoholism, pedophilia, and a
number of other sexual disorders, are both a criminal justice matter
and a public health problem. In that sense, both the Attorney General
and the Surgeon General must be involved. Psychiatric disorders, such
as pedophilia, can neither be legislated nor punished away.
All of us are victim advocates, and public safety must come first.
However, within the context of doing everything within our power to
ensure the common good, ours is a nation that still tries to remain
both fair and just. In most instances, when new legislation is
proposed, there is a system of checks and balances involving competing
advocacy groups. That frequently leads to an outcome involving balance
and consensus. For obvious reasons, such checks and balances are often
missing when discussing legislation involving sexual offenders.
No one would propose legislation to deal with the problem of
alcoholism based primarily upon looking at the recalcitrant alcoholic
who continues to drive drunk. To do so would be to propose legislation
based upon the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, even
though only a fraction of 1% of sexual offenses involve kidnapping,
sexual assault and murder, much of the recent legislation in this area
has been based upon the exception rather than the rule. That begs the
question as to whether this represents effective and optimal public
policy. In addition, when it comes to issues of punishment, there needs
to be proportionality. That is, the punishment should be proportional
to the crime committed by a specific individual, rather than a mandate
driven by the much more serious criminal acts of someone else. Many
families in which incest has occurred still struggle to remain intact,
and they do not want their loved one, in spite of his offense, to serve
a sentence of 25 years to life. In my judgment, such legislation may,
in some instances at least, simply drive the problem underground,
hurting families, and leading some victims to be reluctant to report
offenses.
In my judgment, the most crucial question to ask regarding any
newly proposed legislation in this area is whether there is any
evidence that it is likely to make the community safer. In many
instances, for the reasons noted above, the answer to that questions
when looked at objectively would appear to be no.
Finally, although community safety must absolutely come first, it
is still appropriate to appreciate the inherent humanity of many of
those who have acted improperly. That is of particular importance in
these instances because, as noted, the ordinary checks and balances
affecting most legislation are often absent in these cases.
Someone once said that the moral fiber of a nation can often be
gauged by how it treats those citizens whom it could easily cast aside.
In my judgement, current legislation in this area calls upon each of
us, as concerned Americans, to face up to that challenge.
Mr. Green. I thank you for your testimony, and all the
panelists. I was following you, Dr. Berlin, in most of your
testimony; although toward the end you said a few things that I
just wanted to touch upon, that I think were perhaps
unfortunate.
You seemed to compare--you made reference to one ounce of
marijuana. You're not seriously suggesting that pedophilia is
the equivalent of possession of one ounce of marijuana----
Dr. Berlin. What I'm suggesting----
Mr. Green.--in terms of the great scheme of moral behavior?
Dr. Berlin. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I
apologize.
What I'm suggesting is, just as we know when it comes to
drug addiction there is a spectrum--there's a big difference
between the drug dealer and the kid who is experimenting and
has a little bit of marijuana, and we don't want to have
comparable punishments. When we first started the war on crime,
there were a number of jurisdictions in which the user who was
experimenting had these horrific sentences.
The point I'm making is that, when it comes to sex
offenders, there's this same spectrum. We believe in
proportionality. The punishment should suit the crime, should
fit the crime.
I am concerned. And again, I'm not trying to take sides on
specific bills, but I'm concerned, as a citizen now, that I
would not necessarily want to be part of supporting a system in
which individuals are punished not in proportion to their own
crime, but where the punishments are driven by the crimes of
others who've done things that are far more serious.
Mr. Green. But again, in that analogy, you're not
suggesting that someone who experiments with marijuana in his
or her room is the equivalent of someone who victimizes a young
child?
Dr. Berlin. Absolutely not.
Mr. Green. Okay. I just wanted to make sure, as you made
your references here.
You have in your testimony, I thought, a good point;
hopefully, one that we're addressing. You said the persons who
want to commit a sexual offense, who have been identified in
community ``A,'' can simply go to community ``B,'' where they
are less likely well-known. Well, isn't one of the answers to
that to make sure that in community ``B'' they can get that
same information; so that you don't have the problem of the
only knowledge of a person's offenses is a restricted area
where that person first emerged?
Dr. Berlin. The problem is, I don't see how to make that
work. And again, if I can be persuaded that this makes the
community safer, we need to do it. But the person who is
wanting to commit an offense, and driving off to community
``B,'' isn't going over there to identify himself. He's getting
out of an area where people know him.
None of us can be aware of the identities of offenders in
every jurisdiction. So in real life, he's going to go someplace
where the odds are, in spite of the notification----
Mr. Green. Well, wouldn't one of the answers to that be--in
fairness to you, you obviously weren't here for the previous
hearing, when a number of bills were brought forward that would
talk about this national database that would be accessible
online; so that in fact we wouldn't have to rely upon solely
the offender to go and make himself known. I mean, wouldn't
that provide greater safety for that community?
Dr. Berlin. Well, again--and I'm not trying to be
argumentative--if this is an offender who wants to offend, and
he's known in his own community where nobody is going to
tolerate him hanging around areas where there are children, he
gets in his car, he drives to another community. People don't
know who he is. There's no red flag going up. It's just not
clear to me how that's going to work.
Mr. Green. Of course, one of the answers would be--in the
bills we've taken up--would be to keep that person behind bars.
If a person is going to be likely to re-offend, as you've just
set out, we actually can prevent that crime. That person behind
bars is not likely to offend.
Dr. Berlin. Well, look, we've got to deal with reality.
Sooner or later, like it or not, even with new legislation, the
fact is there are hundreds of thousands of offenders out on the
streets. If there are some we can keep behind bars, and it's
legitimate to do so, fine. But that's not what we're talking
about here.
Mr. Green. I think it is, actually.
Dr. Berlin. Community notification about people behind
bars? As long as they're behind bars, what do we need community
notification for?
Mr. Green. We are talking about a series of bills,
including mandatory minimums, which will keep persons like that
behind bars for a longer period of time, and give families the
tools, the knowledge-based tools about who is in their midst.
And I think in the case of Amie's Law, we're also talking
about making sure that these individuals don't get into
positions of authority, where they have contact and can prey
upon young people. You know, I think that's the difference that
we're talking about here.
Obviously, when we're talking about national statistics
it's almost impossible to say with firm proof what will bring
crime rates down. There is a lag time, obviously, cause and
effect. But obviously, I think you would agree, if a person is
behind bars, they can't recommit.
And if a family knows that the person who has moved in next
door, who is applying for that job at a non-profit or at a
camp, is someone who has committed a serious sex crime against
kids in the past, doesn't that give us pretty good tools for
preventing the re-offense? I mean, wouldn't that logically have
a positive effect in bringing down, at least in that community,
the possibility that person is going to re-offend?
Dr. Berlin. Well, certainly, I think it probably does in
that community. But we're here, you know, in terms of policy
planning, not simply to move the problem, but to solve the
problem. That's what I think we really need to come up with.
Mr. Green. I think that we are talking about both. I think
we're talking about trying to give tools to parents, to give
them the tools to protect their kids.
Dr. Berlin. The other thing, if I may, and I don't want to
take up----
Mr. Green. Sure.
Dr. Berlin. As I said, if I can be persuaded this works, I
would want to be for it. I'm simply suggesting----
Mr. Green. We'll work on that.
Dr. Berlin. Right. But I wanted to make the point that if
there is to be notification, then I think you need to both
present people with enough information to get a true sense of
what the risk may not be, and some guidance about what they
should do with that information, so they can deal with it in a
positive fashion.
Mr. Green. And actually, I will say that one of the Members
in the previous hearing brought that up and actually made some
suggestions. So that is something, I think, that we'll
certainly be looking at.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Berlin, let me follow up on that.
If you've got these registries and they work well for the
neighborhood, and someone moves--drives across town or across
50, 75 miles, to commit crimes, the parents might know that
there is a problem, who are the people in the area, but they
wouldn't know who's coming into the area because they've driven
from their own neighborhood. Is that the point you were making?
Dr. Berlin. Yes, that was one of the points I was making.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Henke, you indicated in your written
testimony that statistics have shown that recidivism rates for
these offenders is extremely high? That was in your written
testimony?
Ms. Henke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Were you referring to the 1994 study that's on
the Department of Justice website?
Ms. Henke. That's part of it, as well as other information
from the National Center and other organizations.
Mr. Scott. Does the Department of Justice website say,
``Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prison, sex
offenders had a lower overall rearrest rate, when the rearrests
of any type of crime, not just sex crimes, were counted. The
study found that 43 percent of released sex offenders were
rearrested. The overall rearrest rate for those released for
non-sex offenders was higher; 68 percent''?
Ms. Henke. Yes, it does.
Mr. Scott. Does it say that, ``Of the released sex
offenders, 3.5 percent were reconvicted of a sex crime within
the 3-year follow-up period?''
Ms. Henke. Yes, it does.
Mr. Scott. Dr. Berlin, can you describe the Washington
study that you referred to?
Dr. Berlin. Well, it's been a while since I've read it, so
I want to be careful. But it is available; it's been published.
They found two things. They found that after a crime had
been committed, there was a more rapid identification of the
offender. Now, I think registration itself will accomplish
that, and I certainly support registration. So they did find
that it helped law enforcement apprehend after the fact.
What I think we all also want very desperately to do is to
intercede before the fact. And what the study did not find is
that, in comparing arrests before that had been--the community
notification went into effect, and afterwards, that there had
been a reduction in recidivism of sex offenders.
Now, there needs to be more research. You make a good
point. It's early on. I just want people to think about these
things, because sometimes I worry there's a rush to judgment
here. And I think this is so important. We want to try to get
as objective a sense of the facts as we possibly can; at least,
in my judgment.
Mr. Scott. Of all child abuse cases, do you have any
information as to how many of the children victims of child
abuse were victimized by convicted--those who had previously
been convicted of a child sexual offense?
Dr. Berlin. I don't know that. What I do know is that many
victimizers are former victims. So that one of the other things
we need to do is target those, particularly boys who've been
victimized; try to provide them with services earlier on. That
may be something that will also help to prevent victimization.
But I don't know the answer to your original question.
Mr. Scott. Would you think it would be very small, the
portion of children who have been victimized--of all of them,
the portion who have been victimized by those caught and
convicted and on a registry?
Dr. Berlin. Well, again, I don't want to go beyond my
expertise. I don't know. What I do know is that, if you've
committed a serious sex offender more than once, as things
exist today, you're likely not going to be out there in the
community. I'm not opposing that.
What we're talking about is people who aren't in that
position. You know, nobody needs to figure out what to do about
the guy that killed Jessica Lunsford. We all know what to do
about that. The issue is the guy who's involved incestuously
with his daughter. Are we going to treat him in exactly the
same way?
Mr. Scott. Now, you mentioned some things that you can do
to actually reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. Do you
have other initiatives that we ought to be looking at?
Dr. Berlin. Well, we ought to look at everything. I mean, I
think parole and probation--the Justice Department set up an
entity called CSOM, Center for Sex Offender Management. They're
working on helping parole and probation officers know how to do
a better job in monitoring these people. Supporting that, I
think, is extremely important.
Many of these parole and probation people are stretched
very thin. I think we want to be able to have them have smaller
caseloads.
We work collaboratively in our program with parole and
probation. For example, Federal probation often actually goes
out and surveils people. But they need more help to be able to
do that. You know, frankly, if somebody came to me and said,
``There's a person in your community, he's dangerous,'' I'd
kind of throw up my hands and say, you know, ``I'm not sure
what I should do about it. Is somebody out there watching
him?''
I think we can do more to be sure--if we think he's that
dangerous, and we can't get him off the streets, to make
certain someone's out there watching him. That's why I say we
shouldn't look at this in a vacuum. How can we best spend our
money, use our resources, for the common good?
Mr. Scott. And Ms. Henke, as I understand it, there are
about 500,000 people who are supposed to be registered, and
100,000 we don't know about?
Ms. Henke. That's correct.
Mr. Scott. Who is going to pay for the follow-up to make
sure people are in compliance?
Ms. Henke. Well, one of the things, that does fall on State
and local entities, predominantly, as well as the registered
sex offender. You have communities, counties, States across the
country, that are putting in place some interesting--I'll call
them pilot programs, on trying to track down offenders who are
not living at their registered address.
For instance, there is a county in Florida who literally
has put those pictures of those offenders up throughout the
community and through other places, saying, ``Have you seen
this individual?'' Because they've gone to those homes; they're
not living where they're registered. So activities like that
are going on.
Also, through our Center for Sex Offender Management, as
was mentioned, we are providing training and technical
assistance to State and local authorities on ways to better
track offenders.
Mr. Scott. But--just a quick follow-up--but in the various
pieces of legislation, that will still be the State and local
problem, not the Department of Justice?
Ms. Henke. Most of these crimes are--yes, sir, it would be.
Mr. Green. Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Let me again thank
the Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding what I think is
an enormously important hearing. And I'll restate my position
that I made earlier today, that we need a national
comprehensive statement that parallels, Mr. Allen, with what
you all have been doing for a number of years.
Amie, I want to thank you. I have an enormous debt of
gratitude to extend to you for your courage, for your strength
of character, and for your can-do attitude. And I'm going to
tell you, you're going to beat this. And as you do this, you're
going to help educate and encourage and embrace children and
young people around the Nation and the world. We applaud you
for what you have done.
And I want you to know, as I listen to Dr. Berlin, let me
say this. We can do both. We can find a balance that recognizes
where there is an opportunity for rehabilitation, for the
lowering of recidivism, for the protection of privacy rights.
If we've been able to go into space, and if we are headed to
Mars over the next couple of months and years, I can't imagine
that we as a country cannot provide that balance.
I would refer you to a section in H.R. 244, which is
legislation that I wrote, that provides for incentives to
States as they work toward programs dealing with recidivism.
Which may mean a myriad of things. It may mean treatment, it
may mean other kinds of deterrence factors that would
encourage.
I would appreciate you just commenting on the aspect of
States not only looking for some of the criminal penalties, but
also addressing these questions, whether it's through the
mental health system or not; but to really go head-on on the
question of recidivism.
I happen to think, let me just say very clearly, one
violent predator, one child sexual predator, is one too many
for me. I mean, plain and simple. I can't even tolerate the
existence of one. I do hope people can rehabilitate their
lives. But I would think that Amie, who sits next to you, would
agree that one is one too many.
So I'd appreciate your comment on the idea of a State
looking to enhance programs dealing with recidivism.
Dr. Berlin. Well, if I may--and if it's off-topic, you can
correct me--but I think society in general needs to try to
figure out how we conceptualize these problems. To give you an
example, several States, as you know, now have civil commitment
of sex offenders.
What happens is, in practice, that a number of these men
come into prison initially. They say they're sick, they need
help, they need treatment. The attitude is, ``You're just
trying to beat the rap. Let's get you off to prison where you
belong. We'll punish you.'' They spend 20 years in prison with
virtually no help, no effort to rehabilitate them. Then,
they're ready to leave. Suddenly, the rules change: ``We
realize what's going on here is you're sick, you need
treatment. We're going to go and put you someplace where you
can get that help.''
Are these people ill, or are they bad? I think there are
some people out there that are simply bad, and I have no
problem saying that, but I think there's others----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I may, because my time is short, I
would assume, then, that you would look favorably at an
approach where States have to look at programs, however they
deal--may approach the mental health, the treatment beforehand,
the treatment after--but that they approach it from the
perspective, ``What can we do to avoid the recidivism?''
Which is, I think, Amie's point; which is the predator that
she experienced came back even as a juvenile, and continued to
act out in this horrible, negative way.
Dr. Berlin. Absolutely. We should expect prisons to
rehabilitate. Right now, we hold them accountable, ``Don't
escape, don't have a riot,'' and so on. They should
rehabilitate. People that have come out should have a
transition. Someone should be following them. If we see they're
headed for trouble, we should have a way of pulling them back
in.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you would be supportive of States
giving incentives that devise programs dealing with recidivism?
Dr. Berlin. Absolutely. Start right up-front when
somebody's arrested, particularly if they're going to come back
out, and do it from ``A'' to ``Z.''
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it. Mr. Allen, let me first
of all thank you for your work, and ask you on this question
of--and I hope Ms. Henke can answer, as well. I've looked at
and heard your testimony that the Department of Justice,
General Gonzales, is looking at refining your registry list and
working with States.
Do you think, as we've looked at the number of legislative
initiatives--and I'd appreciate if you'd comment on something
that is a little separate and apart, which is the idea of a DNA
database on convicted sex offenders; which is a little
different from the registry. But do we need legislative
intervention? We've had it, where you've advocated for it
before, and it's worked.
Again, does that tie into the National Government making a
Federal statement, a national statement, when you intervene
legislatively? Whether it be on the registry, or whether it be
in particular on the DNA registration on convicted predators?
Mr. Allen. Well, Congresswoman, first, as it relates to the
registry, we think Congress made a strong, loud national
statement in 1994 with the passage of the Wetterling Act and
with the Federal Megan's Law.
We think this is an issue where there is huge opportunity
for greater Federal leadership. We believe in federalism. We
know the States have a role, but we think the Congress can play
a key role in filling some of these gaps and addressing some of
these problems. And we think that's a process that the
Committee is looking at and we certainly support.
Secondly, as it relates to DNA, as you know, we are strong
advocates of a national DNA database. In fact, efforts--you
know, there is a process in place that goes beyond sex
offenders. The big challenge there has been compatibility
between State databases and the FBI's CODIS database. We think
that's a problem that needs to be fixed.
Congress, I think last year, took steps to set up four
regional centers. The University of North Texas, in fact, is
the first such center which is basically handling State DNA
samples and translating them or adapting them into the CODIS
system. The big challenge is the FBI standards are higher than
many of the states'. Much of that may be because of resources.
But DNA is important not only to convict people, but to
exonerate those who have been accused unfairly. So we support
it very much.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I'm not sure if we have an
additional round. Would you indulge me, and let Ms. Henke
answer the question that I raised, and Amie?
Mr. Green. By all means.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I assume, Mr. Allen, you're talking about
this very important system.
Ms. Henke, I'm just wondering, are you here explaining, or
is there any opposition now with the Department of Justice that
we do as Mr. Allen has asked us to do and Amie has noted, to
enhance what we have; even though it looks administratively
that the Department of Justice is consistent with our national
statement? Can we enhance what we're doing legislatively; and
in particular, a DNA bank that is directly related to convicted
sexual predators?
Ms. Henke. As you know, the Department, and the
Administration overall, understands and is looking forward to
continuing to work with Congress on the different bills and
legislation that has been introduced.
When it comes to DNA, the President has stated clearly he
understands the importance of DNA in convicting offenders, as
well as, as correctly pointed out by Mr. Allen, identifying the
innocent as well, making certain that those individuals are
served and protected as well. That is why he has committed over
a billion dollars right now to reduce the backlog that exists
in crime labs across the country, through the Office of Justice
Programs. We're the ones who oversee those resources.
The Attorney General stated clearly, when he announced the
public registry, the need for that information. The idea that
information--to use almost a cliche, information is power.
Information can serve as a preventative mechanism for
communities, for parents, for grandparents. That is why he
challenged us to use the technology that we have to establish
this national registry.
We think this national registry will also serve as a tool
for States to look at what each other is doing, and for them to
say, ``You know what? We can improve upon what we are doing in
our own State.'' This provides them that opportunity to look at
how their registries work, and how they don't work; what
information is available, what information is not.
As you know, State law is just that, and it's different in
every single State. And so this registry we believe not only
will provide information to the public, but will also help us
work with the States in potentially addressing some of the
issues administratively, and potentially get that done quicker.
The Attorney General is committed to working with the
Congress on this issue and on a variety of bills because, as he
has pointed out--and in reference to Mr. Scott's statistics and
in reference to your statement earlier--yes, it might appear
that the recidivism rate is not high, when you're talking about
the statistics, when you look at it in just that way. However,
when you look at the fact that the recidivism rate was 5.3
percent overall, that was 514 additional sex offenses that
occurred in those 3 years--515. And the majority of those
against children under the age of 13. So the Department of
Justice is committed to working with you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I hear you saying that you're
certainly not suggesting that we cannot work together on
enhancing what we have through legislative initiatives, and
that the Department of Justice will work with us?
Ms. Henke. Yes, we will.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chairman, if I may finish by raising this
point with Amie, I think that Amie has exhibited the importance
of both outreach and education.
Mr. Green. Right.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And as well, courage, as I said. It might
be worthy--and I'm not sure if any of our legislative
initiatives has the idea of a massive--and I know Missing and
Exploited Children's Center has done so--public campaign that
would utilize those who would be willing to be utilized, on
just speaking directly to children on some of the do's and
don'ts.
But Amie, let me say to you that you're here before us
today, and I simply asked the question whether you would
welcome the opportunity, in your own time, to teach other
children or to make sure that they knew about some of the
things that they should not do. And also, that would give us
some ability to learn from you as well. Would you work with us?
Ms. Zyla. Uh-huh.
Mr. Green. In fact, if I can interject, I think that's what
she's done back in Wisconsin. And obviously, her presence
here--Amie, as you can tell, we're all very impressed with your
courage, with your story. And we're going to make sure that we
put it to good use. So I want to thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Amie, very much.
Mr. Green. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming
today. We appreciate it very much. We've had several hearings
on the subject of crimes against children, and we will produce
good legislation and results. I want to thank all of you. Keep
up the great work.
In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration
of this important issue, the record on this hearing will be
left open for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any
written questions that a Member wants to submit should be
submitted within that same 7-day period.
This concludes the oversight hearing on ``Protecting Our
Nation's Children From Sexual Predators and Violent Criminals:
What Needs To Be Done?'' Thanks to everyone here for their
cooperation. The Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the ubcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Congressman Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on what's needed
to protect children from sexual predators and other violent criminals.
It is interested that we held the hearing on the legislation that has
already been drafted to purport to that, but since it has not been
enacted, it is clear that we are still open to hear what are the best
approaches, and can adjust the legislation, or craft new legislation,
to reflect the advice we receive. Unfortunately, our tendency as policy
makers is to respond to what's in the media with what sounds good
politically without ever considering what research, evidence and mature
reflection might suggest.
Child deaths as a result of sexual abuse or other violence is so
tragic as to shock the conscious. The visceral reaction we all have is
to simply strike back with all the punitive weight of the government.
As policy makers, it is incumbent upon us to not simply do what our
emotions or politics command, but to do something that will actually
reduce the incidences of these crimes. We know that many more children
die as a result of child abuse than is reflected by the tragic cases of
child sexual abuse and murder that have been in the news, and we know
that the vast majority of child abusers, including child sex offenders,
were abused themselves as children. We also know that the vast majority
of abusers are relatives and other individuals well known to the child
and family, 90 - 95% according to BACHNET (Be a Child's Hero Network),
and that most cases of abuse are never reported to authorities or ever
dealt with in an official manner. Further we know that while some child
sex offenders are predatory and repeat their crimes many times, the
vast majority do not recidivate. Extensive studies by DOJ and other
entities indicate that less than 5% repeat their offenses. Any repeat
sex offense against a child is horrible, but wehave to consider whether
the cost benefit of treating 100% of known offenders the same is cost
effective aainst the other vast needs for preventing abuse of children.
It would be nice to think that we can legislate away the
possibility of such horrific crimes, but it is not realistic to believe
we can and we should certainly seek to avoid enacting legislation that
expends scarce resources in a manner that is not cost effective or that
exacerbates the problem. While it is clear that having police and
supervision authorities aware of all location and identification
information about child sex offenders, it is not clear that making that
information indiscriminately available to the public, with no guidance
or restriction on what they can do with, or in response to, such
information, is helpful to children. There have been incidences of
vigilante and other activities which have driven offenders underground.
And, again, the vast majority of offenders are family members or
associates known to the victim; so we don't want to make the victims
reluctant to come forward because their home and family will be exposed
by a registry.
Moreover, some of the bills that have been proposed have elaborate
procedures and requirements of that will cost a lot of money to
implement. We should assure there is a cost benefit analysis of what
would be the most productive use of such money rather than simply
impose the requirements without references to effectiveness or cost/
benefit.
So, Mr. Chairman I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses
for insight on the question of what approaches are most promising in
helping to reduce the scourge of sexual and other abuse of children.
With the vast majority of child sexual and other abuse cases going
unreported, the notion that we can address the issue by punishment and
law enforcement approaches alone sounds hollow. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
----------
Letters submitted by the Honorable Mark Green, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin and Member of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on behalf of Allison Gullick,
Marc Klaas, and Eric and Michelle Wilkinson