A new name and a new law claiming to fight child sex abuse, and guess what? THIS one will work!

We could say the names in our sleep—Megan’s Law; the Adam Walsh Act; Polly Klass; Jessica’s Law; Lauren Book; Chelsea’s Law; Laura Ahearn; and so many others.

They all mark milestones for laws and policies and mandates and programs that claim to fight child sexual abuse. More than one has launched the major participant to fame, fortune, or a political stepping-stone. They all claim to be pro-victim—but they aren’t. They are pro-registry. They are pro-public notification. They are pro-lifetime punishment for those who have committed any one of over 200 offenses, from the mildest possible to the most horrific, that triggers sex offender registration.

None of them are supported by evidence or empirical data. None of them focus on victims.

Enter Erin’s Law.

Erin Merryn is not involved in self-promoting activities. She does not appear to seek fame or power. She isn’t running for political office. She has limited her activism and her advocacy, born out of her own childhood abuse, to writing books and to lobbying legislators about the need for research-based sexual molestation prevention programs in public schools.

This is from her website:  

 After Erin introduced the legislation in her home state of Illinois, the bill was named “Erin’s Law” after her by legislators and it has caught on nationwide. “Erin’s Law” requires that all public schools in each state implement a prevention-oriented child sexual abuse program which teaches:

• Students in grades pre-K – 12th grade, age-appropriate techniques to recognize child sexual abuse and tell a trusted adult
• School personnel all about child sexual abuse
• Parents & guardians the warning signs of child sexual abuse, plus needed assistance, referral or resource information to support sexually abused children and their families

 I have scoured the site. I have found zero references to the sex offense registry. As far as I am able to determine, this is a totally victim-focused program. It is an education and prevention program, not a punishment program or a revenge-motivated program.

There are one or two statistics used on the site that I find contrary to research studies, but I can forgive that, and I will attempt to communicate with Erin about those things.

What I find possibly the most significant is that in five years, 26 state legislatures have passed Erin’s Law, and a significant number more are considering it. The states are underwriting the expenses themselves. They are receiving no help from the federal government.

Compare that to the states—is it 17?—who have adopted the Adam Walsh Act in nine years, and many of those only through coercion and federal help and with many reservations and reluctances and with some states poised to repeal it.

People who commit crime should be appropriately punished. Then everything possible should be done to foster rehabilitation and re-connection to a healthy lifestyle and a law-abiding community.

Making a significant difference in the number of children who are sexually abused will only be effected through education and prevention, and of every “law” named after a victim, Erin’s Law is the only one of which I am aware that is putting the total focus in the right place.

Examining Chelsea's Law, Part II -- Who Will Chelsea's Law Effect?

Chelsea’s Law, signed into California law on September 9, 2010, by then-governor Schwarzenegger scant months after the court sentenced John Gardner to two life sentences without parole for the murders of Amber Dubois and Chelsea King is, at the heart of it, a compulsory minimum sentencing law. It allows life without parole sentences for adults who, if while committing a sexual offense against a child, kidnap, drug, bind, torture, or use a weapon. Life terms could apply for both first-time and repeat offenders. It also increases other penalties, including requiring lifetime parole with GPS tracking for those convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under fourteen.

According to available information, 74 individuals have been charged under Chelsea’s Law since its beginning, and eight have had their sentences impacted because of it. 

The father of Chelsea, Brian King, and CA legislator Nathan Fletcher, author of Chelsea’s Law, are now lobbying to extend the bill into other states with the goal being a version of the law in all states. Two organizations, Chelsea’s Light Foundation and Chelsea’s Shield, have been formed to further this agenda.

While agreeing that those who commit heinous acts need lengthy and stiff sentencing and monitoring periods, critics oppose first time offenders falling under the reach of this law. Critics further fear the law will, in application, stray outside reasonably narrow restraints. One critic, on reading the law, commented that, technically, it could apply to someone who pulls a victim a few feet into an alley—kidnapping—and touches him or her over clothing—sexual assault—and then releases him or her.

An attempt to identify those charged under the law, especially the eight who received impacted sentences, yielded skimpy but interesting results.

The first to be charged, when the bill was exactly one week old, was Joseph Cantora, 55, diagnosed mentally disabled in 1981, now accused of lewd acts against two young boys. The acts consisted of exposing himself and touching over clothing. Mr. Cantora had a history of sexual abuse charges involving children. He had spent time in a state institution, and, at a competency hearing, was judged to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. He was sent to a state mental hospital for people with developmental disabilities. 

A far more worthy candidate for Chelsea’s Law enhancements was found in David Lascelles, 50. Arrested three months after the enactment of the law, Mr. Lascelles, while having no previous charges for a sexual crime, was no stranger to the criminal justice system. He was on parole after serving prison time for a 2005 felony conviction. He was charged with the kidnapping and forcible rape of a 15-year-old girl he knew through a family friend. Under Chelsea’s Law, Lascelles was eligible for a sentence of 25 years to life without the possibility of parole. He pled to the charges without the allegations under Chelsea’s Law and admitted a serious felony prior and strike prior. He was sentenced to 42 years and four months in state prison.  

Unlike Lascelles, Frank Zsemlye, 27, had no prior record of any sort. In July of 2012, he allegedly followed two sisters into a public restroom at a park, shoved the 13-year-old into a stall, and fondled her over her clothing. When she screamed, he ran and was apprehended some blocks away. His bail, initially set at $100,000.00, was requested by prosecutors to be raised to $1,000,000.00. He is eligible for Chelsea’s Law enhancement because of the age of the victim, under fourteen.

One report showed a need for a competency hearing before trial, but research turned up nothing to suggest whether that has been done or, if it has, the result. With no trial yet, the fate of Mr. Zsemlye and application of Chelsea’s Law to his charges are unknown.

What is known is this: Frank Zsemlye is a young, possibly mentally impaired man, a stranger to the criminal justice system. Zsemlye pulled a 13-year-old girl a couple of feet into a bathroom stall and fondled her over her clothing for the few seconds it took her to scream. Disgusting act, yes; no child should be subjected to such violation. No one anywhere would refute that Mr. Zsemlye needs proper assessment and, based on that, proper treatment and punishment.

However, is it for the Frank Zsemlyes that Chelsea’s Law was crafted?  Do his actions, despicable as they are, warrant charges that could quite possibly result in a sentence of life without possibility of parole? If Chelsea’s Law is extended to other states, how many Frank Zsemlyes will face the possibility of life without parole for first-time offenses and for offenses that fall far short of the intended standard? Surely the most urgent question is how long will it be before legislators, as they historically do, add other qualifying offenses, ones that do not rise to the same level of seriousness and that cast a net over a much broader scope and larger scale?

Examining Chelsea's Law--Part I

Several months ago, two organizations, Chelsea’s Light Foundation and Chelsea’s Shield, received a flurry of publicity and promotion. Both operate under the auspices of Brian King, father of Chelsea King, a California teenager raped and murdered in 2010 by a registered sex offender. Yesterday, with the announcement that Chris Kelly, a former Facebook executive, has joined with the King family, more publicity on their highly publicized political agenda will be forthcoming.

This will be a two-part series analyzing Chelsea’s Law, the legislation that the organizations and those associated with them, are pushing in every state.

As the two parts that make up the series were originally written as stand-alone pieces, there is some overlap in a few details.

                                    Part I: What Is Chelsea's Law?                                                                                

(originally printed March 12, 2013, at Deerfield Patch)

How It Began: Who is John Albert Gardner?
John Albert Gardner is an inmate in the California prison system for the rest of his life. This is a timeline of the salient points, beginning in 2000 when he was 21 years old.

2000 convicted of child molestation; sentenced to 8 years
2005 released on parole
2008 completed parole
2009 Feb. Amber Dubois, 14, disappeared
2010 Feb. 25 Chelsea King, 17, disappeared
         Feb. 28 Gardner arrested in disappearance of Chelsea
         March 2 Chelsea's body found
         March 6 Amber's body found
         April 16 Gardner entered guilty pleas to both murders
         May 14 sentenced to two life sentences with no parole possibility
         Sept. 9 Chelsea's Law signed into CA law by governor

What Is Chelsea's Law?
"Chelsea's Law allows life without parole sentences for adult predators who kidnap, drug, bind, torture or use a weapon while committing a sex crime against a child. Life terms could be ordered for first-time and repeat offenders. It also increases other penalties for child molesters, including requiring lifetime parole with GPS tracking for people convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under 14." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/chelseas-law-signed-by-sc_n_711115.html)

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have a major flaw; as other offenses that may not rise to the same level of seriousness are added to the qualifying offenses, as they historically have been, a court has no power to use its discretion in meting out a different sentence; mandatory minimums remove all sentencing power from judges.

What Have Been the Results of Chelsea’s Law?
Chelsea’s Shield, a non-profit organization formed by Chelsea’s father, Brian King, to lobby for expansion of Chelsea’s Law into other states, has shared this in a report:
“They released a report on the impact of Chelsea's Law. The study found that between September 2011 and August 2012, 22 defendants were charged under provisions of Chelsea's Law in San Diego County. The eight cases that have been resolved resulted in longer prison sentences than there would be have been before the law was enacted, the report said.”  (http://www.10news.com/news/chelseas-law-may-expand-to-other-states-030113)

Chelsea’s Light Foundation, another organization formed by the King family and CA legislator Nathan Fletcher, shows more defendants charged under the law but does not speak to any actual sentences.
“The studies have concluded the law's initial impact as positive, with a total of 41 individuals in San Diego County charged under Chelsea’s Law between September 2010 and September 2012, and 33 individuals in Orange County charged since September 2011.” (http://scoopsandiego.com/news/local/chelsea-s-law-introduced-in-texas-and-illinois/article_229f6470-828a-11e2-88e4-0019bb30f31a.html)

What Do These Results Mean?
Using the information available, the summary is this: in the two years since Chelsea’s Law was signed into law, 74 individuals have been charged under the law, and 8 individuals have had their sentences impacted due to it.

What Has Been the Impact on Public Safety?
When then-governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill, he said, “Because of Chelsea, this never has to happen again." Has it never happened again? Have no other children or teens in CA been abducted and murdered by repeat sexual offenders since Sept. 9, 2010? Since this is such an extremely rare occurrence, it is quite possible that it hasn’t. According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Crimes Against Children Spotlight, August 2011, in cases of children or teens taken and sexually assaulted and/or murdered, “… less than 1 percent of the abductors were RSOs [registered sex offenders.]”

Chelsea’s Light Foundation included this in their recent release: “In California, the circumstances which lead to the tragic death of Chelsea King can never be repeated as a result of [Chelsea’s Law].” The fact is, had Chelsea’s Law been in effect before John Gardner murdered Amber Dubois and Chelsea King, it would not had saved them. Prior to his killing spree, his sexual offense had none of the elements that fall under Chelsea’s Law scrutiny. He would not have been still in prison or being monitored.

Shouldn’t Those Who Commit Heinous Crimes Be Severely Punished?
Of course they should. The real questions are: will this law actually save even one child, and will this law continue to target only those now stated, or will it, as versions of it are suggesting, cast its net over a much broader scope and larger scale? (http://www.stopchildpredators.org/legislation/model.htm)

Is Expanding Chelsea’s Law to Other States Good Legislation?
The states first being targeted are Texas and Illinois with Utah, Ohio, and Massachusetts soon to follow. Brent King has said, “I want to protect every child in every state….” Nathan Fletcher has said the legislation will target "the worst of the worst" offenders. Will this legislation, targeting the “worst of the worst,” protect “every child in every state”?

The problem with targeting the "worst of the worst" and focusing so intensely on them, even if all versions of the bill stayed within those parameters, is that huge amounts of resources are expended addressing the tiniest fraction of those who sexually harm children, leaving nothing with which to address the far greater issue of child molestation at the hands of those in their lives who have no previous conviction for a sexual crime. All laws currently in place already do what extending "Chelsea's Law" will do; they ignore the plight of untold thousands of children who are molested by those they know and trust, and they do little to nothing to protect even one. Does any state need another law that will do more of the same?