False Remedies Hinder Abuse Prevention

While it may seem unfeeling to argue against a law that bears the name of a sweet child, murdered and abused by a sexual predator who was her neighbor, it is an argument that needs to be made.

Megan’s Law states that a neighborhood must be informed when a convicted perpetrator moves in. And this law plays on every wild sentiment and fear, contradicting current knowledge and research in the area of child sexual abuse prevention. The stated controversy is about the rights of convicts who have supposedly “paid their dues” and now should be given a second chance. But there are several more important issues at stake.

The law returns us to a belief strongly held in the first half of the century that the peril for children lies “out there” and not in the home. J. Edgar Hoover launched a campaign against sexual deviance that painted a picture of the corrupt predator as a stranger, the embodiment of evil, lurking around the corner. Researchers today tell us, however, that children are much more likely to be abused by a family member, close friend of the family or an adolescent boy who has never served time for a sexual offense.

The law also groups all kinds of perpetrators of sexual abuse together into a certain type that in actuality makes up a small percentage of all abuse cases. Men and boys who commit acts of sexual abuse are a heterogeneous lot. While researchers have tried to distinguish different types, the research often doesn’t support the typology and we end up concluding that “it could be anybody.” One type that does stand out, however, is the sexual predator or compulsive child sexual abuse perpetrator. Although not representative of the majority, this type is used to represent them all. And this is the type most resistant to treatment.

That sex offenders are incurable is a myth constructed by the media. There are successful programs that use group therapy, behavior management, empathy training and long-term character work that have had good results. These treatments are costly and rare, which primarily suggests that we do not know yet just how curable sex offenders are. Much more funding needs to be funneled into research in this area, not only through prison systems but through social service centers and hospitals where unconvicted sex offenders are identified.

By creating a law pointing to a specific, probably untreatable subtype of sex abuse offender, we point attention away from the mundane, “everyday” sexual abuse that is perpetrated on children and that stems from more general sociocultural problems. Our society encourages boys and men to grow up feeling entitled to certain sexual acts and that aggression and power assertion are viable ways of coping with needs and unpleasant emotions. While boys are filled with imagery of what’s “sexy,” they are given very little space to discuss and explore what’s sexual. What’s sexual can be pleasurable but also confusing and disturbing. What we may need is a hotline for young men to prevent sexual abuse before it happens.

These perpetrators of abuse aren’t sick but they do do awful things to women and children and they do need help to change. The problem with Megan’s Law is that it shames perpetrators and isolates them from the very community that could be a healing force. The chance for reparation along with treatment reconnects offenders to society while Megan’s Law gives up on them, not just individually, but as a group. The cliche description of the neighbor sex offender--”He was a loner”--may speak volumes about prevention as well as recidivism.

Most sexual abuse perpetrators are not murderers, not predators and not uncurable. Picking out individual offenders for shaming and attack will only support an “us/them” mentality of most men and give neighbors a very false sense of security. Prevention of sex abuse begins with a closer examination of cultural practices that encourage such behaviors.