One Strike Laws Needed for Child Sex Offenders

MICHELE E. GWYNN
The recent break in the cases of two missing boys in Missouri, Ben Ownby, age 13, missing for four days and Shawn Hornbeck, now age 15, missing for four years, has brought a great deal of attention back to laws against pedophiles and sex offenders.

The two cases are being built against the defendant, alleged kidnapper Michael Devlin, age 41, a pizza parlor manager. Devlin pleaded "no guilty" to charges of kidnapping Ben Ownby via close circuit camera from the detention center where he is currently being held in solitude for his personal safety. His next scheduled court date is set for March 15, 2007.*

So this is the set up. A man with no prior convictions (allegedly) kidnaps one boy and holds on to him for four years. How can this happen without anyone being suspicious and without the child in question contacting police or anyone around him and asking for help? It is obvious the child was terrified for his life and possibly for the lives of his family members should it become known by his captor that he'd attempted to get help.

The child grows up and is no longer a child so the (alleged) kidnapper, wanting another child, (allegedly) abducts thirteen year old Ben Ownby in January 2007 as he got off his school bus, heading for home. It is lucky for young Ben that a schoolmate noticed the white pick up truck that was parked sideways in the road and then drove erratically away (with Ben inside, unknown to his schoolmate). The observant young man reports what he saw to police after Ben's parents have called around to neighbors inquiring if any of them had seen Ben.

An A.P.B. (all points bulletin) is put out on the description of the truck parked near the scene where Ben Ownby's presence was last reported. Two officers driving their regular beat notice a truck matching the description on the A.P.B. parked at an apartment complex. The rest is media news history.

While these two cases are being built and more information on what occurred during Shawn Hornbeck's missing years and Ben Ownby's missing days comes to light, we will all be horrified by what many of us already know in our hearts. These two young men were taken by a pedophile and abused and terrorized during their enforced captivity. While all of this is still "alleged", a word I must use because our laws protect even disgusting criminals who deserve no rights, we must look to the current laws regarding sex crimes and pedophilia.

The Protect Act of 2003 was signed into law by George W. Bush on April 20, 2003.

The guidelines of this law are as follows:
*The law has the following effects:

Provides for mandatory life imprisonment of sex offenses against a minor if the offender has had a prior conviction of abuse against a minor, with some exceptions.

Establishes a program to obtain criminal history background checks for volunteer organizations.

Authorizes wiretapping and monitoring of other communications in all cases related to child abuse or kidnapping.

Eliminates statutes of limitations for child abduction or child abuse.

Bars pretrial release of persons charged with specified offenses against or involving children.

Assigns a national AMBER Alert Coordinator.

Implemented Suzanne's Law. Named after Suzanne Lyall, a missing college student of the University of New York in Albany, the law eliminates waiting periods before law enforcement agencies will investigate reports of missing persons ages 18-21. These reports are also filed with the NCIC.

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography.

Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in (Miller test) obscene OR engaged in sex acts.

Minimum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution.

Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad.
For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18, and all sex with anyone under 16. Previous US law was less strict, only punishing those having sex either in contravention of local laws OR in commerce (prostitution); but did not prohibit non-commercial sex with, for example, a 14 year-old if such sex was legal in the foreign territory.*
Notice the first line of this law as it explains that a mandatory life sentence will be imposed only if the offender has had a prior conviction of abuse against a minor! So what Mr. Bush has signed into law is a window of opportunity for a child sex offender to be let off and sent out into the world to harm more children!

This is the law that must change. This law will allow Michael Devlin, a first time offender, to be given a reduced sentence, probably with some kind of treatment and counseling, and then he will be released into society again. Can you believe it? There is no evidence that pedophiles can be rehabilitated and to be optimistic of such and to continue to protect the rights of the offender only puts another innocent child in danger!

We need to change the first line of the Protect Act to state that the first conviction (not the second or third) will result in an automatic, mandatory life sentence. No excuses or exceptions as stated in the act.

I urge every single voter reading this article to contact your congressman's office and demand that this issue be brought before legislators for immediate review. This is not something we can put off or put aside. A child is everyone's responsibility and we must act as a community to protect them from those who would do them harm. Protect the innocence of all children by acting today.

*Source cited: Wikipedia/Protect Act of 2003, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
*Case Information received from MSNBC/Associated Press articles, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16724238/site/newsweek/

Published by MICHELE E. GWYNN

Ms. Gwynn is a freelance writer for two local papers in San Antonio, Texas, and an independent contractor for Examiner.com. She holds a degree in Broadcasting, and has published her first Sci-fi short story,...  View profile

4 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Steven Yoon12/29/2010

    1. Studies have consistently shown that former sex offenders have a far lower rate of re-offending than any other crime type. Of those few former sex offenders who do recidivate, the majority are convicted of NON-sexual offenses.


    2. The current pardon system works: the vast majority of those who are pardoned never reoffend Thus, "automatic denial of pardons to sex offenders would unnecessarily curtail the liberties of the many ex-offenders who remain crime-free". (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200003-eng.aspx)


    3. Denying offenders the opportunity to eventually reintegrate into society may increase recidivism rates- thus making society LESS safe.


    More Info: CanadiansForAJustSociety.webs.com

  • Michele Gwynn1/31/2007

    From the author-You're right, sometimes people are innocent but my reference is for those who are proven guilty and convicted by solid evidence as in the case being built for Michael Devlin.

  • Rose Hunt1/31/2007

    Here is my problem with the one strike rule- sometimes, just sometimes, a person isn't guilty. I am not referring to cases where the man was caught with his pants down. But teen girls sometimes accuse the family of abuse as a way to get revenge or as a way to legally runaway. Sometimes people are innocent.

  • Jeff Musall1/30/2007

    These are tricky, because if a person takes the position that the hysteria over sex crimes is overblown, they risk being called all sorts of vile names. But the trend is for them to be over-hyped by news organizations and then pounced on for political gain...

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.