"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." ~Mahatma Gandhi
One of the best parts of blogging and tweeting is that uncensored thought can be aired. Sometimes that means a bit of joy can be shared, the burden of our sorrows can be divided between supportive shoulders, or ideas can be discussed. When that happens it is freedom of speech at its finest. Yes, there are times people say asinine things or draw conclusions that wouldn’t stand up in the light of day, much less make it across an editor’s desk to publication. And for those times, comments and replies allow for a response (or even a smackdown) when one is needed.
Even in newspapers, particularly the editorial pages, opinions are just that. Opinions. We all know (or should), that just because an opinion is found in a newspaper doesn't mean it is well informed, takes into account the whole picture, or is right. More importantly, even if a particular point made is right, that doesn’t necessarily make the overall message a good one.
Last week,
I wrote a post about the message being propagated that if the then-child survivor of the attack by John Albert Gardner had testified at trial, Gardner might not have had the opportunity to hurt other victims. While it may be human to go through the “what ifs,” nobody knows better than a survivor that the “what ifs” turn into a scorched-Earth search
in the mind of the survivor – for the rest of his or her life unless some significant healing happens. So, really, rather than focusing the “what if” question on what would have happened if the survivor had done something differently,
what if “we the people” took protecting our children seriously enough that survivors of violent sex offenders were uplifted and supported by the entire community and
what if the perpetrators of violent sex crimes were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole the first time they offended. That would be a start.
On April 2, 2010,
an editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune discussed important and significant improvements made in the process of obtaining witness testimony, and then concluded by saying “the biggest need, however, is an educational effort. The point must be made to parents how important it is for their child to testify, so that no perpetrator escapes conviction to become some other parent’s worst nightmare.” The most glaring failure in that statement is that it seems to make the victim's testimony of paramount importance. The narrow focus on the need of the victim to testify ignores the more critical issue that failure to keep our keep our children safe is a systemic problem. This gives the appearance of shifting responsibility of others' safety to the victim. Wouldn't it be a wonderful world indeed if all it took was a victim's testimony to keep a perpetrator from ever hurting someone else?
Testifying at trial is important -- if it is possible. And a lot more goes into the determination of whether it is possible for a victim to testify than most of us ever want to have to wrap our heads around. Everything and anything that our criminal justice, mental health, and social services systems can do to link hands and make testifying easier for the survivors and their families is essential. But testifying at trial isn’t the one-stop solution everyone – including me – would like it to be. Following the testimony, we also need laws that have the teeth to keep violent sex offenders off the streets permanently, whether in prison or secured in mental health facilities. Victims of violent sex crimes don’t get a second chance; neither should the perpetrators.
A greater degree of certainty that the result would get these guys off the streets so that no one else would be hurt would make the process of providing testimony that much more tolerable to victims and their families. If violent sex offenders are put away after the first offense, a lot less testimony will be needed.
Posts
