This morning I read an article which quoted the victim’s family’s lawyer as having said,

“With tonight’s verdict, justice has been done for the tragedy which struck the Kercher family. They are satisfied. These are severe sentences for young people, so it is a tragedy for all concerned” (italics mine).

If we were to cut the fat from this man’s statement, translate it into an algebraic statement, and then put in true values for the variables, it would come out (when simplified) looking something like this: justice = tragedy + tragedy. Read his statement again. This lawyer suggests that an event which constituted a tragedy, required another tragedy of commensurate degree to be committed in order for justice to occur. Does this sound like justice to you? To me, it sounds like simple revenge – but the kind of revenge you can stomach without shame, because it happened in a court of “law.” (Any one recall “an eye for an eye makes the whole world…”?)

Now, I don’t know much about the case and haven’t taken an interest in it until now – so my words should really be taken cum grano solis. After all, I’m basing my entire perception of wrong-doing on one man’s statement. But, what bothers me more than the fact a court may have allowed revenge to take place in its proceedings, rather than true justice, is that, to my knowledge, no one in the media has been concerned with this same idea. I was inundated yesterday – online, on television, on the radio, in paper – with media buzzards swarming around this story. The aspects they were concerned about were, to me, mundane and irrelevant: “How does the family feel?” (We can all imagine how they feel – now let’s stop prying into their personal lives.) “How does the victim’s family feel?” (We can all imagine how they feel, now let’s stop prying into their personal lives and let them grieve on their own). “Was it sex? Was it drugs? Was it violent?” (Of course the media would pick up on such elements).

Why wasn’t the media evaluating the case? The proceedings? The fairness of the sentences?

In his 1996 essay, “Why American’s Hate the Media,” James Fallows suggested that the media has lost its way. That its focusing on the wrong aspects of the stories it covers. He focuses more on politics, but I think the same idea applies here. He says,

“the pressure to keep things lively means that squabbling replaces dialogue. The discussion shows that are supposed to enhance public understanding may actually reduce it…”

That statement seems to be the crux of what’s wrong with the media. It speaks to a confusion over their vision (not perception, but vision of their purpose). After all, what’s the point of the media? Is it to increase ratings? If so, they can focus on the sensational, but their choice of topic and manner in which they cover it will not enlighten us. So, then, is their purpose to increase our understanding of issues and events? I certainly hope so. But I can’t say I’ve seen evidence of that in the American media today.

It seems we could refer to the nineties as the “Crackdown on Sex Offenders Decade” – a majority of ordinances and laws were passed in those ten years which have since become a part of our everyday lives: federal and state sex offender registries, living restrictions, and restrictions on where sex offenders can work (or even volunteer – Georgia had banned offenders from volunteering for churches, before it was overturned)  [1]. But, what have they accomplished? In our desperation to protect ourselves and our children, we fought in the name of reduced recidivism, but only achieved the creation of a new sub-class of human being: one with no home, no friends, and fewer reasons not to commit more crimes.

The Julia Tuttle Causeway, where some offenders reside at night.

The August 8th issue of The Economist tells the story of Wendy Whitaker who, in 1996, performed oral sex on a classmate. She was 17 and he was three weeks short of being 16. In Georgia at the time, oral sex was considered sodomy – and thus was she charged. Whitaker consequently spent more than a year in jail, the state women’s prison, and boot camp. She told The Economist, “I was in there with people who killed people. It’s crazy.” And, although oral sex is no longer considered sodomy in Georgia and a new law has categorized consensual sex

 between teenagers only a misdemeanor and not a crime, Whitaker has received no relief: her name, photograph, and address are made publicly available online at Georgia’s Sex Offender Registry. Recently, Whitaker and her husband bought a house, being careful to abide by the living restrictions Georgia has established for these vile sex offenders (they must live and work at least 1,000 feet from anywhere children may congregate). The Whitakers thought they researched their choice well enough, but were evicted when it became evident that a church nearby operated a child-care centre. Her dutiful husband moved with her and lost his job as a result.

A similar tale can be found in Miami, where legislation bans sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of places where children gather [3]. As a result, a new slum has been born: the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Under this bridge, a “colony of predators” eke out their meager existence – or so we think [3]. Most individuals only sleep at the Julia Tuttle Encampment, but live elsewhere during the day. After all, the ordinance just requires them to avoid places where children gather from 10p.m.-6a.m. As one sex offender observed, “We could be in front of a school all day, but we are under the bridge when all the kids are at home with their moms at night. This doesn’t make any sense” [4].

The sex offender registries have numerous flaws, including:

• Weak definitions of sex offenses: 13 states require registration as a sex offender for urinating in public [2],
• Discrimination against teenagers: 29 states require registration as a sex offender for teenagers who engaged in consensual sex with another teenager [2]. You can drive a car, smoke, fight for your country, and vote – but I’ll throw you in jail if you make consensual love to your girlfriend. The Economist cites one man who feels the pain of this flaw poignantly: he “was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consenual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married” [2].
• The sheer numbers of offenders on the list makes it impossible for law enforcement to do anything effective with it. Terry Norris, of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, reported to The Economist that the man who had consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, mentioned above, takes as much of their time and resources as someone who commits an especially “heinous” crime [2].
• These individuals are made into targets for harassment: Numerous examples abound, describing convicted sex offenders being physically assaulted, murdered, or psychologically abused. While some critics might say this is their just desserts – we have to think strategically. While it is fair to say a murdered sex offender poses no threat to anything but our conscience, a harassed sex offender is only more likely to commit a more crimes – after all, what’s the point of abiding the law if it doesn’t protect you?

As a result of these flaws, we can paint this portrait of your average sex offender, post-punishment:

• Destablized: “Well-intended policy is making the public less safe…[it] destablizes [offenders] by making them homeless” [4]
• Destablized: “20-40% have had to move house because a landord or neighbor realized they were sex offenders” [2].
• Emotionally unstable: “49% of sex offenders’ families report fearing for their own safety” [5] and most report feeling depressed, hopeless, or afraid [2].

Does it really seem logical to make a convicted sex offender more unstable? Admittedly, there is probably little “rehabilitation” for those who have committed heinous crimes – most of them are likely sick individuals who need to be imprisioned for the majority of their lives or medicated. But for the other individuals (those who were caught giving blowjobs, caught having consensual – though underage – sex, caught peeing on a building in public), do we really want to be creating an environment which is more likely to turn them into actual criminals, then just fools who made a silly mistake?

Building Blocks Towards a Solution

The Human Rights Watch is championing a better solution, where no other politicians have. Among other things, they propose the following adjustments to our sex offender laws:

• Those convicted of minor, non-violent offenses should be not required to register
• Juveniles should not be required to register
• Sex offenders should be individually assessed, and only those judged to rape someone or abuse a child should be registered
• Registrations will be regularly reviewed and offenders who are “rehabilitated” or who grow to old to re-offend, should be removed from the registry.
• The information on sex-offenders registries should be held by the police and not published online, except on a need-to-know basis.
• Blanket bans on all sex offenders living and working in certain areas should be abolished. Instead it makes sense for the most dangerous offenders to face tailored restrictions as a condition of parole.

——-

 References: 

1. The Economist (08.08.09), pg 21.
2. The Economist (08.08.09), pg22.
3. Newsweek (0803.09), pg 48. “A Bridge Too Far,” by Catharine Skipp and Arian Campo-Flores.
4. Newsweek (0803.09), pg 49. “A Bridge Too Far,” by Catharine Skipp and Arian Campo-Flores.
5. The Economist (08.08.09), pg23.

At thirteen years of age and living just four-doors apart from each other, Sarah Drew and Megan Meier were your typical girl friends in your typical Missouri town living their typical teenage lives. Megan and Sarah even experienced a typical falling-out, when chats about boys turned into name-calling, bickering and, eventually, silence.

If only that had been the end of their typical friendship. Instead, in the summer of 2006, Sarah’s mother, Lori Drew, got involved. Aged forty-seven at the time, Lori created a MySpace profile for a fictional boy, Josh Evans. She sought out and “friended” Megan Meier online “in an attempt to woo [Megan] and extract information from her to determine if she had been spreading gossip about [her] daughter.” [1] For weeks, Lori Drew, her daughter, and a co-worker fabricated a romantic relationship with Meier until, in October 2006, things got ugly. Attacking Megan’s self-esteem, “Josh Evans” wrote “I don’t want to be friends with you anymore because you’re not nice to your friends.”[2] Shortly after Megan replied, asking what he meant, she realized that “Evans” had publicly posted messages she had written to him, where they could be viewed by all of her friends at school. As a result, these “friends” began posting bulletins making fun of Megan.

The last message “Evans” wrote was simply and cruel: “Everybody in O’Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.”[3] The final message Megan would send to Josh, or to anyone, was chillingly short: “You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.”

And so she did. Twenty minutes after Megan sent this message to the person she knew as Josh, the “totally hot” sixteen year old who had been courting her for weeks, her mother discovered her hanging from a belt in her closet; a macabre image made tragically ironic by the fact that Megan had struggled for years with a depression caused, in part, by feeling overweight. [3]

At the time, Megan’s parents knew nothing of Josh Evans. Weeks later, Mrs. Grills, the single mother of Ashley Grills, who worked for Lori Drew and sent messages on behalf of Josh Evans at her direction, approached the Meiers with terrible news. She shared with them what had only recently come to her attention, that Lori Drew and her daughter Sarah had created the identity of Josh Evens in order to inflict emotional pain on Megan – and that they had convinced Mrs. Grills daughter, Ashley, to “join in the joke.”[3] Before the ambulance had even left the Meiers’ house with Megan’s body, Ashley received a call from Lori Drew telling her that something had happened to Megan and that it was best not to mention the MySpace account they had created. Ashley, fortunately, did not have so barren a conscience. Later, under immunity granted by the US Attorney, she testified to the truth of the Drews’ sickening scheme.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2008, a little more than two years after Megan’s death, a federal jury in Los Angeles convicted Lori Drew of three misdemeanor charges of computer fraud. As a result, Drew faces up to three years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines. She was acquitted of the more serious charges.[5]

The costs of the game Lori Drew played are immeasurable: one young girl’s life; on couple’s daughter, a marriage (Megan’s parents are getting a divorce, unable to grapple with the guilt they face); the solidarity and happiness of two families. And for what? Vengeance? Simple malice?

As difficult, and sad, as it might be to realize, the costs are not as significant as are the glaring issues we must face as a society. Megan Meier is not the only young girl who has been assaulted online – and nor will she be the last. According to a Pew Internet Project study released in 2007, one-third (32%) of online US teens have been victims of cyberbullying. [6]

Anyone who might have suggested that online content is insignificant, or that our presence online is trivial, must surely be convinced that is not the case. We create our own realities through language, through interaction with others. We are all intimately familiar with the physical, face-to-face reality-construction that was all our parents knew. It has only been for an incredibly short period of time that identities, relationships, and other aspects of our lives have been created, maintained, and/or supported by online activities. And we are simply unprepared.

Joseph Mele, a former instructor at the National Crime Prevention Institute, once observed that lighting an area reduces the threat of crime there.[7] At the core of observation is the understanding that when people feel they aren’t being watched, they feel invincible, untouchable, and able to do anything they desire – even if it is going to hurt someone else. Is it such a leap of the imagination to think of the Internet as just a very large, dark expanse in which people may feel at liberty to do as they wish? Of course not – that’s just common sense. What will take more effort, however, is to determine where the root of the problem lies.

Is it up to social networking sites to protect us from online marauders? Is it up to the government? Should one, the other, or both establish squads of people relentlessly combing through our online communication in order to track down those with bad intentions. Is the invasion of our privacy a price we’re willing to pay for security?

Or is it up to schools to ensure our children approach online activities as responsible members of a community? Perhaps Online Citizenship courses should be required fare during high school, or earlier.

Or is this an issue to be fought within the home? Maybe it is parents who should be teaching their children about citizenship – and how it should still exist in cyberspace.

Frankly, we’re only going to make progress if everyone fight’s the good fight: our social media providers, our government, and – most importantly – those people who have a direct influence on how we develop as human beings. That is a true position of leadership: to show those looking up to you that the time for kind words or no words at all is all the time – that there is never an excusable lapse for libel.

———

[1] “Cyberbulling case goes to jury,” UPI.com. [Link].

[2] “Lori Drew charged over MySpace suicide,” Fairfax Digital, May 16, 2008. [Link].

[3] “MySpace hoax ends with suicide of Dardenne Prairie teen,” Suburban Journals, November 11, 2007. [Link]

[4] “Verdict in MySpace Suicide Case,” NY Times, November 26, 2008. [Link].

[5] “In the wake of MySpace verdict, could social networks do more to protect consumers?” Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2008. [Link].

[6] “Cyberbullying and Online Teens,” Pew/Internet, June, 2007. [Link].

[7] “Inhibiting Crime Through Design.” [Link].

]]> http://ashleywollam.com/archives/245/feed 0