Journey into Darkness (26 page)

It was, in part, her natural curiosity that cost the life of Megan Kanka. Early one July evening in 1994, the energetic seven-year-old tired of watching TV with her sister and went outside to see if one of her friends in her suburban Trenton,
New Jersey, neighborhood wanted to play—maybe hopscotch, one of the little girl’s favorites. A short time later, her sister went out to join them but found that Megan had never showed up at her friend’s house. Almost twenty-four hours later, Megan’s body was found just a few miles from home in a local park, placed in a plastic toy container. She had been raped and strangled.

As it turned out, Megan was a victim of her environment, although there was no way parents living on her block would have known it was high-risk before her abduction. The suburban New Jersey neighborhood the Kankas lived in was quiet, except for the normal sounds of children at play. No one knew that the three men who lived in the house across the street from the Kankas had all done time in Avenel, a New Jersey facility where sex offenders serve their sentences and receive therapy that’s supposed to make them less of a threat when they’re released back into society. No one knew until one of these men, Jesse Timmendequas, was arrested for Megan’s murder. Timmendequas had previously been convicted of fondling and almost strangling another seven-year-old girl. He had lured Megan to his house by offering to show her his puppy.

Megan’s family and others in her community were horrified by the crime. Their horror grew to outrage when they learned that her attacker had a history of sex crimes. Their outrage turned to activism and eventually led to the passage of “Megan’s Law,” which calls for communities to be notified when high-risk, paroled sex offenders move into their area. The 1994 federal crime bill required that states register and keep track of convicted sex offenders for ten years after release, as well as alert law enforcement when they locate in their communities, but it didn’t require the information be made available to the public. Passed as a federal statute in May 1996, Megan’s Law required this notification in all states. There were already forms of the law on the books in most of them, but the requirements differed vastly from state to state, ranging from those where residents had to contact police to research offenders in the area to others where police had to contact residents, schools, women’s shelters, and camps, with the name, address, and photo of paroled sex offenders.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the law, with court challenges in a number of states. Some argue notification is an invasion of privacy that punishes the offender twice by threatening his ability to turn his life around. There is fear of what parents might do once they find out one of these people lives in their neighborhood. Attorneys for offenders argue that once their client serves his time, he should be given a clean slate to start over. In this country, we do like to believe in redemption.

The biggest problem with that argument, though, is that a preferential child molester is not going to stop being attracted to children.

Suppose someone—some higher authority—came to me and said I was okay except for the fact that my attraction to adult women was wrong and perverted. I would find it very difficult to change that, no matter what I did. I’m an educated, middle-class father of three with ties to the community and a heavy “investment” in the system and our societal structure. And yet, even at the risk of all that, I would find it just about impossible to change my sexual orientation to conform to the dictates of what some other authority said I should if I wanted to be acceptable in law-abiding society. The same, I’m sure, would be true of a gay man or lesbian in similar socioeconomic circumstances to mine. Regardless of what you told him or her about how it was “wrong” to be attracted to other adults of the same sex, it wouldn’t change their sexual orientation. It may force them underground, as prejudice against homosexuals often has, but it isn’t going to change them.

The same is true with preferential pedophiles—only more so, because many of them don’t have the same vested interest in the system that most of us do. Many of them are respectable professionals and businesspeople who are, in fact, living this part of their lives in secret. But many more are fringe elements of society, just as murderers and rapists of adults are. And we’ve learned from our experience and research, we’re not going to get them to voluntarily give up their interest in little boys or little girls any more than you’re going to get me to give up my interest in adult women or a gay man to give up his interest in other adult men.

But if you can’t get him to give up the interest, can’t you
at least make him understand that restraining himself is in his own self-interest (so he won’t be sent back to jail)? Well, you can try, just as you can try to get serial rapists to restrain themselves even though they get satisfaction out of raping adult women. But I don’t think you’re going to be very successful at it. As Peter Banks puts it, “You don’t just wake up one morning and decide you’re going to go out and murder a child. Child molesters don’t look at things from the same perspective we do. We look on it as irrational. They look on it as normal.”

He echoes the sentiment of a lot of people who work with missing and exploited children and see what he sees: “There are certain things for which we should have zero tolerance. I think that stealing the innocence of a child is in some ways worse than murder.”

After my experiences interviewing repeat violent offenders in prison and working with local police to solve their crimes—normally recidivist crimes—I’m afraid my faith in rehabilitation is pretty low. They get arrested, behave themselves in prison, and tell their shrink they’re feeling much better, really. But it’s all self-reported. They say they’re able to control their urges, but how can we know what will happen once they’re released? What a lot of people in the psychiatric and judicial communities don’t seem to grasp is that
violence is situational
. It has to do with the environment and the opportunity. The mere fact that an individual is a model prisoner has very little to do with what he’ll do once he’s no longer in a closely observed, highly structured situation.

Arthur Shawcross was a model prisoner during the fifteen years he was incarcerated for the murder of a young boy and young girl in Watertown, New York. Within months of his release, his inadequacy and rage had got the better of him and he was killing prostitutes in Rochester. Jack Henry Abbott, convicted murderer who won fame and the support of much of the literary world for his fine book on prison life,
In the Belly of the Beast,
was such a good prisoner and such a model of rehabilitation that he was released. And unlike most convicts, he had fame, support, a reputation, and the friendship of influential people. Despite this, within a few months of his release he got into an argument with a waiter in a Greenwich Village restaurant, could not control
his rage, and killed the young man. Though I haven’t heard, I would not be at all surprised to learn that he is once again a model prisoner.

I can’t help but wonder if the attorneys of child molesters or other violent offenders are willing to let their own children befriend these guys once they get out. Will they let their own kids be the guinea pigs in some informal child molester rehabilitation study? What makes us think that once they’ve seen they can manipulate educated, advanced-degreed, mature adults into believing what they want them to believe, that they’ll stop using their influence and skills to prey on children, especially children to which they’re very strongly sexually attracted? Or, as I’ve heard from so many victims and their families: Okay, give offenders a clean slate after they’ve served their sentence—as soon as their victims are physically, mentally, and emotionally made whole … or brought back to life.

In Megan Kanka’s community, the citizens have taken another, less controversial step to start the healing process. The local Rotary Club purchased the house across the street from the Kankas—where her murderer lived—and paid for it to be torn down. The site will become “Megan’s Place,” a park where parents will be able to keep watch as the neighborhood children play.

With statutes like Megan’s Law and programs at such places as local malls where parents can get their kids fingerprinted, society keeps coming up with new ways to protect children. Walk into any major retailer of children’s goods and you’ll see what amount to leashes for kids on display amidst the toys, clothing, and other basic supplies. I’ve even seen ads for battery-operated tracking devices that make beeperlike sounds when parents activate the homing mechanism. I’ve also heard of at least one time such a device was found near the home of a child who was abducted and murdered, the safety device discarded as the child was taken away.

When my children were born, I was almost afraid to hold them, they looked so fragile. As our kids grow bigger, we become more confident that we won’t harm them and more paranoid about all the forces out there that might: we put protective plugs in all our electrical outlets, stash cleaning
fluids and medicine out of reach, buy bicycle helmets, and try to think of every way we can to keep them safe. Then we hear about stories like Megan Kanka’s, or Cassie Hansen’s, or Polly Klaas’s, or Amber Hagerman’s, or Shawn Moore’s, or any number of others, and then we want to keep them within direct view at all times, or lock them in their rooms until they’re well into their twenties.

What we have to remember is that like a lot of other dangers to our children, adults who would do them harm are something of a known entity, in the same way automobile accidents or childhood diseases are known entities. As parents, we can learn about the dangers they represent and then translate that knowledge (and fear) into practical means of protection. We know that predators of children use every advantage they have to influence potential victims, and unless a child is prepared, the adult has the edge: he’s bigger, stronger, and, according to most parents, adults are to be obeyed. Shrewd child predators will not only use these factors, but may stage the scene to enhance their position of authority. They may impersonate police officers or priests—trustworthy figures they feel the child might have been been taught to follow. In some cases, they will play on a child’s emotions, showering him with attention, manipulating him, later threatening and isolating him emotionally from adults who would protect and help him. Or they may lie in wait, looking for an opportunity to make a clean snatch-and-grab.

Now for the good news: you have the means and the weapons at your disposal—already in your own home—to defeat these predators in many instances, or equalize the odds in the others. Before we start getting crazy, let’s remember one important thing: the probability is that your child will
not
be abducted, just the potential is there. And that’s something you can guard against. Your relationship with your children, combined with some relatively simple safety skills you can teach them, are your best means of protecting your kids.

In the last chapter we talked about seduction-type child molesters who shower kids with affection and attention over a period of time. Peter Banks and others at the NCMEC keep stressing that the single biggest gift you can give your children is
self-esteem
. Kids who don’t get enough emotional
support at home are much more likely to be targeted by preferential molesters in the first place. They can spot the needy and vulnerable, just like that lion on the African veldt can spot the most vulnerable springbok in the herd drinking at the watering hole.

These offenders will sometimes target single-parent families specifically because the parent may appreciate another adult who’s willing to spend time with the kids. Parents have to trust their instincts. If it looks like someone is trying too hard to be there for your child, be suspicious enough to at least chaperone their time together.

All families go through periods where members are alienated from each other; children and adults each go through emotionally difficult times. Even when you’re having a rough period, you want to make sure that somewhere inside them your kids know you love them, no matter what. They need to hear you say “I love you” and “You’re special.” We give them plenty of negative reinforcement when they do something wrong; we need to make sure we keep that in balance with the positive.

Your kids must feel they can come to you if something happens that makes them uncomfortable. This can be hard, especially if a child gets in a bad situation because he’s disobeyed one of your rules. It’s tough, for example, for a thirteen-year-old boy who’s not supposed to watch R-rated movies on cable to admit that he went over to an older friend’s house to watch videos and something happened that didn’t feel right.

Communication with kids is so important. If they have questions—and they will—you want them to come to you. If your kid gets the impression from you that sex, for instance, is a completely taboo subject, he’s not going to be any less curious about it. He’s just going to get the information from someone else. Child molesters exploit this and turn it into an opportunity. Sharing information, they can earn a child’s trust while lowering his inhibitions and resistance. This doesn’t mean that if your child senses you’re uncomfortable discussing details of human reproductive science or sexuality that he or she is going to end up being molested by the first pervert who comes along. It just means you have to be aware that as children grow older, the focal
points for their curiosity naturally evolve and change. When they’re ready for information, ready to ask questions, you have to be there for them, always stressing how much you care about them.

If something bad ever happened, it would be critical for your child to be comfortable coming to you. Remember how hard it is for them to tell someone about being molested in the first place, and then think about the reaction they’re likely to get if they press charges. For every child victim willing to report a sex offender, there are any number of people who will discount their version of events. We’ve all seen articles in the newspaper about a popular teacher, for example, accused of molesting a young student. There are usually quotes from people in the community who love and admire this person, often slamming the child victim. If the pressure gets too great, think about what happens if the child recants the charges: he’ll never be believed about anything ever again. Unless he or she knows you’ll help to deal with the situation and hold the offender accountable, coming forward with a report of abuse can be a no-win situation for the child. Abusers know this; one of their most effective threats is to tell a child no one will believe him.