Children's Safety Act of 2005

CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 14, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the so-called Child Safety Act, H.R. 3132, because it forsakes meaningful crime reduction in favor of ineffective solutions that will only create a false illusion that our children are better protected from sexual abuse.

We have all read with heartbreak and anger the horrible, the terrible stories of sexual abuse, abduction, and murder of children. It is clear that we need to protect children from sexual predators and pedophiles through stronger laws and better enforcement. I realize that voting against a bill with a title as attractive as this is easily misunderstood and mischaracterized. But I have never been one to vote for form over substance, nor to shy away from standing up for what is right regardless of the political slings and arrows. Unfortunately, this bill will do more harm than good, and in the balance will do precious little to make our children safer. I hope the Senate will do better.

We need a real system that gives parents peace of mind and enables them to be aware of the presence of pedophiles in their neighborhood. A National Sex Offender Registry, that is maintained by the United States Department of Justice is a very good idea that I support. Members of every local community would be able to access this registry online, and be able to keep tabs on those who may pose harm to our children. States would notify each other when sex offenders move between States, and reporting requirements would be uniform so that it's easier to keep the lists current and accurate. This is a sensible thing that we should be doing to protect our children. I would be proud to support it and I hope it will be addressed on the floor in a more rational way.

That leads me to my overriding criticism of this bill: Its flaws are so troubling and fundamental that it compels me to oppose passage despite my support of one component part.

This bill creates 36 new mandatory minimum penalties. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They discount mitigating factors in crimes, prevent judges from meting out punishments that are tailored to the criminal, and have been proven discriminatory to people of color. They do not work. They may make legislators feel good but they have been shown not to reduce crime rates. Even the Judicial Conference, the group that represents Federal judges, has said that mandatory minimums violate common sense. Let me explain how just one of the new minimums will make us less safe, instead of more. If a previously convicted but released sex offender commits a technical violation of the reporting requirements--for example, they miss the registration deadline by a day or a week--they would receive a mandatory 5-year sentence. There is no discussion, and there can be no evaluation by a Federal judge.

The result is that sex offenders who miss the deadline or commit other technical violations will only be driven underground. Instead of turning themselves in, they will go under the radar and into unsuspecting communities. This is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen.

Also troubling is the fact that this legislation creates two additional death penalties. Yet, research has shown that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let me repeat, the death penalty simply does not reduce crime.

Those who commit the most heinous and terrible crimes against our children should have to face being locked away for the rest of their lives, where they must contemplate their crimes until the end of their days, without posing harm to society. But expanding the already ineffective death penalty to crimes where the victim's death is not even intentional is not only illogical, it is immoral. The government's job is to prevent crime and punish criminals, often severely. But killing citizens in order to exact retribution is inappropriate for a government that seeks to be moral.

We do need a Child Safety Act, but it should be a real one. We need sensible punishments and preventative measures that will actually reduce sexual predation, not just talk tough.

I am very disappointed that this bill weakens sound registration requirements and penalties by stacking them on fundamentally flawed provisions. It is my hope that sensible actions to protect our children are considered at the earliest possible date.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov