In theory, operating by a black and white sense of morals seems like it wouldn’t be that hard, and who among us doesn’t believe that sexual predators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Unfortunately, these standards, such as would be imposed by “Jessica’s Law” carry unintended consequences which could ultimately allow for a greater number of predators to go free, and imprison others who do not deserve it, wasting valuable money and resources.

Jessica’s Law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by a previously convicted sex offender. In other states where it has been adopted, the law carries a 25-year mandatory sentence for those convicted of sexual abuse crimes committed against someone 12 years old or younger.

The purpose of the justice system as we know it is to punish those who have done wrong. Mandatory sentences walk the dangerous line of those who want to use prison as a way to exact revenge. Nor do they leave room for the law to show mercy, or in many cases like here in Vermont, offer treatment to the offenders as an option to a lifetime in prison.

Mandatory sentences also remove the likelihood of plea bargains in the court. This has two major consequences. The first is that it will undoubtedly result in more trials. In Vermont, 60 percent of sexual abuse cases that go to trial result in acquittal. Think about that for a second. These are the cases that prosecutors believe to be the strongest and view that they have a reasonable chance of winning—yet 60 percent of them are essentially lost. Much of this reflects the difficulty of prosecuting this type of case, especially when a significant amount of time has passed between the crime and notification of authorities—something which is common in cases of this nature.

In many instances, the likelihood of a trial and subsequent deposition could also cause potential victims to be reluctant to come forward. Plea bargains basically allow victims to act with a certain amount of anonymity. The nature of a trial in these cases focuses on the defense proving the victim is a liar, and destroying their credibility. Imagine being the parent of a six-yearold child who has been abused. Would you want to subject your child to a trial of this nature? If the answer is no, the only other possibilities without plea bargains are that the case will be dismissed or perhaps a misdemeanor conviction for simple assault.

In other states, some prosecutors/ judges have circumvented the mandatory sentences by charging perpetrators with lower level crimes. Sadly, when these perpetrators are released their names do not appear on the sex offended registry and their records do not paint a clear picture of their crimes.

Also, consider that 99 percent of sexual abuse cases are committed by someone known to the victim, predominately family or a close friend. It is easy to see that the parent of an abused child could be reluctant to come forward, knowing that they would be sending someone close to them to jail for a lengthy sentence, as opposed to putting them in a position to get help, which is an option under the current system.

Ultimately, when all the aspects of mandatory sentences and Jessica’s Law are considered, it is not the answer. Perhaps this is the reason almost no one who works in the Vermont Justice System has come forward in support of it. While we all want to keep offenders off the street and help the victims of the crimes, Jessica’s Law is not the answer.

Chris Clark is a frequent contributor to Livin’ Magazine.