To understand more about child abuse, it is appropriate to turn to feminist theory. As David Finkelhor (1984) recognizes, sexual abuse has entered the national consciousness "not because [its] prevalence has increased, not because reporting suddenly mushroomed (this was an effect rather than a cause), but, primarily, because the problem has been championed by a coalition of groups who are well experienced in promoting social problems--specifically the women's movement and the children's protection movement" (3).

Second, both the child protection movement and feminist theory demand contextualization. ⁷ This sense of observation is crucial in that an analysis must be historically situated if it is to be posited as valid and tested in its validity by others. Third, there is sensitivity in both movements toward disenfranchisement and victimization: both movements are sensitive to the ease with which society's attention to marginalized groups is displaced by competing interests and/or an urge for hegemony. Fourth, both movements implicitly realize that children are as much the victims of society as any members of any disenfranchised group owning its alienation to race, gender, or class. Therefore, I will treat both movements as complementary in the following analysis.

Patterns of Paternalism. At its core, feminism is attentive to paternalism and its expression. In this attentiveness rests the power of the movement. Patriarchy, the systematic oppression of women and children and the natural world by men, is a constant of western civilization. And so it is no surprize that the existence of patriarchy is evident in the events surrounding the death of a little girl.

Drawing examples from the case under examination, I will demonstrate the presence of paternalism in statements made by the following local community leaders: Christine Whitman (Governor), Robert D. Prunetti (Mercer County Executive), David Rebovich (Rider University instructor of political science), and John Burke (Manager of the Fox and Lazo Realtors office in Hamilton), and Anthony Sgro, (President of the Policemen's Benevolent Association Local 326). I will then analyze the statements of these community leaders as manifestations of paternalism by using these categories: establishment of hegemony through the use of genderic interpretation; calls for simplistic common sense and an accompanying retreat from complexity; attempts at minoritization; and threats of labor and economic repercussions. Throughout both the exposition and analysis, I will focus on the issue of community notification, the essence of Megan's Law. Because this part of the legislation is the most controversial, it is the area most vulnerable to the impact of paternalism.

Christine Whitman and Constitutional Muster. Governor Whitman's statements regarding community notification were, at best, tentative in the month following the death of Megan Kanka. In a news conference at the State House on August 10, 1994, Governor Whitman noted that "there is nothing I can do, there is no bill I can sign, there is no piece of law that can be written, that can guarantee that we will never see this kind of tragedy occur again" (Stile 1994, 1). At that time, Governor Whitman proposed legislation to require sex offenders and kidnappers to register with local police or state authorities every year for at least 15 years; simultaneously, she continued to stress that any legislation "would have to meet her standard: It must be effective and be able to withstand a court challenge" (16). On August 15, both Democratic and Republican legislators introduced to an Assembly committee "a fistful" of new sex-offender bills. As expected, included was a measure that would require the Department of Corrections to notify government officials and community residents when an offender is to be released. Again, the public was reminded that the Governor "has repeatedly urged caution and deliberation." Said Carl Golden, chief spokesman for the Governor, "It doesn't serve anyone's purpose to have legislation aimed at effectively protecting communities from individuals who might be disposed to do something like this, only to have it thrown out six months later because of unconstitutionality and have no protection" (Fromm 16 August 1994, 11).

By August 23, the Governor announced that her administration was considering a three-tiered notification system modeled after an existing program in Washington State (Stile, 24 August 1994, 8). On Thursday, August 25, The Times (Trenton) carried the details of the tier system. Under the Washington State program, "virtually" all cases involving violent offenders are classified in the second and third tiers and are made the objects of attention in the community when police notify local residents with flyers, community meetings, and other public notification procedures. In the case of first tier offenders--"minor sex offenders, such as offenders convicted of 'date rape,' some cases of incest and indecent exposure"--Washington State authorities rarely notify the public (Stile and Fromm 1994, 1). Whitman supported this type of program: "I don't want to see us create this population of sex offenders who might not be violent sex offenders but will fall under certain (types) of the legislation, which calls for pretty broad-based notification to the community" (Stile and Fromm 1994 14). She added, "If you have totally open notification on everybody at all times, you start to create a level of fear and concern that is not reflected in the threat that these people provide to the community" (14).

On August 26, the Whitman administration announced interim procedures that would allow authorities to send violent convicts, including sex offenders, to state mental hospitals when their prison terms run out if these offenders are still considered dangerous. Under the interim procedures, police departments, however, would not be required to alert the community of a convict's pending release. Said Whitman, "Providing information on specific cases will not, by itself, solve this frightening problem. Children must be taught not to accept rides or gifts (from) or travel with strangers. Parents, educators, church officials, community leaders and law enforcement officials must constantly reinforce these messages" (Stile 27 August 1994, 1).

On August 29, exactly one month after the death of Megan Kanka, seven bills known as "Megan's Law" were approved by the Assembly. Among the bills was indeed mention of community notification: the state would notify local police departments when a sex offender is being released from prison, and the police would notify the appropriate organizations in the community. The state attorney general, however, would determine the protocol. In other words, how notification was to be done and who would be notified was up to the Whitman administration. And, again, The Times reported that the Governor "has repeatedly warned the Legislature to approve bills that will pass constitutional muster and will not mire the state in endless court battles" (Fromm 30 August 1994, 1.)

Analysis of Whitman's Position. The Whitman administration's first act was to call for legislation. In doing so--in framing the problem as a legal one--the state began a process by which to establish hegemony.⁸ From the moment that the Governor proposed legislation in her conference at the State House on August 10, she began to achieve systematic, preponderant, authoritative influence. Her August 10 proposal, requiring sex offenders and kidnappers to register with local police or state authorities every year for at least 15 years, did little more than extend a state policy in existence since 1989 which required the courts to notify county authorities when any violent offender, including a sex offender, is being released from prison. Hence, because her act was little more than an extension of a 1989 policy--as well as an extension of S-1211-A-165, a bill that was already pending with the legislature--the Governor ensured that her own legislation would pass constitutional muster. Just as she risked little, she continued to emphasize the burden awaiting those who pressed for true community notification: any legislation would have to meet her standard, and it must be able to withstand a courtroom battle. Thus, in framing the question of child abuse as a legal problem, the Governor opened the door for systematic neglect of cooperative interactions. Correspondingly, she advocated competitive interactions among those privileged to be part of the state's governmental bureaucracy.⁹

Framing the problem as a legal one gave licence to a manifestly genderic interpretation of the complex problem of child sexual abuse. Because the position of children was interpreted by the Governor in a paternalistic frame of reference, the unique position of children was lost. Their position was mediated, and thus became genderic, through the ideologies that were now in charge of the problem (Lerner 1990, 110). Discussion of prevention programs such as those described by David Finkelhor (1986a)--stressing education of children, parents, and professionals--simply did not arise in the Governor's handling of the problem aside from such aphoristic statements as "Children must be taught not to accept rides or gifts (from) or travel with strangers." Her lack of subtlety in addressing the enormous complexity of the issue suggests the tacit paternalism in her position.

To achieve hegemony through genderic signification, the controlling group needs to establish a symbolic embodiment of the father. Before this father, one must be accountable or be subject to censure. The governor was quick to operationalize the father figure in the persona of the Constitution. Instead of celebrating the Constitution as a potentially flexible instrument for meeting new situations, instead of stressing that an expansion of governmental functions might be made possible through new interpretations of the constitution, instead of viewing it as a living document, the Governor instead focused only on the difficulties of community notification. In other words, instead of presenting the Constitution as a potential protector of the inalienable rights of children, the Governor presented the Constitution as the paternalistic gate keeper before which citizen activists must cower. Caution and deliberation, not exploration, are urged. And if the attempt at community notification fails? The censure of paternalism is sure to follow. The warning of Carl Golden, chief spokesman for the Governor, was clear: if community notification is passed only to have it thrown out six months later "because of unconstitutionality" citizens will "have no protection." The threat is evident: attempt to subvert the father and you'll wind up worse off than you are now. While we will return to an interpretation of such threats below, it is evident that, in the case of Megan's Law, constitutionality became the chief symbolic representation of patriarchy.

Ultimately, the limits of the Governor's position--and thus the limits of paternalism--are best seen in the three-tiered system advocated by Ms. Whitman. For the sake of legality, clearly not for the sake of the victim, the Washington State plan minimizes certain types of sexual crimes (e.g., incest and date-rape). Cases of incest, as extensive research has demonstrated (e.g., Herman 1981), are not minor sex offenses; they are acts of soul murder. And, in the cases of date rape, the threat of such a perpetrator to a community should not be minimized. Yet, the Washington State Plan was the clear choice of the Governor by August 23; no other legal plan was advocated, and no educational plans were publicly discussed.

What else might Governor Whitman have done? She might have realized that the Constitution is, as Stanley Fish (1989) believes, a device for assuring the openness of the political process (129). Questions about the constitution are always in the process of being settled, and no transcendent or algorithmic method of interpretation is required to settle them (130). Instead of establishing the Constitution as itself the absolute arbiter, the Governor could have viewed the debate regarding the protection of children from child abuse as on-going, a process that should be tested and examined in the courts.

Whitman, it appears, strategically positioned herself behind an highly restricted (and therefore safe) view of the Constitution so that, if Megan's Law succeeded, it would have met established standards; if the Law failed to meet muster, that failure would rest in weak legislation.

The Whitman administration had the nation's attention for a month; it taught us nothing.

Robert D. Prunetti and the Facts of Modern Life. Robert D. Prunetti's position is stated in letter to the editor published on August 31, 1994. Prunetti, Mercer County Executive, wrote the following: "The Mercer County Commission on Abused, Neglected, and Missing Children has a 10-year tradition of being proactive in protecting our children. . . When I address groups on behalf of the commission, I have learned from the experts to stress that open eyes and common sense are the best prevention. . . Threats to our children's safety and well-being are a deeply unfortunate fact of modern life. But we can redouble our efforts to work together as citizens and neighbors to keep our eyes and ears open to the dangers facing our children. This county government stands ready to assist" (1994, 12).

 Analysis of Prunetti's Position. Robert D. Prunetti's editorial, the message from a local, influential policy maker, stands with the Governor's remarks as a symbolic interpretation of the death of Megan Kanka for many in our society. Both the Governor and the Mercer County Executive fail to address the problem as one of intricacy and complexity; for them, the prevention of sexual abuse will not be one of the great social experiments of the decade. "Common sense and open eyes" are the best prevention, Mr. Prunetti tells us; we simply must accept that threats to the lives of our children are "a deeply unfortunate fact of modern life." The idea that we must resign ourselves to the loss of an entire group of humans suggests the ultimate patriarchal truth of the Great Chain of Being: God presides at the top, man sits below God, and then a deep divide arises. On the other side of the divide are women, children, animals, plants, and rocks (Salleh 1992). Apparently, children, like plants and rocks, are accorded no rights in the hierarchy--not even the inalienable right, in Mr. Prunetti's vision, to a safe survival. The vigilant Mr. Prunetti has mediated the tragedy through the values of common sense and resignation. His position, informed by paternalism, demonstrates the vapid rhetoric of traditional values.

 Enter the Academic. Professors, too, are part of the community response to the death of Megan Kanka. On August 12, 1994, the Greater Princeton Extra carried the remarks of Dr. David Rebovich of Rider University. Dr. Rebovich, who teaches political science, claimed that abuse and murder are uncommon and that the dollars should be spent on prevention of drunk drivers. "The changes in the laws appease the quest for justice, but as far as alleviating such criminal actions, it's pretty marginal. The problem is never going to be eradicated. But whether it will prevent future tragedies--that's really rather slim. Notification is helpful in guiding parents, but parents can't be there 24 hours a day. Stuff happens" (Kahn 1994, 1). Dr. Rebovich believes that incidents such as Megan Kanka's assault are relatively rare, so the money could be better spent on education. He feels, for instance, that people should be taught not to keep guns in the house and not to drink alcoholic beverages and then drive a car. The chance of a child being victimized by a drunk driver or of visiting a friend's house and suffering a gunshot wound, Dr. Rebovich stated, is much more likely than the chance of a child being sexually assaulted.

Analysis of Rebovich's Position. Perhaps it is not the job of a politician to educate, yet Dr. David Rebovich holds that responsibility. His claim is that child sexual abuse and murder are uncommon, the problem is never going to be eradicated, and therefore the dollars should be spent on prevention of drunk drivers. For Dr. Rebovich, stuff happens.

To achieve minoritization of the issue of child abuse, Dr. Rebovich's employs value dualism. Conceptually, the tactic of value dualism allows the agent to operationalize "disjunctive pairs in which the disjuncts are seen as oppositional (rather than complementary) and as exclusive (rather than inclusive) " (Warren 1993, 257). Dr. Rebovich sets the problem of child sexual abuse in a value dualism of nature/culture. For him, child sexual abuse is part of human nature. Thus, he believes we should side with culture and, instead, spend tax dollars on more common threats to children, such as drunken driving. In shifting the issue from psychological abuse to physical harm, Dr. Rebovich employs a second value dualism: loss of life/loss of mental health. In his value hierarchy, the potential to save a life is greater than the potential to save a psyche.

 Real Estate. Concern for human welfare has always had to compete with concern for economic value, and this competition is especially apparent in the case of community notification. John Burke, Manager of the Fox and Lazo Realtors office in Hamilton, reported that property values will drop if communities are informed of the presence of a sex abuser. On August 24 The Times reported that, if passed, community notification would likely force real estate agents to question home sellers about those who live in their neighborhoods. "For people in communities where sex offenders live, Megan's Law could make selling homes considerably more difficult. Property values in those areas could drop 10 percent to 15 percent" (Perkiss 1994, 7). Yet Charlie Frank, an agent at Fox and Lazo's Hamilton office, was not concerned: "There will be a lot of people asking about sex offenders at the beginning, but after a short while things will calm down and people will focus on the schools, wet basements, radon and things like that" (7). ¹¹

The Police. And, finally, there is the response of law enforcement. Senator Louis Kosco and Senator John Girgenti crafted legislation in 1993 called the "Violent Predator Incapacitation Act." This legislation would require that judges would impose a life term of parole on violent offenders. Opponents of the legislation responded that the program is unworkable because case workers are already too bogged down with caseloads. Said Anthony Sgro, president of the Police Benevolent Association Local 326, "They [legislators such as Kosco and Girgenti] put that out there and it looked good for the people who don't know about the demands of parole officers" (Stile 29 August 1994, 6). Mr. Sgro also admitted that he had not yet seen Kosco and Girgenti's legislation.

Passivity. Adrienne Rich has criticized the "radical passivity of men," a phrase coined by Mary Daly. Our cultural artifacts--in this case, our laws--have given us an essentially "passive-voiced dominant culture" (Rich 1979, 13). Implicit in this radical passivity is the threat of violence. As Rich writes, "In a world dominated by violent and passive-aggressive men, and by male institutions dispensing violence, it is extraordinary to note how often women are represented as the perpetrators of violence, most of all when we are simply fighting in self-defense or for our children, or when we collectively attempt to change the institutions that are making war on us and on our children" (16).

This threat of violence is evident in both the remarks of John Burke (Manager of the Fox and Lazo Realtors office in Hamilton), and Anthony Sgro, (President of the Policemen's Benevolent Association Local 326). For John Burke, community notification means a drop in property values of 10 to 15%. For Anthony Sgro, community notification means more work for parole officers. The threat is clear, and, in many ways, similar to that of Carl Golden regarding community notification. For Mr. Burke and Mr. Sgro, if you attempt to subvert hegemony (read "if you foul up real estate values or increase the paper work of parole officers") you'll wind up worse off than you are now (read "you may have trouble selling your house if everyone knows there's a rapist next store" or "you may be responsible for working to death a harmless social worker"). Constitutionality, economy, efficiency--these are the values which must be maintained; if not, the perpetrators of harm, as Rich warns, will be (ironically) those who are fighting for the rights of their children. ¹²

Policy and Obligation. On September 18, 1997, a federal appeals court barred New Jersey from notifying the public of the whereabouts of sex offenders until lawyers challenging MeganÆs Law could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. In that the community notification section of MeganÆs Law is viewed as most essential, it may be fairly said that the law--and the policy it incorporates--was in suspension until December 8, 1997. At that time, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David S. Souter permitted authorities to notify the public to the whereabouts of sex offenders until the court addresses the financial challenges to the law. Community notification efforts are scheduled to begin, although the full U.S. Supreme court could later declare the law unconstitutional. (Hanley 1997)

Significantly, there is doubt that the law will ever work. In Would Megan's Law Have Saved Megan? Tim O'Brien (1996) reminds us that neighbors on the street where the Kankas live knew that Joseph Cifelli, a convicted child molester, was a resident of 27 Barbara Lee Drive for six years. A roommate of Timmendequas, Cifelli had served nine years in the state prison for sex offenders at Avenel. On the July 29, 1994--the night of the murder--neighbors led the police to his house, a turning point in the case because it was in his house that the murder was committed.

A diagram in the O'Brien article illustrates that both neighbors on the left and the right of the Kanka house, on the left and the right of the Cifelli house, and in the rear of the Cifelli house all knew that Joseph Cifelli was a convicted child offender. Knowing doesn't stop it, and this law hasn't improved the problem one iota, argued Karen Spinner, spokeswoman for the New Jersey Association on Correction (25).

Why then, it is appropriate to ask, have we turned the problem of child sexual abuse over to the courts? Why have we fixated on issues of community notification and confinement?

As I have argued, it is clear that our society does not want to face the prevalence of the problem of child sexual abuse nor its effects. Because we do not wish to address the problem, we seek to avoid it through law--a classic response of patriarchy, a dismissive method that favors a legislative and long-term response rather than a concrete and immediate community response. Given the fact that our society does not recognize that approximately one-quarter of all women are victims of child sexual abuse, the present legal response in New Jersey ignores the fact that even state psychiatric hospitals do not have the mechanism for dealing with the complexities of the problem (Ruess's 1997).

Our policy response to child sexual abuse is tainted by patriarchy. As Nancy J. Hirschmann demonstrates in Rethinking Obligation: A Feminist Method for Political Theory (1992), the essence of social contract theory, the basis for modern policy, is premised on the exclusion of women and those events and issues impacting their lives. Hirschmann's theory is especially useful in an analysis of Megan's Law. If we attend to contextuality as Hirshmann believes, we would have a stronger sense of how communities, not the courts, might deal with the problem. It is, after all, the community and the family--not the courts--which must address the issue of child sexual abuse and its prevention. Conversation and reciprocity and mutual recognition all provide a method of keeping communities and families alert. These are vibrant elements that no law can provide. For, after all, prevention of the sexual molestation of children must take place locally, not in the courts. What is needed is a model of care.