1.  The bills, known as Megan's Law, are as follows: S-11 (sets lengthy minimum prison terms, allows for double sentences for violent sex offenders victimizing children under the age of sixteen years old); S-12 (makes the murder of a child under the age of fifteen years old an aggravating factor in death penalty cases); S-13 (requires convicted sex offenders, including those convicted before implementation of the law, to report their address to local police or state authorities every ninety days); S-14 (requires the police to notify a community and its schools when a convicted sex offender intends to relocate there); S-15 (eliminates prison sentence reductions for prisoners who do not participate in psychotherapy at the New Jersey treatment facility); S-142 (allows the state attorney general to seek civil confinement for sex offenders about to be released from prison); S-320 (requires lifetime supervision for sex offenders); S-995 (requires sex offenders to provide blood samples in order to establish a DNA record for future sex crime investigations); S-1211 (requires the New Jersey Department of Corrections to notify prosecutors thirty days in advance of the release of a sex offender). S-13, regarding community notification, is the section of the law that has been most often challenged (Booth 1994). (For significant challenges to community notification, see the following cases: Artway vs. State of New Jersey, February 28, 1995; John Doe vs. Deborah Poritz, July 25, 1995; W.P. vs. Verniero, July 1, 1996 [Booth 1996] ). On May 17, 1996, President Bill Clinton sighed Public Law 104-145, a national Megan's Law. An emendation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the new law amended the 1994 act to read as follows: (1) The information collected under a State registration program may be disclosed for any purpose permitted under the laws of the State; (2) The designated State law enforcement agency and any local law enforcement agency authorized by the State agency shall release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public concerning a specific person required to register under this section, except that the identity of a victim of an offense that requires registration under this section shall not be released.

2. As an indicator that the issue of child sexual abuse has reached the national consciousness, we may note that even the perpetrators have come to be seen as victims, an event suggesting backlash. After the Jordan case, for instance, VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws) was founded (Hechler 1988, 8-9).

The second type of research is designed for audiences in nonacademic settings who must deal with child sexual abuse. For example, one group of studies is aimed at law officers so that they may identify the behavior of child molesters. A good example of this kind of work is by Kenneth V. Lanning (1986), Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Another specialized book by Dianne H. Schetky and Arthur H. Green (1988) takes as its audience health care and legal professionals. Still another type of study is is aimed at policy makers; Nigel Parton's (1985) work addresses this audience.

It is also of interest to note that some studies not designed to record incidences of child sexual abuse nevertheless discover and record the phenomenon. Such is the case with Mary Field Belenky (1986) and her co-authors in Women's Ways of Knowing. These researchers were exploring the experiences and problems encountered by women as they search for knowledge. Employing in-depth interviews of 135 women in schools, colleges and social agencies, the researchers incidentally discovered that 38% of the women in schools and colleges and 65% of women contacted through social agencies reported that they had been victims of incest, rape, of sexual seduction by a male in authority over them. For their discussion and analysis of the problem of child sexual abuse, see 58-60.

Finally, readers should recognize that space has limited my discussion of nonclinical studies cited in Table 1. For a more thorough and comprehensive discussion, see Peters, Wyatt, and Finkelhor (1986); Salter (1988); and Green (1988).

4. Because they are so well informed by research in the field, the two books respond well to Ellen Messer-Davidow's (1994) call for coalitions to be built between the academic and nonacademic worlds (8). While it is true that Messer-Davidow is dealing with feminism in general, it is evident that feminism has made possible an informed view toward child sexual abuse. It is therefore imperative that feminism must prevail in the present conservative backlash if informed research and treatment of childhood sexual abuse is to continue.

5. For more on the long-term impact of child sexual abuse, see Sigmon et al. 1996.

6. Significantly, the Swedish dramatist August Strindberg believed that, as instances of actual murder decreased, instances of psychic murder were increasing. In The Father (1887), we see Strindberg's illustration of the theme (Shengold 1989, 19).

7. For more about the connections between feminist theory and the study of child sexual abuse, see (Hechler 1988). The assumptions and the methods of feminist standpoint theory have been recently reviewed and (arguably) repositioned by Susan Hekman (1997). For Hekman, the first component of feminist standpoint theory is contextualization. Max Weber, whose theories Hekman finds appropriate, presupposes that social analysis is always situated:  As soon as we attempt to reflect about the way in which life confronts us in immediate concrete situations, it presents an infinite multiplicity of successive and coexistently emerging and disappearing events (Weber 1949, 72). Rather than apologize for the limitations of participant observation, Hekman cites Weber's concept of the ideal type: yardsticks to which reality can be compared (Hekman 360). Ideal types are valid if they help us understand what we have experienced; and they are useful in helping feminists articulate a counterhegemonic discourse and argue for a less repressive society (363). For a response to Hekman, see Harstock (1997), who finds Marx's theories more appropriate.

8. Martin L. Forest and Martha-Ellin Blomquist (1991) also are critical of perceiving the social problem of children solely as a legal problem. Framing the problem of missing children as a crime control and law enforcement problem, they write, "gave parents and policy makers false assurances. They believed that they could rely on something seemingly quite concrete, powerful, and unrelated to their personal lives--law enforcement authorities" (292).

9. Evelyn Fox Keller (1992) makes this point in her study of the uses of language in evolutionary theory (119).

10. Dr. Rebovich was not the only educator to log in his remarks on the absurdity of community notification. Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins University Sexual Disorder Clinic, warned a national audience on NBC's Today Show on August 16 of the following: "If there is evidence that it [community notification] is going to work, then they [legislators] may want to proceed with it. But to do it on the emotional merits with no evidence . . . may make things worse. Let's slow down. It will be there tomorrow" (Fromm August 1994, 17). Significantly, Dr. Berlin here establishes the well-known and highly sexist value dualism of emotion/reason.

11. For more on real estate regulators, see Booth 1997.

12. Before leaving this section, I want to stress that there are those who recognized at once the confused and limited logic of many of New Jersey's community leaders in the weeks after the death of Megan Kanka. Although I am very certain they would not describe attempts to weaken community notification procedures as instances of paternalistic hegemony, each of the individuals identified below realized that the children of New Jersey were not being adequately protected from sexual offenders.

From the beginning, leaders such as Patricia Toth, Director of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, realized that "no one thing is a panacea. It takes a combination of things, including law enforcement and serious treatment of this problem while these offenders are in prison" (Bayles 8 August 1994, 5). E. J. Baumeister, Jr., Managing Editor of The Times, recognized that "the murder of Megan Kanka was the murder of all our children, and we have come to realize that the system that is supposed to protect those children does not work." Mr. Baumeister also sharply criticized the New Jersey Senate for not acting with enough urgency. "For a lot of us," he writes, "the system is now guilty until proven innocent, and we have little faith that those who operate the system on our behalf can fix things" (4 August 1994, 2). An August 8 editorial continues to press the issue of community notification. As Governor Whitman began to demonstrate reticence of community notification, The Times stated bluntly that "the thought that a person with Mr. Timmendequas' record could reside near small children, and that their parents could be totally unaware of the danger, is intolerable" (8 August 1994, 10).

As the Assembly voted on August 29 to approve the seven bills known as Megan's Law, Assemblyman Joseph Yuhas of Trenton continued to raise serious doubts about the actual meaning of community notification. Asked Yuhas," Does it [the community notification bill sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Kramer of Hamilton] simply mean that only law enforcement officials are notified? . . . And if it means that, we need much more. The community needs to know." Assemblywoman Shirley Turner, also of Trenton, voiced reservations that the community notification bill "does not go far enough" (Fromm 30 August 1994, 8). When the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee examined the amended version of Megan's Law on September 26, Senators Peter Inverso and Senator Gerald Cardinale continued to stress that authorities must be required to notify the public when serious offenders are released. "Paramount," Inverso said, "is notification involving individuals who by their history pose a serious threat in and around the neighborhood that they reside in" (Stile 25 September 1994, 4).

On the federal level, the efforts in the House of Representatives by Republicans Richard A. Zimmer, Chris Smith, and Jim Saxon to revive a Democratically-sponsored anti-crime package exemplify how earnest individuals can go beyond party lines. After the House had rejected the first crime package on August 11--which had a very weak community notification plan--these three Republicans helped to ensure the passage of the comprehensive crime bill on August 21. The federal legislation proved stronger than state legislation: those who commit sex offenses or crimes against children must be registered with the authorities for ten years, and this registration is subject to annual verification; violent sexual offenders will be subject to a lifetime of registration and quarterly verification; and communities must be notified of their presence. Said Richard Zimmer, the federal crime bill "will permit parents to know when a sexually violent predator is living in their neighborhood" (Skorneck 22 August 1994, 6). The efforts of Representatives Zimmer, Smith, and Saxon paved the way for the passage of the legislation in the Senate on August 25 and the signing of the legislation into law on September 13.

Ultimately, there is the courage of Richard and Maureen Kanka. "It was impossible," Baumeister wrote," to look at Richard Kanka and not see everlasting grief in his face . . . "(4 August 1994, 2). For many of us, it was difficult to understand the family's statement on August 4 that they would stand with their moral opposition to the death penalty and seek, instead of revenge, the protection of all children (Hollendonner 4 August 1994). We glimpse the humanity of Richard and Maureen Kanka and their dedication to ensure the inalienable rights of children in their statement published on the day the federal crime bill was signed into law by President Clinton: "We think about our daughter every day. We think about the horrors she went through. And we think about how we can make sure that children can live and play safely in their neighborhood. It is our intention to continue the fight to see to it that New Jersey and other states effectively implement Megan's Law. We intend to continue our work until we can confidently say that our children are safe again" (Stile 13 September 1994, 8).

On May 17, 1996, President Clinton signed a federal version of Megan’s Law. "I can’t believe it has finally happened, said Marueen Kanka in a news conference outside the White House. "We worked so hard for this . . . . And this is another piece of the puzzle (Stile 18 May 1996, 1,6). Today, the Kankas sponsor the Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation (1-800-634-2611).