Child Protection in Kentucky

The “Boni Bill” was signed into law. It provides for funding of an optimistic estimate of 60 to 80 new workers. Kentucky has 120 counties. Lexington and Louisville will get more than one each for certain. It also provides for increased security. Unfortunately, these measures do not address the actual safety concerns. The bill’s namesake was killed away from the office in a clients home taking the child to a visit with parents. Home visits with children will continue to need to occur if we want to reunite children and parents. The security measures, by and large, protect workers at their offices where the risk is lowest.

The criminal records checks are helpful in a limited way. The Cabinet was always able to run these checks and the existence of a criminal records, including violence offenses has always been common. Often, prior to an initial home visit, workers do not have sufficient information to even get an accurate check. Even with accurate information - what is the worker to do when they are mandated to initiate their investigation within a fixed period of time. The higher the risk of the allegation, the sooner the response has to be. Police accompanying workers on a frequent basis is likely to meet with resistance since police resources are also limited.

Absolute safety can never be assured. However, the best answer is to adequately staff the Cabinet so that the workers have time to be careful, time to team partner up on high risk situations, and time to be thorough. The Boni Bill is a step in the right direction. It is like taking your money out from your mattress and putting it into a savings account. At least you are now earning some interest, but with inflation, you are still losing ground. Even with 60 to 80 new workers, the Cabinet is still losing ground to Kentucky’s growing population and increasing poverty.

Irony

I noticed this brief newstory yesterday in the H-L entititled DOCUMENTS WITHHELD:

The Justice Department is refusing to release hundreds of pages of additional documents related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, setting up a fresh clash with Capitol Hill in a controversy that continues to threaten Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’ hold on his position. The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing subpoenas for those papers.

Did anyone else notice the irony in the Department of JUSTICE, the enforcer of laws, feeling the need to keep secrets when the Attorney General has assured us that they did nothing wrong. Today’s stoy reports that one of Gonzales’ aides resigns.

The origin of “irony” seems especially pertinent: “French ironie, from Old French, from Latin īrōnīa, from Greek eirōneia, feigned ignorance, from eirōn, dissembler, probably from eirein, to say.”

I’m curious

Kentucky has a new law requiring sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses, instant messenger id’s, and chat room ids. See Lawreader article for more details. I think all the sex offender laws raise some unique Constitutional concerns. This one will raise some ex post facto questions to be sure. However, that is not the source of my curiosity. My curiosity is about how this law makes any practical difference.

Does anyone really believe that an internet savvy sex offender will register ALL their e-mails and ids? Assuming any sex offender with two brain cells to spare for thinking things through, while all the other ones are obsessing on their next victim, will hold in reserve a special e-mail address or id, how exactly will the state enforce this law? Do they really have the manpower and resources to reach into each computer that each offender uses to track down other e-mails and ids? What about obtaining search warrants - or does this fall under the national security “exception” to the Fourth Amendment? Curious.

What exactly is going to prompt MySpace and other such private companies to do this proposed cross-referencing. That will certainly cost money and resources. Also, if they find an offender’s information registered with them, but there have been no complaints about inappropriate behavior, do they summarily refuse them access? Curious.

Don’t get me wrong - if this law actually works and prevents more child sexual abuse, then I will be happy about the result while remaining concerned about mangling the Constituion. No, my curiosity is about how emotion can blind us to practicality and how the desire for political posing creates poorly concieved though wonderfully intentioned legislation. By poorly conceived, I mean that before legislation is put forth, one really should ask “Is this law going to be enforceable?” If not, then keep thinking because we really do not need more specious laws on the books.

If I have misunderstood this new law, then I invite comments. I am, after all, anti-sexual abuse. I simply want the laws designed to prevent it to be effective and Constitutionally sound ones.

What exactly does insurance insure?

Check out this excellent article at Kentucky Law blog regarding the insurance industry. It confirms some of what I wrote a few months back here.