Even when a truly brutal case of child abuse & neglect captures the attention of legislators, and not just when the child is blonde and white, the outcry to “do something” most always falls short.  Take the murder of 12 year old Brook Bennet of Vermont, allegedly killed by her own uncle, himself classified as “a repeat sex offender.”

Author and journalist Judith Levine writes that after Bennet’s death and the resulting evaluation of law enforcement’s role in the prevention of sex crimes, the Vermont Senate’s Judiciary Committee has actually admitted that policy is largely powerless to end child sexual abuse.  So why did they still introduce 34 recommendations to further intensify the state’s child sex offender laws?

Vermont can reduce violence to children. But the way to do so won’t win any sexy headlines. The state can make kids safer from abuse by making them less poor.

Poverty is the single greatest risk factor for child abuse and neglect. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a child from a family whose annual income is less than $15,000 is 22 times more likely to suffer abuse and neglect than a child whose parents earn more than $30,000. I repeat: 22 times.

This is not because poor people are evil. It is not because they have a sickness called pedophilia. It is because poor parents are less educated and younger. They have more unplanned children. They suffer more frequently from alcohol and drug addiction and tend to be in poorer health. They live in unstable and overcrowded housing, with more people moving in and out. They are under daily stress, every day, every week and every year.

Each one of these factors, alone and in concert, increases the likelihood that a parent or guardian will batter, insult, underfeed, under-supervise, under-love or sexually molest a child.

In highlighting the issue of poverty, Levine also has a lesson to offer those who describe their politics as “sex-positive” or “pro-sexual freedom.”  It is fair to fight for less law enforcement intervention in the sexual development of children and adults’ private lives, to resist the policing of anyone’s sexual behavior and the furtherance of shaming sexual education programs in the name of protecting children.  What’s missing in the sex-positive rhetoric around ending sexual abuse is asking our governments, rather than blame “perverts,” how will we address poverty?  That is: many pro-sex pundits do have the “don’t take my porn away!” line down pat; but the “I’m willing to have my taxes raised to benefit children in poverty, even if that means I get to buy fewer iPod accesory vibrators” bit, not quite yet.