WI: Polly Klaas found alive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Klaas

In 1993, a young girl named Polly Klaas was abducted from her home and found murdered sometime later. The case was a cause-de-celebre, one of the first modern cases of media hysteria over a child kidnapping and led to a number of legal changes, most notably California's "three strikes law".

What if she had been found alive? Would we still have three strikes laws throughout the country? Would the media hysteria surrounding "stranger danger" (which has possibly contributed to, among other things, the current child obesity epidemic) be less prolific had this case ended in a happier way?

Would we have to go back earlier (i.e., the Adam Walsh kidnapping/murder) to find the origin of the media's modern obsession with child abduction or was this the case that caused most of the hysteria? I'd like to hear some thoughts on this from others, it's something I've been thinking about for a while (every time I turn on Nancy Grace, for example... would she still have a career if Polly Klaas hadn't been killed?)
 
Maybe it might be better to consider the legal and social effects of the Polly Klaas case first. This does not, of course, take away from the horror of the crime. Still, almost twenty years later, one has to wonder if the laws designed to protect both children and adults from violent offenders have performed their duty.

Would the media hysteria surrounding "stranger danger" (which has possibly contributed to, among other things, the current child obesity epidemic) be less prolific had this case ended in a happier way?

I don't know if a direct correlation can be made between childhood obesity and "stranger danger". Parents have always been (rightfully) concerned about their children's safety in public. Nevertheless, as a child I was allowed to spend plenty of time outdoors without adult supervision. I agree that today this would not be the case, even though I'm not ancient (we're talking about mid-1980's America, jeez.) Then again, my family had a TV with knobs (remember that?) and no cable. Compared to today's children, my electronic amusements were positively Cromwell England.

Is there more parental concern today about child abduction? Perhaps. I don't think, however, that childhood obesity can be whittled down to a specific event or moral panic. Today's children and teenagers have broadband internet, realistic video games, smartphones, and hundreds of satellite channels to choose from. Also, the American diet is filled with refined junk that no person should eat. If a parent is concerned about a child's obesity, lack of outdoor activity, and predatory crime, a family should spend time outdoors together rather than use XBox as a babysitter (ed.)

Would we still have three strikes laws throughout the country?

For non-Americans: "Three Strikes laws" are named after baseball. A criminal who commits three felonies, or in some states a series of felonies or misdemeanors, will be automatically sentenced to life in prison after the third crime.

These laws are perhaps the greatest legacy of the Klaas case. "Three Strikes" laws often don't discriminate between violent and non-violent felonies, or even misdemeanors, when counting strikes. Many of us have heard stories about previously violent offenders who were sentenced to life because their third strike was petty theft (not armed robbery) from 7-Eleven. I doubt that these cases are the rule. I suspect that in many cases the "third strike" might not be violent but a crime of some gravity (i.e. possession of an illegal drug). California Proposition 66 might have specifically narrowed the "third strike" to a violent felony. This prop was defeated at the polls. I sense that voters often approach the issue without an objective evaluation of both the effectiveness and justice of the law. Then again, the circumstances that gave birth to the law reflect the fears of every parent and compassionate adult.

One has to wonder if Three Strikes laws have protected children from violent crime. If they haven't, then they have failed at its original goal. That doesn't mean that Three Strikes laws aren't effective against recidivism in general; perhaps Three Strikes laws only protect against a type of recidivism that does not affect the rate of violent crimes against children. If children aren't protected, is society at large protected by Three Strikes? That's where the true question lies, and a POD.
 
Last edited:
Then again, my family had a TV with knobs (remember that?) and no cable.

Maybe that DID have an effect, considering that a lot of cable news airtime is devoted to "missing white women/missing kids" stories (that's practically all Headline News runs now), so the fact that your parents weren't watching CNN/Headline News/FOX News might've shielded them from some of the stories (though certainly there was still stuff like Oprah and Dateline available on broadcast TV, so obviously it wouldn't have shielded them from all the media stuff). I never said "stranger danger" was the only reason for the obesity epidemic, just a possible contributing factor.

The timing of the POD intrigued me, in October 1993 was just about when Power Rangers was getting going, as well as the moral panic over Mortal Kombat/Night Trap. More kids outside means more kids possibly imitating Power Rangers which means the slightly increased possibility of an incident that could cause a HUGE backlash against violent children's television shows (that might deflect some of the heat off of games, precluding the formation of the ESRB). Again, this is all speculation, but just something to think about, where pop culture might be affected by this POD.
 
I never said "stranger danger" was the only reason for the obesity epidemic, just a possible contributing factor.

True. Shouldn't have made that assumption.

Maybe that DID have an effect, considering that a lot of cable news airtime is devoted to "missing white women/missing kids" stories (that's practically all Headline News runs now), so the fact that your parents weren't watching CNN/Headline News/FOX News might've shielded them from some of the stories (though certainly there was still stuff like Oprah and Dateline available on broadcast TV, so obviously it wouldn't have shielded them from all the media stuff).

Maybe. My parents were never big TV viewers, and severely limited our TV time. TV does, of course, play a huge role in shaping people's understanding of their world. Perhaps adults who watch more TV than "average" carry a heightened sense of moral panic.

I also wonder if people's perception of crime is conditioned by their background, culture, or geography. In some areas of the USA, people leave their homes and cars unlocked. That would be unthinkable in the NYC suburb I grew up in. Maybe some people are more responsive to sensationalism because of factors that are not immediately noticeable.

The timing of the POD intrigued me, in October 1993 was just about when Power Rangers was getting going, as well as the moral panic over Mortal Kombat/Night Trap. More kids outside means more kids possibly imitating Power Rangers which means the slightly increased possibility of an incident that could cause a HUGE backlash against violent children's television shows (that might deflect some of the heat off of games, precluding the formation of the ESRB). Again, this is all speculation, but just something to think about, where pop culture might be affected by this POD.

I remember the Mortal Kombat moral panic well. Looking back, that game is pretty tame compared to what's on the market today. Anyway, I think you're on to something with the formation of the ESRB and fears over video-game violence. I don't know much about video games. If movies are any indication, ESRB ratings are probably not a very accurate indicator of game violence. However, ratings give a false assurance to parents, and perhaps some conscious or subconscious relief from the pressure of monitoring children's game preferences and play.

Would the butterflying away of the ESRB head off future OTL panics over other games (first person shooters, for example?)
 
Would the butterflying away of the ESRB head off future OTL panics over other games (first person shooters, for example?)

Butterflying away of the ESRB would be a reaction to a temporary cessation of the OTL panic over video games, assuming that indeed there was a Power Rangers-related incident around that time that would shift the heat away from video games. Butterflying away the ESRB might hurt Nintendo a bit, considering that Nintendo relaxed its content policies in response to the formation of the ESRB, without it I could see games like Goldeneye not even happening. The moral panic over games would probably resurface with a vengeance in 1999 with Columbine (assuming this wouldn't butterfly Columbine away via some strange coincidence with the Klaas family moving to Colorado and Polly befriending a troubled Eric Harris and helping him to get over his deep psychosis, but that's probably ASB). If there's no rating system in place by then I could see Congress stepping in and forcing something, which might well cripple the industry and butterfly away games like Halo and Grand Theft Auto III (or perhaps we just get Schwarzeneggar v. Entertainment Merchants Association ten years earlier, obviously with a different person than Arnold named in the suit).
 
One has to wonder if Three Strikes laws have protected children from violent crime. If they haven't, then they have failed at its original goal. That doesn't mean that Three Strikes laws aren't effective against recidivism in general; perhaps Three Strikes laws only protect against a type of recidivism that does not affect the rate of violent crimes against children. If children aren't protected, is society at large protected by Three Strikes? That's where the true question lies, and a POD.

something I've wondered about... what are the rates of child abduction in the USA (by strangers, not a divorced parent grabbing their kid illegally). The media goes kinda nuts every time it happens (and it is an awful crime, one of the worst), but is it all that common?
 
What if she had been found alive? Would we still have three strikes laws throughout the country? Would the media hysteria surrounding "stranger danger" (which has possibly contributed to, among other things, the current child obesity epidemic) be less prolific had this case ended in a happier way?

I can say little about the Three Strikes laws in this. However, I imagine that as long as she was kidnapped, even if she was found alive, you'd probably still be able to have a high-profile case that could lead to that kind of law. It's possible that another high-profile case around the same time might lead to this as well.

Any hysteria (even if it may be justified hysteria, but that's a topic for chat) around missing or endangered children can't really be localized to a specific case. It's much more of a trend than the result of one specific cause. Yes, there were a few high-profile cases, but there are enough of these that if one didn't exist, it's position in history and your memory would simply be taken up by another around the same time. There are also numerous lower-profile cases (just look at the bulletin board in your local Walmart) that might get more popularity if one particular high-profile case doesn't take control of the news.

"Stranger danger" goes back to the seventies at least, although maybe not with that term (it was just "Don't talk to strangers" when I was a child). The Obesity epidemic is mostly to blame on the food and electronics industries. Neither of these, nor missing children news cycles, are easy to get rid of with a specific POD, you'd need an overall shift in U.S. culture to do it.
 
Last edited:
These laws are perhaps the greatest legacy of the Klaas case. "Three Strikes" laws often don't discriminate between violent and non-violent felonies, or even misdemeanors, when counting strikes. Many of us have heard stories about previously violent offenders who were sentenced to life because their third strike was petty theft (not armed robbery) from 7-Eleven. I doubt that these cases are the rule. I suspect that in many cases the "third strike" might not be violent but a crime of some gravity (i.e. possession of an illegal drug). California Proposition 66 might have specifically narrowed the "third strike" to a violent felony. This prop was defeated at the polls. I sense that voters often approach the issue without an objective evaluation of both the effectiveness and justice of the law. Then again, the circumstances that gave birth to the law reflect the fears of every parent and compassionate adult.

"Three Strikes" was sold on us as "third violent felony". Turns out there's an obscure line in California's penal code that upgrades repeat misdemenors to felonies for purposes of sentencing, which opposition to Three Strikes never mentioned. They really dropped the ball on that one.
 
Top