Does the Amber Alert system need an overhaul?
Investigation of system's effectiveness needs to be done carefully
May 28, 2009 Christopher C. Hofley
It's hard to say.
When a child goes missing and winds up dead, the public will always demand to know why and how. How could this happen? Why did it happen? Why did it end the way it did?
Now that the Stafford case has gone from a missing child to an abducted child to a murdered child, the public, and obviously the little girl’s family, is outraged. Popular opinion is that, had the police investigating Stafford's disappearance declared it an abduction sooner, an Amber Alert could have been issued right off the bat and she might still be alive.
Maybe, maybe not.
For several reasons, investigators don't ever want to jump the gun by issuing the alert, which is essentially a media blitz of information that is put out everywhere when a child goes missing and there is reason to believe his/her life is in danger. Descriptions of the child and of the suspected abductor (s) are broadcast everywhere; television stations, radio stations and electronic billboards along major roadways begin broadcasting details that could help find the missing kid.
For law enforcement to issue the alert, which is broadcast using the Emergency Alert System previously used only for alerting people about weather emergencies, the case must meet certain strict criteria.
An Abduction Must be Confirmed Before the Alert Can be IssuedIn North America, thousands of children go missing every year. Of course, many are abductions. However, many are also runaways and parental abductions where the child likely isn't in any danger. For an Amber Alert to be issued, police first have to confirm that an abduction as in fact taken place. In the Stafford case, for example, that couldn't be done right away. The only evidence they had was the fact that the girl was missing and a videotape that showed her being lead away, seemingly willingly, by an unknown woman. Hard to call that an abduction without any other evidence.
According to various only sources on the alert, once police are able to confirm an abduction, they then have to determine whether or not the child is at risk of "serious injury or death". Again, not always easy to do. In the case of a parental abduction, for example, the child is not always in physical danger. Once again in the Stafford case, a significant lack of information made it impossible to determine how much danger she was in.
She was just gone.
Descriptions of Vctim and Abductor Needed Before Alert Can be Issued
Finally, authorities have to have actual information and descriptions to put out there. Obviously, they had a description of Tori. But they also have to have information on a suspect and preferably a vehicle to tell the public to keep an eye out for. The Stafford case had none of that, at least not initially.
While it is easy to suggest, in the wake of a major tragedy like the Stafford murder, that the system needs to be radically changed, that doesn't mean it will be, or should be.
The strict rules for issuing the alert are there for a reason, mainly to avoid having the Amber Alert lose its affect. If one was issued every time a kid didn't show up from school on time, people would begin to ignore them. Obviously that is of little comfort to the Stafford family, but the system is too important and useful to be drastically overhauled, a move that could possibly limit some of its effectiveness.
What do you think about this article?
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles