Okay, so it's been more than a year. Get over it. I was busy. More accurately, I didn't have anything to say. All that is about to change. I'm headed home Feb. 28, back to the New Britain Herald. More on that later. Rest assured however I'll be posting more regularly. I promise.

Here's the bee in my bonnet that has forced me to speak up. If I'm lucky, I'll turn it into a story for the paper, but for now, here are my rambling thoughts.

Number one, one would assume that one becomes a journalist to speak the truth. However, the reality is, the truth is subject to editing, advertising pressures and frankly the amount of time you have to produce the number of articles an editor wants you to produce, regardless of whether or not they reflect the truth. Naturally, you're probably asking yourself, well how can that be? Isn't the press the government watch dogs, the savior of the truth? Yah, well, try producing that on deadline while the person in charge is demanding you also finish that feature on the local woman who can hold three goldfish in her mouth and not barf. (For the record, no I have never been asked to produce that story, nor do I know anyone who can do that, nor have any goldfish been harmed or intentionally maligned in the course of writing this post).

Anyway, the point is, unfortunately reporting is subject to the same economic pressures that any other business is. If you're lucky however, you can satisfy a good editor who is genuinely interested in pointing out issues that affect the public and your high ideals at the same time.

The first time I wrote about legislation sponsored by Kevin Witkos, I did neither. This wasn't the fault of my editor at the time. It was my own lack of knowledge and desire not to rock the boat. Okay, I get it, I'll never do that again. Learning to be a great cops reporter is a process, not a given.

Instead I wrote the perfunctory piece on how as a state assembly member Witkos sponsored legislation requiring school superintendants to be notified when a sex offender either moves into their town or when a current resident is convicted of a sex offense.

On the surface I suppose this sounds like a brilliant idea. I mean who is in favor of sex offenders?

But, here a few pratfalls to this plan which did become law:

Number one: Just what exactly does Senator Witkos, and in fact, the entire legislature, expect a superintendent to do with this information? Are school superintendents qualified in sex offender risk assessment? I'm guessing not. Obviously, they do have a few alternatives. They can seek the help of the local police department to determine if in fact this person would be a risk to children in their area. They can also blast out the information to parents thus risking a colossal law suit for the entire school system and making the children of said, the same "clients" they are well paid to educate and serve, offender pariahs in their own community. I do know that at least some police departments routinely assess the risk of sex offenders moving into their community and notify neighbors and schools if they feel the risk is justified. I also know that this is probably not happening in every community. I also know this: when I was a kid, my parents didn't let me go anywhere unless they knew the parents of the other kid well. In other words, hey it's probably a good idea to know who your kids are with.

Now I'm digressing, but here's the point, (again, please note it's 5:49 a.m. and this isn't a finished piece but merely my rambling thoughts) as a police officer, Witkos should know that in the state of Connecticut, there are in fact very few "stranger danger" abductions or sex assaults. In nearly every case, and he can verify this through his own department and the departments of surrounding towns, the child victim of a sex assault knows his abuser. And it's most likely a family member, a new significant other or a family friend - according to Meriden, New Britain, Southington, Wallingford, and Cheshire police, all police departments that I have interviewed on this topic in the past. I'm guessing the same holds true for the town of Canton where Witkos works.

By somehow suggesting (and legislating) that children will be better protected by sending out an alert to their school superintendent, Witkos, and the entire legislature, are blatantly ignoring not only the reality of child sex assaults but also giving parents a false sense of security. I guess I could argue that this was a win-win for the legislature. They look like they are tough on crime and protecting children and they're betting there's not going to be much harm done - after all, I want to know which school superintendent is actually going to act on alerting parents without seeking input from at least their local police department.

Here’s a thought: Perhaps it would have been a bit more productive to sponsor legislation requiring school systems to stop focusing on “stranger danger” and give parents a more realistic view of who could potentially molest their children.

Now that I've given you at least something to chew on (including the tidbit that yes, even I, the self-proclaimed crime wonder reporter can publish something utterly ridiculous on occasion) here's the source of my real angst this fine morning: I found out last night Witkos is suggesting more legislation.

"AN ACT CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A MINOR. To provide that any person who sexually assaults a minor under certain circumstances will have only "one-strike" and be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Introduced by: Sen. Kevin D. Witkos, 8th Dist."

You can bet this time around, I won't be publishing anything without looking into the reality of the implications of this law.

Allow me to draw two conclusions from this post: In most cases, self-reflection is never a bad thing. And it's never too late to speak the truth, even if it's at 6 a.m. and you don't care if you're using good grammar, good spelling or even if your ramblings make sense.