Halloween is good for children. Sex offenders are bad for children. Maryland's new law is designed to protect and preserve the positives of Halloween. The Maryland law in issue requires a pumpkin shaped sign on the door of all sex offenders stating that candy is not available there. Legal Pub has learned that the signs state: "No candy at this residence." The Washington Times reported that approximately 1,200 violent and child-sex offenders across the state will receive the signs. A letter will accompany the signs explaining what the sex offender must due to comply with the law. The letter instructs the offender to stay at home on Halloween, "turn off all outside lights and do not answer the door."
Perhaps, some one should have suggested that Sarah Palin stay home too. Video:
Sarah Palin Drops In On "Saturday Night Live"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
This law ought to be mandatory in all 50 states!
Shell
It is discriminatory! Some of these folks have paid the price of their crime yet are still forced to wear a scarlet letter.
J.J.
How does the ACLU allow this to happen in Maryland?
B.O.
This law is overbroad and unconstitutional! How can you label all sex offenders including those who have done their time and reformed!
Hillary
Since when did sex offenders have rights?
LP,
don't you think this will be challenged? Maryland is a very liberal state ...?
You will all be very happy and relieved to know, that there has NEVER been a Halloweener in the history of the United States that has ever been molested by a registered sex offender.
Both Halloween and Election Day are coming. So, we’re not at all surprised that politicians across the nation are once again posing as Heroes in the fight against the Great Sex Offender Trick-or-Treat Bogeyman. Under the banner of protecting children, they’re restricting the actions of all sex offenders on Halloween, and sending out hordes of probation officers to make sure they stay in their homes (and, in some states, target themselves by posting “No Candy Here” signs), while expecting sheriff and police officials to monitor sex offender compliance on an already especially busy night.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/...
It amazes me that it can be proved with government statics that there has NEVER been a case where a REGISTERED sex offender EVER molested a trick or treater at their door. Or harmed them in any way. So what is the problem here.
Well, politicians are the real scary ones out there. They and the news media for ratings and votes will do and say anything. That’s the bottom line.
When I grew up, I heard some of my elders tell me not to drink in that fountain because a black man or woman would drink from it. I always asked why could I not drink there? Would I get germs??? Would it make me sick??
In today’s society, the politician’s have lied to the public about the recidivism rates of sex offenders. Politician’s have lied to the public about “stranger danger” as most offenses occur between a family member or someone the victim knows. These are facts not just spouting’s.
Parents do need to keep an eye on their children as they always have, but there is no reason to believe that someone is lurking around the corner or behind every bush that is going to take an hurt your child.
Happy Halloween. Beware of politicians. They are the scariest of them all.
Only one who is inherently interested in fear mongering would use Halloween to petrify the public into thinking that Halloween is unsafe because of the presence of RSO’s. To calculate risk in epidemiology, you divide the number of cases divided by the population of interest. In this case it would be 1/650,000. The risk is so incredibly low that my calculator gives the division an error!!!!!! ” That is only for 1 year, now times that by say, 50 years. OH MY! Fear mongering is what the entertainment news media and politicians are MORE concerned about than protecting children.
MSLGWCEO at www.cfcoklahoma.org
Read this article, "MORE SCARY HALLOWEEN LAWS AGAINST SEX OFFENDERS."
Here: http://www.cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=186%3Amore-scary-halloween-laws-against-sex-offenders&Itemid=1
I dont think these guys can be reformed. Its a serious illness that cant be cured.
I think they forfeit their rights the second they decide to violate an innocent child!!
This law is in the best interest of the children.
Those of you concerned about sex offenders rights must not have children.
FROM ASSOCIATEDCONTENT.COM
The purpose of the United States justice system is not only to punish criminal offenders but also to rehabilitate them. The prison system is designed to offer counseling and therapy to criminal offenders who will eventually be released into the public again, and many offenders continue their therapy once they have been paroled. The goal with rehabilitation is to discourage recidivism, which is the act of re-committing crimes once released into society. Most crimes have a low recidivism rate, but this is not the case with sex offenders.
Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders reoffend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically engrained predeliction.
In the late 80’s, state governments began to take notice of the high recidivism rates among sex offenders, and they began to enact statutes meant to protect the public. These statutes said that if clinical psychologists felt that a sex offender was going to reoffend once he or she was back in society, the sex offender would be civilly committed until they were thought to be no longer at risk.
This statute was challenged in Kansas vs. Hendricks, but in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute was indeed constitutional, and the states with this statute named it the Sexual Predator Law. In order for a sexual predator to be civilly committed to protect the public, the prosecutor must convince a jury trial that (1) The defendant has committed sex crimes in the past; (2) The defendant suffers from a psychological disorder; and (3) The defendant is reasonably likely to commit a sex crime upon release from prison.
We can't be too careful with our kids. If that means some ex cons rights get stepped on, so be it.
Grandma of 5
MSLGWCEO makes a great point. Having been involved in a number of cases over the years where the offender is required to register as a sex offender for either a number of years or even for life I can say without hesitation that the sex offender laws paint with much too broad a brush. One client for example was simply going to see a prostitute he solicited over the internet and was caught, (a misdemeanor). Because the prostitute was under 21 he is now required to register as a sexual predator for the next 10 years. Is this the type of offence you invasion when you see a person designated as a sexual predator? I bet not.
In my opinion the sexual registration laws have become a convenient way for politicians to pass mindless laws (and then constantly amend them) that they can then use to appeal to the mob mentality of the electorate. They can say, “this person is someone to fear and I am protecting you from him”, when in fact there was never a reason for fear in the first place. The end result is a sex offender registration law which over which courts have no discretion, and which ensnares people who simply committed some relatively minor offence.
I suggest that the registration laws be mandatory only in the cases of forcible rape, and sexual offences involving minors under 18 where the offender was specifically targeting that age group (proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Other than that, where a judge finds that a person who has committed a crime with a sexual element has a mental illness which results in an uncontrollable urge or need to commit sex offences, then the judge should have discretion to order registration. This would be more than sufficient.
Brodsky's proposal is actually reasonaable.
Cris
I think that the signs on the door are actually needed because although the sex offenders have served there time in jail, there have been multiple accounts of a sex offender who has already paid the price, molesting another child. Although, there also have been caseswhere people have gone to jail on false accusations and never really broke the law and molested a child. Yet, they were never actually proved innocent so they still have to put that pumpkin on the door. Now, over all, I really do think the signs are a very good idea because wouldn't you want to know whose house your child is getting candy from?
I gotta go with Brooklyn on this one.
Jason
Brook is usually right on in her perceptions. This one is no exception. :)
Most sex offenders are NOT offenders at all. They're mostly teens who had sex with each other.
The laws are extremely stupid in the US!
I have to agree with the above. Some are just teens charged with statutory rape. But for teens more than 2 years apart there would have been no crime.
Yes, i agree with the statement "Halloween is good for children, Sex offenders are bad for children". The rule of child protection law is very good.
============================
Franklin
maryland drug rehab
Good article and comments.
My comment.
the community is notified by web site, most community groups publish it in newsletters pre halloween.
A bright orange pumpkin with a smile is an attractive nusence. It not only targets the offender but it also is useless for small children. Hey that man has a pumpkin on his door, lets see if he is handing out stuff.
They were not bilingual and the green letters mixed in with the orange was almost impossible to see clearly. Remember these are on houses where outside lights must be off.
The old sign was just a paper with "no candy" on it.
As for the start of the article, it's also incorrect. it's not violent or predators but ALL regestered offenders under the Department of Parole and Probation.
After they fall off the probation they do not need to comply because this is not a law, it's a condition of probation that was tossed in place.
The ALCU did in the midwest fight it because it was made into a LAW. AS a term of probation and the latitute probation has it's a back door to enter unlegislated laws that are harder to challenge.
(Federal offenders were under no such restrictions to post a sign even if they reside in maryland)
Post a Comment