{"id":10166,"date":"2008-10-16T17:06:46","date_gmt":"2008-10-16T22:06:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/?p=10166"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:18","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:18","slug":"marlyand-halloween-sign-targets-sex-offenders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2008\/10\/16\/marlyand-halloween-sign-targets-sex-offenders\/","title":{"rendered":"Maryland Halloween Sign Targets Sex Offenders"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a> . . . for more, see our prior posts<\/em>: “Halloween tricks: pols vs. sex offenders<\/a>” (Oct. 30, 2005); “hauntingly familiar<\/a>” (Oct. 24, 2007); “more scary Halloween laws against sex offenders<\/a>” (Oct. 9, 2008).\u00a0 And see, <\/strong><\/em>the informative weblog piece by David Hess, The New Urban Myth\u2014The Danger of Registered Sex Offenders at Halloween<\/a> (October 18, 2010).<\/p>\n

…\u00a0 Md. Sex Offender Halloween Sign<\/em><\/strong> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

L<\/strong><\/em>ast week, we told you again about the spread of laws across the nation restricting the conduct of Sex Offenders on Halloween<\/a>.\u00a0 One particularly odious and inane rule, from our perspective, is the requirement in states like Missouri and Maryland that sex offenders post a sign at their homes declaring there is no candy at the residence.\u00a0 The ACLU is challenging Missouri’s law.\u00a0 After seeing yesterday’s Washington Times<\/em><\/a>, we hope a challenge will be waged in Maryland, too.<\/p>\n

L<\/em>ast year, sex offenders in Maryland were given a simple sign to hang on their doors that read: “No Candy<\/em>.”\u00a0 That was bad enough, but things have escalated this year.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> .. A New Scarlet Letter<\/em>:<\/strong> The article “Pumpkin symbol marks sex offenders’ homes<\/a>” (Washington Times<\/em>, by Tom LoBianco, October 15, 2008), shows the sign that sex offenders must display at their homes in Maryland this Halloween (and we have it at the top of this post).\u00a0 According to the Times<\/em>, the bright orange pumpkin is the symbol sex offenders “are required to post on their doors with a warning, in capital letters, to trick-or-treaters: ‘No candy at this residence’.” \u00a0 In addition to posting the sign, the offenders must stay at home, turn off outside lights and not answer the door.\u00a0 Some states prohibit sex offenders from decorating the outside of their homes.\u00a0 But, Maryland is mandating this colorful and “attractive” Halloween decoration.<\/p>\n

update<\/em><\/strong> (October 31, 2008): Realizing that a sign with a big orange pumpkin on it might actually attract children to a house, Maryland parole agents sent out a pumpkin-less version of the sign this week to sex offenders, merely saying “No Candy at this Residence”.\u00a0\u00a0 Strangely, SO’s apparently have the option to use the pumpkin sign.\u00a0 Parole officials deny they were affected by a Saturday Night Live skit poking fun at their sign (with Seth Myers saying \u201cThey are also being required to take down the signs that read, \u2018Knock if you can keep a special secret<\/em>.\u2019\u201d).\u00a0 See: “Halloween & the Law, Part Deux: Targeting Sexual Offenders<\/a>”
\n(Wall Street Journal<\/em>, October 30, 2008); and “Maryland Sex Offenders Under Close Watch on Halloween<\/a>” (wamu.org, Oct. 31, 2008)<\/p>\n

The signs were mailed out to Maryland sex offenders, with a letter dated October 1st, from the state’s Division of Parole and Probation.\u00a0 In it, interim director Patrick McGee has this Orwellian message:<\/p>\n

“Halloween provides a rare opportunity for you to demonstrate to your neighbors that you are making a sincere effort to change the direction of your life.” <\/em><\/p>\n

As we’ve mentioned before, there is no record in the United States (nor in Canada) of any registered sex offender abusing a trick-or-treater on Halloween.\u00a0 The infamous Fond du Lac Halloween Murderer case took place in 1973, when an unaccompanied 9-year-old girl was attacked by a man who had never been convicted of a prior sex crime. (see our posts \u201challoween tricks: pols vs. sex offenders<\/a>\u201d and \u201chauntingly familiar<\/a>\u201d).<\/p>\n

The Washington Times<\/em> articles also reports that:<\/p>\n