{"id":4185,"date":"2005-10-30T15:57:17","date_gmt":"2005-10-30T19:57:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/10\/30\/halloween-tricks-pols-vs-sex-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:27","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:27","slug":"halloween-tricks-pols-vs-sex-offenders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/10\/30\/halloween-tricks-pols-vs-sex-offenders\/","title":{"rendered":"halloween tricks: pols vs. sex offenders"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"wolf <\/span>T<\/em><\/strong>he scariest sights I’ve seen so far this trick-or-treat season are<\/span> the stern faces and contorted postures of politicians, masquerading<\/span> as super-heroes in the fight to protect our children against a horde<\/span> of halloween sex offenders. As the New York Times<\/em> described<\/span> earlier this week (“Sex Offenders See <\/span>New Limits for Halloween<\/span><\/a>,”<\/span> Oct. 26, 2005):<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

“All across the country this year, local and state authorities<\/span> are placing registered offenders under one-night curfews or<\/span> other restrictions out of fear that in only a few days, costumed<\/span> children asking for candy will be arriving on their doorsteps.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Examples: “In Westchester County [NY], high-risk sex offenders<\/span> on <\/span>probation will be required to attend a four-hour educational program<\/span> on Halloween night. In New Jersey, state officials are instructing paroled<\/span> sex criminals not to answer their doors if trick-or-treaters come knocking.<\/span> And in counties throughout Texas, parolees with child contact restrictions<\/span> are being told to stay away from Halloween activities, even family gatherings.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Such restrictions are also being imposed and — just a few days before <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>elections — heavily publicized in Wisconsin (<\/span>article<\/span><\/a>), Kansas (<\/span>article<\/span><\/a>), Delaware<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> (<\/span>article<\/span><\/a>), and Minnesota (<\/span>article<\/span><\/a>) . It’s such a sexy issue for politicians this <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>year, <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>that <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Michigan <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>State Rep. Fran Amos, R-Waterford, rushed to submit House Bill<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> 5377 on <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Thursday, <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>October 27. The bill would prevent sex offenders from handing <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>out <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Halloween candy or participating in any other Halloween activities. Of course,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> it’s too late to “help” for Halloween 2005. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>(see <\/span>this<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>that<\/span><\/a>) <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

follow-up<\/strong><\/em> (October 18, 2010): See the informative weblog piece by David Hess, The New Urban Myth—The Danger of Registered Sex Offenders at Halloween<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

halloween
\ni only tell the priest
\nso much<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

… by <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>ed markowski<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"vampC\" <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>There must be a good reason for all this extra protection at Halloween, right?<\/span> In the <\/span>NYT<\/em> article<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>, “Edward Bray, the acting deputy executive director of the <\/span> NJ State Parole Board, said the plan was necessary.” Bray brayed:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

“The State Parole Board has been trying in the last year to be more proactive. . . . And Halloween seemed like a time that was ripe for so many potential abuses and risks to children.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In “Megan’s Law vs. Halloween” (Oct. 26, 2005), <\/span>Prawfsblawg<\/a><\/span><\/em>‘s Dave Hoffman asks<\/span> cogently “if the state had empirical evidence of a higher-than-average rate of illegal<\/span> behavior on Halloween?” Not according to the<\/em> NYT<\/em> article, which stated: “In effec<\/span>tively <\/span>detaining sex offenders on Halloween, most officials say they are not respon<\/span><\/span>ding to <\/span>any attacks known to have occurred on past holidays.” For <\/span>those<\/span><\/a> who<\/span><\/span><\/span> don’t trust <\/span><\/span>the Gray Lady:<\/span><\/p>\n

An <\/span><\/span>editorial<\/span><\/a> from Indiana notes today that: “there are no known attacks <\/span>of trick-or-treating children on past Halloweens.” (KPC Media Group<\/span>, <\/span>“Offender series shows need for open eyes, Oct., 30, 2005). <\/span>Also,<\/span><\/span><\/span> per CBS3<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>com, the <\/span><\/span>Spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> Corrections “says no Halloween <\/span><\/span>incidents involving sex offenders and<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> trick-<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>or-treaters have been reported in Delaware.”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Across the border in Canada, the Halloween (non)experience sounds very similar<\/span> (TriCityNews<\/em> [Victoria], “<\/span><\/span>No Halloween for sex offenders<\/span><\/a>,” Oct. 30, 2005)<\/span><\/span><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

“Dave Keating, Vancouver Island area director for Corrections Canada . .<\/span> said he has never heard of a sex offender on federal or provincial parole<\/span> who has preyed on trick-or-treaters.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"wolf So far, I seem to be the only weblawger who believes there’s something unsavory,<\/span> in this rush (just in time for the elections) to “do something” and “be proactive” to<\/span> “protect our children” from this year’s favorite political whipping boy, the sex offender <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

[For an example <\/span>from New York State, see North <\/em>Country <\/em>Gazette<\/em>, “Pataki Advocates<\/span> Enforcing <\/span>Halloween Curfew on Sex Offenders<\/span><\/a>,<\/span>” <\/span>Oct. 28, 2005] <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

battery weakened
\nthe low, slow laughter
\nof a demon<\/p>\n

…………………….. John Stevenson<\/span><\/a> from <\/span>Some of the Silence<\/span><\/em><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Trenton lawyer John S. Furlong, while admitting that New Jersey has the right to<\/span> impose the Halloween restrictions on his clients, put the problem very well ((AP\/<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/span><\/span>msnbc<\/em>, “<\/span>NJ issues curfew for Offenders<\/span><\/a>,” Oct. 26, 2005)<\/span><\/span><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

“My own view is that it’s unfair, expensive<\/span> and inane. In other words, <\/span>it’s just stupid. Nobody is going to be safer. Nobody is going to be<\/span> less at risk. No purpose is served other than the arbitrary abuse of power<\/span> by people who can.” He added: “The best monitors in the world for<\/span> children are their parents. You want to keep your kids safe? Go trick<\/span> or treating with them.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Today’s <\/span>editorial<\/span><\/a> from Indiana’s KPC newspapers also makes several very<\/span> important points: <\/span><\/p>\n

“Because abuse of our children tears at our hearts, it is tempting<\/span> for people to go over-board.” <\/span><\/p>\n

“For example, in many states local and state authorities are placing<\/span> registered offenders under Halloween night curfews or other restrictions.<\/span> However, there are no known attacks of trick-or-treating children on<\/span> past Halloweens. <\/span> “Rather than one night of over-reaction, we encourage alertness every <\/span>day and night of the year. One-fifth of the nation’s 500,000 sex offenders<\/span> are “missing” — meaning they have failed to register and no one knows <\/span> where they are. That underlines the importance of teaching children not<\/span> to talk to strangers.<\/p>\n

“On the other hand, since most sex offenders are known to their victims —<\/span> and possibly could be the new neighbor who moved in next door, and who <\/span>now invites youngsters over to play in his pool or watch TV — it’s even<\/span> more important to keep track of where your children are and what they’re <\/span>doing.” <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"batSN\" In addition to pointing out that “The vast majority of sex offenders remain at<\/span> large, <\/span>undiscovered and unmonitored,” victim’s advocate Douglas Larsen sums up his <\/span>strong reaction to these “<\/span>all show\/no go<\/span><\/a>” laws<\/span>: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“Why am I being so negative? Because these kinds of laws generate a <\/span>lot of publicity, and tend to lull the public into thinking that something<\/span> worthwhile is being accomplished. But funding for Child Abuse Prevention <\/span>efforts remains criminally low; Child Abuse Prevention agencies remain <\/span><\/p>\n

horribly understaffed; education and training of children remains unacceptably<\/span> low, and monitoring and supervision of sex offenders is still dangerously <\/span> inadequate because budget cuts have completely over-stretched the capabilities<\/span> of the officers that remain. A high-profile law like this Halloween restriction gives <\/span>elected officials a way to seem like they’re tough on sex offenders, without<\/span> having to do anything that would cost any money or make a significant difference<\/span> in the problem.” <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Prof. Hoffman has <\/span><\/span>pointed out<\/span><\/a> that<\/span> “there are costs (perhaps ones we can justify) to<\/span> rules like this,” relating the story of a low-level risk offender in NJ, who will not<\/span> be able to take his own children out trick-or-treating. That is just one example of<\/span> how over-reaching in restrictions actually makes it harder for sex offenders to make<\/span> <\/span><\/span>their way back into normal community and family life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n

goblins at the door
\nin the darkness behind them
\na cigarette flares<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

…. by <\/span><\/span>John Stevenson<\/span><\/a><\/span> from <\/span>Some of the Silence<\/span><\/em><\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Similarly, the spokesperson for the Kansas Department of Corrections pointed out this<\/span> week, talking about the State’s offender registry website, that neighbors’ fears about<\/span> someone living on their block could be overblown. That’s because many sex offenders’ <\/span>crimes don’t involve children, and some people on the list in Kansas are teens convicted<\/span> of having sex with an underage girlfriend. (Lawrence Journal-World<\/em>, “Experts: Vast<\/span> majority of sexual <\/span><\/span>abuse close to home<\/span><\/a>,”<\/span> Oct. 30, 2005) <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"tiny With most States urging parents to check websites, courthouses and<\/span> police stations for information on sex offenders living in their neighborhoods, <\/span>I think there is plenty of opportunity for citizens — perhaps especially young<\/span> males — to take the “problem” into their own hands and punish or harass sex<\/span> offenders on Halloween. These overblown promotional campaigns might, then,<\/span> be the cause of some ugly vigilantism.<\/span><\/p>\n

There also will be plenty of financial costs involved — with probation staffs working<\/span> all night in many States, attempting to catch cheaters and deter violations, and<\/span> with police officers asked to help with enforcement. Of course, while no one has<\/span> examples of genuine sex offenses against children on Halloween, we all know that<\/span> there are plenty of actual crimes committed that night — and more teen deaths<\/span> caused by alcohol than during prom season. Cruising around looking for offenders<\/span> answering their doors or displaying Halloween decorations will only make the job<\/span> of local police even more difficult that night.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\" Asked about the law proposed just three days ago in Michigan, Monroe County<\/span> Sheriff Tilman Crutchfield — showing that opposing the bill is politically-sensitive —<\/span><\/span>said he supports such a proposal, but added that officers would have to catch<\/span><\/span> people in the act. (MonroeCountyNews<\/em>, “Halloween bill <\/span>hard to enforce<\/span><\/a>, police<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span>say,” Oct. 28, 2005)” Sheriff Crutchfield explains:<\/p>\n

\n

“It is a good idea, but it would be difficult to enforce . . . . <\/span><\/span>It would be<\/span><\/span><\/span> very difficult to prove unless that person was standing at <\/span>the door<\/span><\/span><\/span> handing out candy.” <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

“For it to work, he said, police officers <\/span><\/span>would have to be provided a list<\/span><\/span><\/span> of sex offenders. Officers then would have to drive around checking<\/span><\/span> addresses and then catch the person in the act. Because deputies<\/span><\/span> have a limited amount of available time, especially on Halloween, personnel issue would come into play.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

“And there is only a two-hour time frame for the entire county. I don’t<\/span><\/span> think it’s a bad law; it would just be difficult to enforce.” <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is not, in my estimation, a close call. The Halloween Sex Bogeyman<\/span> laws and restrictions have far too many costs, are far too likely to create a<\/span> false sense of security among parents, and seem certain to have no real<\/span> effects, other than giving grandstanding politicians a boost in the polls. I<\/span> hope my fellow weblawgers will voice their opinions, and that parents will<\/span> keep a close eye on their young children and a skeptical ear when dealing<\/span> <\/span><\/span>with their teenagers and their politicians this Halloween season.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\" For some fun and safety education, click for the NYS Troopers<\/span> Halloween Safety Coloring Book<\/em><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (11 PM, Oct. 30): Mike Cernovich, wearing his Blawg Review<\/em><\/span> that, pointed me toward Will Baude’s post<\/span><\/a>, “Sex Offenders <\/span>and <\/span> Statutory Authority,” which raises legislative delegation <\/span>issues<\/span> <\/span><\/span>with regard to the added parole restrictions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

update <\/span><\/strong><\/em>(Oct. 31, 2005): There has apparently been at least one<\/em> major<\/span><\/span> Halloween crime involving a sexual predator.<\/span> Walter Olson<\/span><\/a> reminded me this morning of the infamous <\/span>Gerald Turner<\/span><\/a>, dubbed the Halloween Killer<\/span><\/a><\/em>, after the 1973 rape-murder of 9-year-old <\/span>Lisa<\/span> Ann French, who disappeared while trick-or-treating in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.<\/span> The terrible incident has led to much experimentation with sexual predator<\/span> laws. Walter covered Turner at Overlawyered.com<\/em><\/span><\/a> in 1999, when he won<\/span> a settlement with Waste Management, Inc. after the Wisconsin Department<\/span> of <\/span>Workforce Development found evidence that Turner had been discriminated<\/span> against unlawfully when it refused to hire him for a job at a recycling center.<\/span> [see JSonline<\/span><\/em><\/a>, Sept, 21, 1999] <\/span><\/p>\n

\"checked The Halloween Killer’s case gives us two important reminders for Halloween <\/span>safety: (1) his victim, although only 9 years old, was trick-or-treating<\/span> alone<\/em>, <\/span>and <\/em>went to the home of a stranger; and (2) Turner had no prior record<\/em> and<\/span> thus would not have been subjected to the Halloween restrictions being applied<\/span> to those on parole. Again, then, parents must not be lulled into a false sense<\/span> of security by the much-publicized efforts tonight against sex offenders.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also of interest, concerning Turner:<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"tiny Joel McNally at Shepherd Express<\/em><\/a> noted in 1998 that<\/span> Turner <\/span>had for 5 years after his release from his prison sentence,<\/span> “lived and worked peacefully in Milwaukee. He didn’t cause any<\/span> more trouble. But a lot of so-called law-abiding citizens did. <\/span>They were the ones who vandalized Turner’s home and created<\/span> a public uproar that caused him to lose his job. <\/span>Political leaders<\/span> and judges were the ones who spewed hatred and made a mockery<\/span> of equal protection under the law.”<\/span><\/p>\n

\"tiny According to this article<\/a>, Turner became part of an ugly campaign for a<\/span> Wisconsin State Senate <\/span>Seat in 2000, between Democart Mark Meyer<\/span> and Republican Dan Kapanke. <\/span>An “advocacy group” named Americans<\/span> for Job Security, an ad hoc entity <\/span>that spoke largely for health insurance<\/span> groups in the state. An ad attacked Meyer, saying he would let felons —<\/span> like Gerald Turner, the Halloween killer — apply for any job upon their<\/span> release. Meyer won the election. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"jailbird As of April 2004, Turner was back in prison, with his parole<\/span> revoked for having pornographic pictures on a computer hard <\/span>drive at he halfway house where he resided. (WKOW news<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (October 9, 2008): See our post “more scary Halloween laws against sex offenders<\/a>.”\u00a0 It discusses a lawsuit by the ACLU against a new Missouri law requiring sex offenders to stay inside, have no outdoor lights, and post a “No Candy or Treats at this Residence” sign on Halloween.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

halloween
\nthe government issues
\na report on the war<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

… by ed markowski<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

two pirates smooch
\non the overpass —
\nthe Pumpkin Patrol rousts them<\/p>\n

\"batMoonN\" <\/span><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>……… <\/span>by dagosan<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The scariest sights I’ve seen so far this trick-or-treat season are the stern faces and contorted postures of politicians, masquerading as super-heroes in the fight to protect our children against a horde of halloween sex offenders. As the New York Times described earlier this week (“Sex Offenders See New Limits for Halloween,” Oct. 26, 2005): […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-15v","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4185"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12946,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185\/revisions\/12946"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}