The NYT reports:
A federal judge in Missouri on Monday temporarily blocked parts of a new state law that requires sexual offenders to remain in their homes on Halloween evening and to avoid any contact with children related to the holiday.
The judge, Carol E. Jackson, of United States District Court in St. Louis, said the law was unclear, questioning language that prohibits “all Halloween-related contact with children” and allows sexual offenders to leave their homes from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. only if they have “just cause.”
Two issues raised by the case were whether sexual offenders could celebrate the holiday with their own children or grandchildren, for example by hanging decorations or carving pumpkins, and on what grounds they could leave home during the curfew. . . .
Chief Judge Jackson allowed two provisions in the law to stand, requiring sexual offenders to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence” and to turn off any porch lights.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Judge Limits Halloween Limits on Sex Offenders (But Leaves Scarlet Pumpkins Intact):
- Scarlet Pumpkins
Is your child next?
Call the University of Michigan Law School at 734.764.1358 and ask them why their graduates want your children to be raped."
I mean, if we're denying people rights even after they've served their time in what's supposed to be rehabilitory confinement, why not be completely sure?
Won't someone please think of the pumpkins?
I'm afraid there is nothing to lighten up about, given that many offenders are not on the registry for crimes against children or the fact that these measures are pure political grandstanding without any real result.
It is frightening how easily people can be manipulated into near hysteria abandoning vital principles of the rule of law making yet another ever broader group of people into unpersons. The enlightened 21st century? Not!
What sort of workable life would someone have being on that registry, and yet still be allowed into society to some extent?
Indeed, wouldn't the temptation that their disease would drive them to strike again be very difficult to avoid? I mean, if you don't want someone around kids, keep them in jail.
Just telling them to stay away cannot be all that effective of a measure to prevent them making a mistake that they already were found guilty of once...
And so I agree with you - making them into an Unperson is a very Bad Idea. It would be better to work on a cure, however that is implemented; be it chemical castration, aversion therapy, institutionalization, etc.
If we go the route of results-based jurisprudence, then might as well go the entire route.
They say those who molest were likely molested when they were children.
I suppose this means that it is all Appalachian State's fault.
As someone who dislikes the Big 10, I'm glad to see this issue finally getting media attention.
The Cabbage wins the thread.
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell,
That damned elusive Pimpernel?
In our family Dia De Los Muertos is the biggest holy day.
But as for the porch light, if a criminal uses a turned off porchlight as an opportunity to hide in the dark and attack someone, the judge is going to be very sorry about ordering that.
Another, related point: there are many kinds of "sex offenders", and the law varies (sometimes quite a lot) from state to state. It is quite possible for someone to be a "sex offender" in one state for doing something that is perfectly legal in some other states. (For example, oral sex between consenting adults is a felony in Idaho.) Further, not all (and perhaps not even most) "sex offenses" involve children at all!! So stop sweating so much over NEARLY nothing.
I can understand the desire people have to protect their children, but society and the law have both gone seriously overboard in this respect. Lighten the hell up and learn to relax.