Some residents of the California city of Simi Valley are preparing to take legal action against a new law that they argue violates their 1st Amendment rights.
The city’s new law bans Halloween displays and outside lighting every Oct. 31 at the homes of people convicted of sex crimes. For offenders listed on the Megan’s Law website, the city also requires a sign on the front door in letters at least an inch tall: “No candy or treats at this residence.”
Okay, Janice Bellucci, the attorney that is representing five offenders, three of their wives, and two of their children, did make the terrible analogy of comparing this law to the branding that Nazis inflicted Jewish people with in the form of the yellow stars they were forced to carry in public to let everyone know of their heritage. That is total nonsense. Jewish people did absolutely nothing to warrant the treatment they suffered while Bellucci’s clients were at least convicted of crimes, not so innocent.
On the other hand I do have to wonder about such a ban. Being a registered sex offender already carries some types of similar treatment like not being able to live within a certain distance of places where children may be (like schools and churches) and they having to make their presence known to local law enforcement when they move into a neighborhood.
Is not only stripping them the ability to decorate for Halloween but also putting up signs to basically ward children off a reasonable measure?
Why not just go round them up and put them in a holding cell for the night?
Maybe this law goes too far?
Perhaps not far enough?
Are there other measures you would employ along with what’s already included (like no costumes)?
What do you think?
Photo courtesy of Flickr/Free Flower
About Danny
Thanks to Megan’s law, it is now possible to search online databases to look up the addresses of houses where sex offenders reside. Just type “[State name] Megan’s Law” in any search engine, and you will be able to access the databases. Many state governments have even integrated spatial data displays on Google Maps, so you can get a visual of the offenders geographic loations. Parents can use these free services at any time and educate themselves as to who lives in their neighborhoods. The “don’t go here!” scarlet letter already exists on the internet.
@Salvice: Yup, they do that and the problem is that it doesn’t actually mean that the sex offender lives in that house ONLY that they may have at one time.
IMHO, sex offenders are the witches of the modern era, remember folks sex offenders aren’t just people who have raped women or children, it can be someone who was convicted of sex with someone a few years younger than them, OR in some cases someone who was the same age.
I was going to say – is it only sex crimes with children that put a person on the sex offender list, or is it any sex crimes?
I just did a quick Google on it (very quick, did not look in detail) and saw this definition on a Legal site: “sex offender n. generic term for all persons convicted of crimes involving sex, including rape, molestation, sexual harassment and pornography production or distribution.” That would lead me to believe the term is not exclusive to cases involving children.
So I would say that if the sex offender law at issue in CA applies to ALL sex offenders, then yes, it goes way too far. A sex offender who was convicted for activity with adult(s) is not necessarily a threat to children. And seriously, no decorating for Halloween? Not even a pumpkin on the porch? Are convicted rapists allowed to decorate for Valentine’s Day?
But if the law really only covers child-related sex offenders, eh, I guess it’s not so bad. One of those things I would not have voted for NOR against.
Children get on it for taking pictures of THEMSELVES naked, sending to their partner. A guy/girl who is 16 or 18, gf/bf is 15, they have sex, bam the can get on the sex offender registry for statutory rape (anyone convicting an 18 year old of stat rape for a 15 year old partner should automatically lose their ability to be a judge, they’re close enough in age and smart states use the Romeo n Juliette laws to deal with that). I believe pissing in public has also gotten people on the list. Quite frankly the list is a joke. And what danger is an adult convicted of raping an adult to kids? I can understand the fears but why the fuck aren’t the kids supervised in the firstplace? And you can lookup their addresses anyway and avoid those places…
If the goal once people are released is to have some form of a normal life, will treating them like pariahs really help? If it’s that much of a risk then why not limit it to the child sex abusers? How about we lock them up for halloween! Or better yet, let’s run them out of town!!!
KKZ:
I was going to say – is it only sex crimes with children that put a person on the sex offender list, or is it any sex crimes?
From the article I linked to:
A total of 119 registered sex offenders live in Simi Valley. Although some have been convicted of misdemeanors and do not have their names displayed, 67 have been guilty of more serious crimes and are publicly listed on the website. None has been involved in crimes involving children on Halloween, according to police, who say they have no records of any such crime occurring in Simi Valley during Halloween trick-or-treating.
From the way I read this I’m think that if any of those offenders had anything against children in their convictions that would have been listed as well. It says “…..involving children on Halloween”. I’d like to think that they didn’t say specifically Halloween for the sake of not mentioning crimes against children on the other 364 days of the year.
OK, not sure I followed you there at the end, but if I’m understanding you correctly, it’s a little weird that the article said “None has been involved in crimes involving children on Halloween” – what I’d really like to know is, of the 119 sex offenders and of the 67 “serious” offenders, how many of them are sex offenders because of crimes involving children, period, any day of the year, versus other crimes? That’s the key information I think I’d need to decide if I think this law goes too far or not.
OK, not sure I followed you there at the end, but if I’m understanding you correctly, it’s a little weird that the article said “None has been involved in crimes involving children on Halloween”
Yes.
– what I’d really like to know is, of the 119 sex offenders and of the 67 “serious” offenders, how many of them are sex offenders because of crimes involving children, period, any day of the year, versus other crimes? That’s the key information I think I’d need to decide if I think this law goes too far or not.
That is exactly what I was trying to say plus wondering just why was that information was not given in the article.
I was trying to say that they I hope they didn’t say “….on Halloween” specifically because some of them do have convictions against children at some other time of year.
OK, glad I didn’t misinterpret you. I agree, it was an odd choice on the part of the article-writer.
These judicially discriminated against prior offenders (PO’s), during Halloween, are confined or imprisoned (basically under house arrest) at their residence generally from early to late evening. The PO’s are not allowed to participate in Halloween individually or with their families. There are some who must post a sign indicating they are a RSO, leave their residential lights off and remain confined until their legislated time is reached to be free again. If these illegal restraints are not followed; the PO is charged with another crime and punished by whatever law imposed on them.
In 1982- shortly after the Tylenol poisonings- I was a ne’er do well alky & addict who had just rented a new house. I assumed that nobody in their right mind would send their children to my house on Halloween and purposely bought no candy. The bell started ringing, much to my annoyance, as soon as I got home from work. I was appalled- luckily I had a 5 gallon water jug full of change and appeased the little bastards with money.
Thinking about that night I’m sort of wondering if we don’t need to protect kids from their parents.
Well stated Diaz!
Perhaps consider laws that criminally charge parents for lack of vigilance in being sure their children are safe. It might be a good idea to put the parents on a registry so people know not to associate with these irresponsible people.
“Sex offenders” are a safe target for all societal rage and resentment. They are summarily assumed to be
1) child molestors, and
2) permanent, irredeemable sociopaths who will always, always, ALWAYS be a threat to society.
As a result, after they’ve served their time, they’re subjected to additional punishment–and this punishment is publicized to ensure as much ostracism and social abuse as possible. Any and all such abuses are excused as “for the children” and “in the name of safety.”
If the public perception of sex offenders were supported by facts, there would be proposals to keep them all locked up for life. Sadly, the facts do not support such treatment, so we indulge in prejudice and paranoia instead. “For the children.”