Annapolis, Maryland has taken a new approach for keeping sex offenders away from kids this Halloween. They have mailed out special signs that are required to be placed in their front yards telling children (and parents) that there is no candy at that residence.
In addition to posting the sign, the offenders must stay at home, turn off outside lights and not answer the door, according to the letter obtained by The Washington Times.
I am honestly not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I would want to know. On the other hand, it is like forcing the men to wear a scarlet letter and how are they supposed to integrate back into society. Because isn’t that the ultimate goal otherwise they just have been kept indefinitely in prison. But on the other hand (yes, I can have three I am a mom), I would want to know, but the sign in the front yard seems to be taking it a little far. I have no problem with them prohibiting the offenders from participating in trick-or-treating.
I have used the sex crime registry to find out what offenders live in my area, so it would not be a surprise anyway.
What do you think of this? Is it a good idea? Bad idea? Stupid idea?
As a mom of two and a cousin to a man who has been deemed a “Sex offender” because of porn on his computer, I am torn. Yes, I want my children protected at all costs, but my heart also goes out to my cousin who is trying to get his life back. It’s hard…
Comment by Christie — October 22, 2008 @ 9:28 am
I am a mother of 2 and I don’t care how unfair it seems to the “SEX offender” This person should stand out like a sore thumb!They should have to pay for the rest of their lives if they have sexually offended, raped, hurt or anything else to children!
Comment by Anonymous — October 22, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I don’t know how you’d make them comply, so in that specific, it’s kinda dumb.
I don’t mind the whole “scarlet letter” part, though, since as far as I’m concerned, they can NEVER integrate back into society. Their twisted turn-ons are their turn-ons, and expecting that part to magically be reformed is like expecting me to stop liking men and turn to carrots instead.
Comment by Brigitte — October 23, 2008 @ 4:49 am
I definitely don’t agree with the sign out front. It marks them for all sorts of altercations and retaliation in the form of violence (I don’t just mean eggs and spray paint.) However, It is easy enough to patrol whether by police or neighborhood watch to be sure the remainder of the ordinance is in effect, like the lights off and not answering the door.
My oldest trick or treater is 10 and I still will not allow him to go anywhere without an adult with him. After all, kids even at that age are likely to forget and run across streets and such without looking. My kids are trained to stay as a group, and we have 2 adults go with them on Halloween night.
After all, shouldn’t you be watching you children extra carefully on a night like this? I wouldn’t dream of letting them out of sight at a carnival, and Halloween is one big street fair.
Comment by Claire — October 23, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
If it’s just a sign that says “no candy here” than what’s the harm. It would be better for everyone to know. No matter how many times I tell my kids not to go to houses with the light off they still try. If there is a sign that say no candy they won’t stop at that house. Plus, they can be used for diiferent things not just sex offenders for ex. the grouchy old neighbor that hates kids, people who don’t celebrate Halloween, or families who are out trick or treating with their own children. Nobody metioned the sign said that a sex offender lives here. Besides I know that my sister-in-law doesn’t trick or treat in her own neighborhood and might not know the houses to avoid in those areas with signs posted to skip certan houses.
Comment by Mary — October 26, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
I’ve worked with teenage sex offenders for eight years, and i would welcome about 90% of them into my home, even to meet my young children. Don’t get me wrong; sexual crimes can be so horrible, that if they did that to one of my precious kids, i’d struggle with the darkest thoughts and feelings of rage and violence.
But sex offenders are people too.
And seriously, no sexual offenses will ever be stopped by keeping kids away from sex offenders’ doors on Halloween. That’s not how sex abuse happens. Sexually abused kids almost always know their perpetrator, and it’s usually a relative or close friend of the family. Mister Kinky who cruises neighborhoods in a black van with “Free Candy” spray painted on the side — that dude’s a myth.
Comment by juanito — October 26, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
You know, I tend to agree with Christie. The problem with making ALL sex offenders do this is that there are MANY people convicted and forever labeled as “sex offenders” that did nothing to a child. (Did you know public urination is deemed a “sex crime”??) That is my problem with the family watchdog website too – yes, it’s good to know, and as a mother I want to – but a lot of actions fall under these categories other than rape and abuse. If someone had done something to a child, well, by all means I’m ok with posting a sign. But porn on his computer? Not so much…
Comment by Sara — October 27, 2008 @ 9:25 am
I completely agree too. There is a man in our subdivision who is listed as a Sex Offender whose crime was ‘indecent exposure’ because at 21 he was caught urinating in a park.
I understand why they make the definition of ’sexual offense’ broad, all the better to make sexual offender listings as great a deterrant as possible, but there should be some kind of distinction made between indecent exposure and actual sexual deviancy.
Most of the people on our local sexual offenders list are there for ’statuatory rape’; presumably as late teens or early 20-year-olds, they were caught dating or sleeping with someone who wasn’t above the age limit. I obviously don’t condone this behavior either, but it’s still a far cry from molesting a child or violently raping someone. :/
Comment by Jennifer — October 29, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
I think the logic behind it isn’t to prevent actual abuse, but rather to prevent initial contact. Most sexual predators meet kids and gain their trust over a period of time before they actually abuse them, and kids are more likely to feel comfortable befriending Mr. Jones if he was one of those nice neighbors who gave them candy last Halloween. Moreover, Mr. Jones is more likely to target a kid he met on Halloween, so..
But that said, I agree that the situation is out of hand. I’ve checked the Sexual Predators list for our area and every single one of them has some kind of indecent exposure charge from when they were in their 20s, or a statuatory rape violation from the same point in their life. While I obviously would never CONDONE statuatory rape, there’s a significant difference between a 21-year-old dating a 17-year-old and molestation or actual rape.
I understand that the designation of ‘Sexual Offender’ is applied broadly in order to serve as a deterrant, but I think it also loses its power when it’s applied too liberally, as seems to be the case here. And obviously it HAS become diluted because most everyone here is commenting on the side of the ’sexual offenders’ in the case of this law.
Comment by Jennifer — October 29, 2008 @ 4:12 pm