Parker County, just West of Fort Worth, has taken the extraordinary measure of jailing 40 sex offenders who are currently on probation.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/12960853.htm

Link requires free registration. I don’t know if this story will or will not be picked up by the national media.

The questions for debate are:

1. Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?

2. Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?

3. If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms, are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?

What a novel idea!

1. Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?

I am a strong proponent of civil liberties, but I am also the mother of a young girl who will be going trick or treating. Four hours of detention is not going to hurt these sex offenders, and it will also eliminate them as suspects if any crimes against children are committed during those hours.

2. Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?

I consider it prudent. It seems to me that if politicians making speeches can have police who keep away protestors during the speeches ostensibly for their safety, we should give as much consideration to the welfare of our children. After all, the people involved have already been convicted of committing crimes.

3. If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms, are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?

From the standpoint of organizations such as the ACLU, I am sure that the Parker County officials are out of line.

But I feel that ultimately this is a good decision, because children will be safer and because these sex offenders will have a rock-solid alibi should a crime or crimes be committed.

EDIT: About the only thing I would suggest is that if there is a facility other than jail where these sex offenders can be kept for that period of time, there might be less of an outcry about the detention period.

1. I am in total opposition to this. If these people have been following the rules of probation, I can see no way that the county can justify locking them up. (Do the rules for probation include something saying "We can lock you up whenever we feel like it"? I doubt it.) If these people are too dangerous to be walking around, why are they on probation?

There seems to be a feeling among many people that sex offenders are so dangerous that the normal rules of the justice system cannot apply to them. I certainly understand the emotions behind this, but I cannot accept it. If someone has already been sentenced to a particular punishment, that punishment cannot be extended.

2. Neither.

It's not "prudent" because it offers little benefit, if any. What is the goal here? To offer protection for, at most, four hours during one night. If there seems to be some need for this, I have to ask why basic, common sense precautions are not used to protect children on Hallowe'en instead. Obviously, little kids should be under adult supervision. Older children should be in groups, in familiar neighborhoods, and so on. If Hallowe'en is really dangerous in Parker County, then trick-or-treating should be replaced with home parties instead.

It's not an "overreaction," really, as much as a publicity stunt. Look, citizens of Parker County! Your streets are safe, thanks to your benevolent police force!

3. Unless this procedure was specified as part of the probation requirements at the time of sentencing, Parker County officials are definitely in violation of the law. There is no provision in the justice system that states that the cops can force convicted criminals to do anything they want.

Yes, the goal is to provide protection for four hours during one night, the only night when children are traditionally going from house to house in the dark to get treats.

How many children, even supposedly with adult supervision, get snatched in stores and shopping malls? There are a lot of abductions that take place, even in broad daylight. The chances of this happening are increased when it is dark outside and there are shrubs and trees behind which a person who means harm can lurk.

I keep a very close watch on my daughter when she is out trick or treating. I cannot say the same for other parents. The children should not have to suffer because of a lapse in supervision. All it takes is for a parent to look away at a strategic moment.

Why should the children be detained inside one night because of sex offenders?

I certainly understand your concern about this. For me, what it comes down to is the government has to play by the rules. If the rules are not strong enough, they can be changed. (Life imprisonment without possibility of parole for serious sexual predators may be appropriate.) However, until the rules are changed, no government agency can legally impose an additional punishment on people who have already been sentenced.

Extra police patrols on Hallowe'en? Fine. Imposing restrictions which did not exist at the time of sentencing? Not fine.

I think the county is probably overstepping it's bounds in this case. Even if there was some kind of "just in case and for the good of the community" provision in the terms of probation for sexual offenders that allowed for the temporary incarceration (and we have no evidence of such a clause), despite commiting no crime or any other violation of terms of said probation, it seems to me that it should only apply to sexual offenders convicted of molesting children on Halloween. I take that back. It shouldn't even apply in that case.

Child molestors should only be returned to society if the incarcerating authorities are convinced that the offender will not engage in further child molestation. This would probably call for tougher sanctions against child molestors. So be it.

What purpose does it serve to temporarily lock-up for 4 hours once a year some psycho formerly convicted of raping red haired waitresses, who the government has seen fit to release into society, in relation to young children trick-or-treaters on Halloween?

Talk about a slippery slope!

Should people who were convicted of bank robbery, who served their sentences and were released on probation, then be re-incarcerated every day during banking hours until the day they die? Former shoplifters should be incarcerated whenever shops are open? I am not necessarily against such statutes, but that is not the law we have today.

Our children are exposed to the threat of molestation every single day of the year, not just on Halloween. I have yet to see evidense that any significant number of child molestations occur on October 31st.

Should people convicted of driving while intoxicated be permanently prohibited from driving at all? Should they be locked up on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays when most DUI's occur? Fine! Then let's add that to the punishment.

I suppose it never occurs to parents to not send their young children out into the night (on any friggin' night much less Halloween) without appropriate supervision. Can't provide adult supervision? Oh, so sorry! No Halloween for you. Missing out on "trick-or-treating" is a relatively small price to pay for children whose parents can't find the time to supervise or provide for the supervision of their own children.

I do not want to be misunderstood here! I believe that people who violate the rights of others are more liable to repeat such violations than not. I also believe that this concept should be incorporated into the sanctions imposed upon people found guilty of violating anothers rights. I also feel that such sanctions should be arrived at by due process of law and apply to all violations of human rights and not just certain circumstances inflamed by human nature.

I'm think this is a bad idea as far as the rule of law is concerned. The precedents that this sets up (as Argonaut made examples of) are dangerous.

If the judicial system believes that sex offenders in general are still a risk to the public's safety, then, as Argonaut mentioned, make the punishment for sexual crimes more severe. Playing catch and release isn't the way to protect anyone.

What about those convicted of sexual assault on adults? How would you take this same concept and apply it to them? What about car thieves? Do you lock them up every time there's a car show in town?

While we have means through the justice system to help protect the public, through incarceration and probation, and while we can voice our opinions to help improve said system, locking people up because they might do something, no matter how high the risk, is wrong. That scenario takes the entire justice system and throws it out the window.

Public Safety is something that is our responsibility to help ensure. Not by setting precedent to eroding civil liberties, but by acting vigiliant. Worried about sex offenders? Walk with your kids on Halloween as they Trick-or-Treat! What a concept!

Now I'd like to see stricter penalties for all kinds of sexual assaults ( in the Army, I believe rape carried *at least* life in prison) but we can see this end without eroding the civil liberties of all citizens. Criminal or otherwise.

It seems that there is a near consensus that this is a bad decision. I have been leery of Halloween since people started putting razor blades in apples and spiking candy with laxatives or poisons. I don't think kids should trick or treat period.

In Fort Worth, only those wanting to participate leave their porch lights on. I leave mine off. After 34 years of teaching other people's kids, I want to do something else with the rest of my life. Kids just don't fit in anymore. The school district I worked for still sends me something every year--a United Way pledge card. Retired teachers have not received a raise since 2001 and our insurance costs have double. I took pleasure in shredding it. When I retired teaching, I left it mind, body and soul. As B. B. said, "you know people, I've paid my dues." Fortunately, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin will be speaking at the Bass Performance Hall on Halloween night. I have tickets. What a nice escape clause.

Other than the usual stepped up police presence to deal with mischief, I think the ball is clearly in parent's courts to provide safe Halloween activities for their kids, but after 34 years of watching parents neglect their responsibilities, I'm not optimistic.

This idea is at best arbitrary and capricious. Nobody, including sex offenders, should have to leave their home because some kid wants a handout.



I hope Parker County's "bright" idea doesn't spread. I tend to think that Victoria is correct. This is a publicity stunt.

1. Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?
I think we are missing a crucial piece of information, and that is what was included in their sentence.

The link in the opening post requires special registration, so I checked another site. It seems that these offenders are not going to be tossed in the slammer (which I would absolutely oppose), but they are required to report in to their probation officer on halloween, and remain at the probation office for four hours.

I do have mixed feelings about this. I am very wary of any attempt by a government to overstep its authority, or change the rules midstream. At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable, or uncommon, to require someone on probation, for any kind of crime, to report in to their probation officer, with the time and duration being left to the officer's discretion.

2. Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?
This decision certainly falls within a gray area, but I lean towards "prudent action", if they are not being kept in prison for the four hour duration, and if there are provisions in their sentence (or the law) to allow the probation officers to decide when to make them check in at the office.

3. If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms, are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?
First, I am not sold on the idea that it is "jailing". However, if whatever course of action is planned is truly not part of the original probation terms, then I am opposed to the plan.

Regardless of what is right and what is wrong, one of the probation director's arguments is flawed:
One could spend the next year in prison and have virtually zero chance of being accused of any crime? Sign me up!

On a side note, something that has been gaining popularity here in Idaho is the "Trunk-Or-Treat". Rather than go house to house, a lot of people just get together in a school or store parking lot, and hand out candy from the trunks of their cars. With so many people around, it seems to be a lot safer than letting kids go house to house and possibly disappear somewhere along the way. A few people even go to extra effort by bringing a cargo trailer and setting up a mini-haunted house in it.

I don't understand your point. Regardless of whether they are being detained at the county jail or probation office, it's the same thing. That is, being deprived of one's freedom.

I don't think it is customary for probation workers to act as corrections officers. Of course, they could call it a Halloween party--encourage all the sex offenders wear a costume and serve black and orange cookies and punch from a witch's cauldron. That should put the best face on oppression.

This whole thing smacks of just more of the politics of fear. On a small level, Parker County is doing about the same thing as jerking the terror alert coding around. It seems like Joe Scarborough may have whispered something in the good Parker County yokels' ears.

1. Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?
2. Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?

On the surface, this looks like a prudent action. However, in El Paso county, the stigma of "sex offender" extends to any crime involving sexuality, whether actual sex happened or not. One guy got the label after making a gesture with his hand to his crotch as a sort of hip single-digit salute to a pair of snotty young ladies. So it depends on how threatening to the community the so-called sex offenders really are.

But let's assume that they all raped kids. Okay, I'll go along with this precaution. Make it a pizza party and watch a couple of recent movies or play poker and smoke cigars.

3. If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms, are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?

Sticky legalities. Yeah, I imagine this could be fought in court if it isn't a part of probation. After all, does this mean the sex offenders can be locked up any time kids are out and about, such as going to and from school?

Around here kids trick or treat either at the Safeway or in the immediate neighborhood, and only to houses that are clearly marked with Halloween decorations. The old traditions of egging houses or TPing trees are gone. Fine. Some old traditions are also stupid.

Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?

I agree with it. Anything that will hinder pedophiles will get my stamp of approval.
However, this just goes to show that criminals of this nature should not be living
among the population. They're incurable and as long as they are roaming freely
they will remain a huge threat to children.

Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?

It's prudent because Halloween is a unique holiday in that one could disguise himself and prey on innocent victims without being identified.

If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms,
are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?

No, it's not out of line. Child abuse is in a seperate category and should be
treated with harsher punishment and restrictions. Anyone who is willing to risk
his freedom to gain personal satisfaction at the physical and emotional expense
of an innocent child should be treated with the utmost caution and all
precuationary steps should be taken so that such a criminal cannot victimize
more children.

Furthermore, anyone who will fight for the rights or "freedom" of such criminals
is undoubtedly unaware of the severity of sickness that exists in such perpetrators.

I agree with you DP as far as stricter punishment is concerned, but our current justice system is not, and should not be, twsited into a system that allows for the on demand incarceration of anyone who has not broken any rules regarding probation, or on the suspicion that someone might do something, no matter the risk.

This scenario is right out of the film Minority Report. I agree that certain crimes are more heinous than others, but to uphold the integrity of our justice system, we must take what we do with one person convicted of a crime, and apply it to all of those who have.

So how are we to do that, I ask again.

Are we to lock up all parolees or or those on probation who have been convicted of grand theft auto when there is a car show in town?

What about convicted arsonists on the Forth of July?

Is Winona Ryder to be locked up or supervised every time Saks 5th Avenue in Beverly Hills has a sale?

I make light of this to show the fallacy in this idea's logic. I for one am for stricter punishments for those convicted of sexual crimes no matter who the victim was, but if that is the result we seek as the public, then we must do so through the proper channels. Through our legislature. Through the justice system that we all look to for protection.

Seeking such results through the bypassing of our own laws puts all Americans in danger.



I think thats a bit strong of a comment to make. I am by no means advocating that any criminal be treated with leniancy, especially in sexual crimes, yet I am advocating the preservation of the tenets that our justice system is based on.

The idea that we are all innocent until proven guilty. The idea that those who are convicted have to serve their punishment, and once they have served it, are given the chance to start over, but on the condition that they will no longer committ criminal acts and will be scrutinized upon for a lengthy amount of time. Are we to abandon this system that we've used for over two centuries for a "prevent defense" that will ultimately incarcerate all of us?

We rely on the justice system to preserve the balance of law and order, yet we can not rely on it alone for our protection. We must rely on our on vigilance as well.

If you are concerned about your child's welfare on Halloween, do what is truly more prudent, and accompany them while they trick-or-treat. When they get older, tell them to be aware of their surroundings and to go in large groups and avoid poorly lit streets and houses.

Sex offenders do not strike once a year. Four hours on a single day out of the year is pretty useless when we do nothing the other 364.

To reiterate what Titus wrote in different terms, I think we should be more concerned with the equal application of due process than locking up a handful of sex offenders on Halloween. Sexual offenders and alleged sexual offenders have these rights as well as the rest of us. Unless this is specifically part of the probation order, then I think it is a violation of due process.

Carrying this a step forward, are we to interpret your words to mean that lawyers who do represent sex offenders aren't aware of the charges against their clients?

As others have pointed out, if the penalties are not severe enough, they they can be increased, just don't subvert the system of due process because the laws we have may be inadequate.

This is an outrage. A prisoner should not be given freedom unless the system has faith that they are prepared to handle those freedoms again. A person cannot be whole if they are given the freedom with the intention that it be taken away at certain times.

1.) Absolutely not. Freedom is absolute, freedom with restrictions is still imprisonment. Probation at least has never called for these people to be jailed again unless they have broken a law. To say that they are being jailed for the capacity to commit a crime is ridiculous. I am just as likely to commit an act of unlawfulness as a former convict. Tell me why then we are not ALL in jail on Halloween?

2.) Artful overreaction.

3.) Yes, if it is not clearly stated when a prisoner is released and is subject to probation it is a violation of their freedoms. The officials of Parker County may want what is best for the children on Halloween but what about what is best for everyone. You cannot simply say that one person has a history of crime and therefore is more a threat to society than anyone else.

Hmmm No matter the risk? That's like saying, let's not board up our
homes for the potential hurricane. It happened before, but we're not going to
use that knowledge to hopefully prevent future damage...



Ha! You're joking, right? Where is the integrity in our justice system?
When pot-growers are doing more time than pedophiles I'm not seeing much
integrity. I could give you case after case of pedophiles who repeated crimes
immediately upon re-entry into society. They admit themselves that they cannot
control the sick urges. Yet, we must brush aside common sense and preventative
measures, such as the one we are discussing here, to preserve some imaginary
"integrity of our justice system."

Sorry, friends, but I think it's a smart idea, and hopefully cities all across the
country will continue to look for ways to prevent horrible crimes against
children.

I disagree with locking them up for 4 hours on Halloween.

I think they should have been locked up after conviction and the key thrown away!

I am constantly reading of these repeat offenders getting out and obducting and murdering their victims.

Make kids safer by lcoking them up permanently.

I don't think it's a great analogy, but I'm game. Yes, the potential is there, but the potential is always there. Hurricane season lasts from June to November. Because the potential for a hurricane is very strong then, do you propose boarding up your house for six months?

Getting back on track here, locking up even the most high-risk people during a small span of time does absolutely nothing to protect children. Not when the other 364 days are treated as no big deal.

If you want to "prevent further damage" (sic), engage the legislators and other government officials in a debate on stricter punishments, but don't go down the path of incarcerating people because they might do something.




Well, believe it or not, there is integrity in our justice system. It lies in the basic idea that if you commit a crime, you will be punished and that once said punishment is metted out, the issue is done.

Are we to lock up those with prior DUI when Oktoberfest rolls around? Heck, we could take that further and lock up those with Irish, German, Mexican, or Russian genetics because we all know they're big drinkers and are at risk as well.

Again, seek out stricter punishment through the proper channels, not by putting all civil liberty at risk.

Sticky, but interesting.

I think its probably well within legality to call convicted sex offenders (child molesters) to see their probation officers on Halloween night and keep them there awhile, part of being on probation, you have to go when called to go. Prudent and possibly preventative and if its within the law I would say, go right ahead.

However, if they are so risky, why are they on the street to begin with?
I agree with everyone who said stricter laws are required for these crimes. I mean the real crimes against children, not hand gestures or an 18 year old dating a 15 year old.
I personally am sick of sacrificing our children because noone wants to really SEE the problem and do something tough about it. We are not there yet, however..

Perhaps this Halloween for a few hours no child in Parker County will have their life ruined forever or end up dead. Maybe the next day they will.

Child molestation is the ONLY crime I believe requires total removal of civil rights/ legal rights not to be hauled in at any time, because it is a fact and admitted by the offenders themselves that they cannot be rehabilitated, unlike any other crime we know. (even rapists can recieve effective treatment) Serial killers are often put away for life, but child predators are let out on 'good behavior' after only a few months. Its despicable and a huge loophole in the system.
Not a single one ever convictedshould be allowed to live among the citizenry again, the cost is too great. First offense, throw away the key.

Edited to add:
Oprah did a show on child predators and posted 10 on her website and promised $100,000 to anyone giving information leading to the successful arrest of these criminals. The first week, 2 were caught and she paid each of the informants $50,000 in one arrest. The other was caught in Belize with the help of several locals and is pending payout.
She posts new ones each friday. Perhaps you might know or have seen one of these individuals. For one the man was living directly below her and she had been doing his laundry and cooking for him as he had a broken leg.
Oprahs message is very moving here, along with profiles and photos.
Please check them out in case you just might know something.
http://www2.oprah.com/presents/2005/predat...ator_main.jhtml

Truly the time has come to adress this problem and certainly make a call to legislators for harsher handling of sexual predators.

1. I agree with the decision. These people are on probation. Probation is supervised integration into society, so I see no reason why sex offenders in this category cannot or should not be required to show up to the probation office for four hours on Halloween night. Furthermore, the Megan law determined that the danger of recidivism that these types of offenders bring to the community overrides some of their future privacy rights in the public interest.

2. Prudent. Such offenders would otherwise be given access to children they wouldn't normally have...showing up right at their doors dressed in cute little outfits and asking for candy. It's like chickens visiting the wolf's house. If this were a staged event such evidence might not even be admissible in court as it would be considered entrapment. Furthermore, such offenders might not actually engage in criminal activity that night, but they might talk to children and find out personal information they wouldn't otherwise be as easily able to obtain in order to commit a future crime.

3. As mentioned by others, this is not jail time, it is visit-your-probation-officer time. Sounds like the best time possible. Parker county isn't alone, either. Google the words 'Halloween' and 'probation law', and you'll find many counties across the nation do this. Here are two others: Washtenaw County, Michigan and MANASSAS, Virginia.

From your responses BoF, you seem to be more concerned with the well being of the sex offenders and pedophiles rather than that of the safety of the boys and girls on Halloween night.


I agree with the decision in its entirety. Like all the others who have seen through the spin. They are not being "locked up", but being made to stay at the probation building. I believe this to be a very prudent action in being proactive rather than reactive.

I would just like to point out that poisoning of candy is an urban legend, and no one has ever been seriously harmed by sharp objects in Halloween Treats:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.htm

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/hallowee.htm

There haven't been reported incidents of either in the past two decades. (At least that I could find.)

It seems to me this is more dangerous towards the children the action is trying to protect, as it may make some parents less likely to accompany their children on the rounds, when sex offenders are probably among the least likely bad things that could actually happen to children.

I'd be interested to see statistics of children getting molested vs children getting hit by cars on Halloween. And unlike car accidents, molestation can be completely prevented by parental presence.

The questions for debate are:

1. Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?

2. Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?

3. If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms, are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?

[/quote]

I disagree with the decision NOT to put the guys in jail forever in the first place. In my opinion, pedophiles and other predators of children will never change and should never be allowed out of a cell again once they are caught.

Of course it's a violation of the original probation terms. But offering those sickos probation was wrong to begin with.

Edited to add:

The poisoning of candy is NOT an urban legend. On Halloween night in 1974, Timothy Mark O'Bryan died after eating a Pixie Stix candy stick that had been laced with cyanide. The boy's father, Ronald Clark O'Bryan, was tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed in 1984 for poisoning the candy. Three or four other children also received poisoned candy but did not eat it. Timothy was heavily insured (which appears to have been the motive) but since other children WERE given candy and could have been harmed, I say this knocks out the 'urban legend' theory.

From the perspective that these people aren't able to go to a Halloween Party or sit and watch football, sure, I agree it amounts to the same thing. However, from the perspective that they are being re-punished, I disagree. Being tossed in jail effectively says, "You have committed a new crime and will therefore be punished." or "Because you might commit a crime, we are punishing you."

However, being detained at the probation office effectivly says, "Society still doesn't trust you, and as part of your current sentence, we are detaining you." This situation does not qualify as a violation of their rights, a re-punishment, or a pre-punishment.

Your sarcasm aside, I would have no objections to them having a halloween party. The point is not to punish them, but to detain them. So long as they are off the street, I see no reason to make them sit quietly in the corner until their four hours are up.

You bet they are afraid, and so are many parents. We have come to the terrible realization that our judicial system needs a lot of work, and in the meantime, we have high-risk sex-offenders mingling with our kids. So long as the law is followed exactly, I am totally in favor of removing these sex-offenders from society. Despite the reasonable accuracy of your statement, it is little more than an attempt to fallaciously re-inforce your arguments with a negative label.

Sleeper,

I have been quite consistent on this board in championing civil liberties and due process being applied equally to all people. My position is not so much to take sides with sex offenders, who in this case may or may not be child molesters or pedophiles, but to be an advocate of protecting the rights of all citizens. In this case it happens to be a group that is generally unpopular, even with other prisoners in the penal system. I’m sorry if that offends you. Although I’m not a lawyer, I have the heart of a defense attorney. You know some people worry about taking the words "under god" out of the pledge while they seem to want to forget the words "with liberty and jsutice for all" ever existed.

As others have pointed out, parental supervision and alternatives to trick or treating would be better for parents who have concerns.



My reference was not to recent times, but back a few years ago.

For example, Texas executed Ronald O’Brien in 1984:



http://www.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/print.html

Hear, hear!

Couldn't have said it better myself. If the people are not safe enough to be allowed out in public at any time they should not be out in society. It doesn't matter if it's Halloween or Saturday morning.

People should not be rounded up and thrown in jail on the "chance" they may break a law, even if they are on probation.

Sorry to bring it off topic, but you guys are missing the point of the legend.

Poisoning your son's candy is signficantly different than what the legend touts, that of there being people hiding in houses tainting children's candy, and handing them out to strangers on the streets. The idea that this is a even vaguely common occurrence is unfortunately what the legend dicates, and it's completely without merit or fact. There is only one instance of this occurring in America, and th.at instance was no different than the hundreds of other cases of children poisioning their Children

In fact, BoF implied exactly that in his original quote:



Sorry, Not picking on your BoF, repeating Urban Legends is just one of my Pet Peeves.

Like this profoundly persistent legend, I think this is possibly an extension of the same type of reasoning. Shouldn't we instead be examining the facts of how much this really does? How many children are preyed upon on Halloween? I wouldn't think many, this is probably one of the few days there are not only hundreds of children roaming the streets but also hundreds of parents.

And more over, where are the parents of the children? I grew up in a safe neighborhood, but my parents still went with us for a large portion of the trick or treating we did... and things are different 20 years later.

If the parents are concerned with the offenders that have been caught, they should be more concerned with those that HAVEN'T BEEN CAUGHT!. ... it's time for personal accountability for parents.

If the sex offenders haven't broken probation, I don't see how this can be legally or morally acceptable for anyone. What about Drunk Driving convictions, do we make them stay home on New Years eve?

What people seem to be missing in this discussion thus far is the second part of the equation. Helping to keep a person on probation out of trouble. First of all, if they have been convicted of child molestation chances are that one of the terms of their probation is to stay away from children. Kind of a difficult thing to do if the kids are coming to your door. So what do you do? Put a big sign in front of their house saying "Stay away! Child molester in residence!"? Imagine the howls from the civil libertarians about something like that, and I'd agree with them. Secondly, if something does happen, or is even alleged to happen to child in the neighborhood during Halloween, the first people that are going to be suspected of doing it will be the convicted sex offenders. If they are with their probation officer during this "high risk" evening, they're home free as far as any further accusations are concerned. That's a lot less of a hassle for them than being hauled in for interrogation.

So, it seems to me that this action is probably a good thing, both from the standpoint of child safety as well as serving to protect the rights of convicted sex offenders.

You have a point, Aquilla, but I think an even better solution would be to one, not answer the door, and two, turn off the lights on the porch which, as all of us trick-or-treat vets know, is a sure sign that there is no candy to be had.

Aveans also brought up the point I have been bringin up, albiet a bit less subtly. If the parents are concerned about their neighboorhood, go with your kids, it's not that hard.

I guess those kids whose parents are too stupid to chaperone deserve whatever they might get. Most of the parents on this forum will chaperone their kids, so I'm not sure of the point here. Again, these people are on probation. In fact, during New Years eve, probation officers work overtime monitoring DUI offenders. Often DUI repeat offenders have to pass a breathalyzer test just to turn on their cars...and they don't have liquor showing up at their houses one special night a year. I see no problem having a manditory "meeting" during that timeframe, rather than using the honor system and wasting resources monitoring individual houses.

I have a question. Is this something you are talking about in Nevada or are you generalizing it to the other 49 states? In Texas the Highway Patrol is out in greater numbers during drinking seasons, as are some local police departments. I can't, however, remember seeing anything about them specifically targeting DUI offenders

Now we both know that's not something I'd hope would happen, regardless of how stupid the parents indeed were.

My point is that a better solution (in lieu of changing the punishment for sex offenders) is to supplement the current system with logic and vigilance. To think that parolees or those on probation for such crimes for four hours on Halloween night will make anyone safer is illogical.

Of course liquor doesn't show up to the houses of repeat DUI offenders one special night a year, that's what liquor stores are for. To excpect that those that wish to continue to harm children will all of the sudden not wish to do so after 10 P.M. on Halloween night is an eggregious error.

In short, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What is being asked, whether it be mere observation or incarceration, sets a precedent that will lead towards the erosion of civil liberty as a whole.

I'd rather remain vigilant and advocate for harsher punishment than start monitoring or incarcerating people because they might do something.

BOF, here is one from Arizona

DUI offenders on probation are heavily monitored in most states. In this article that includes community service, life skills classes, fines, curfew and schedules, a 12-step program, breath tests, urine analysis and surveillance. It can also include a regimen of antabuse, a medication that induces illness and vomiting when mixed with alcohol.

In short, a person on probation must adhere to certain rules in exchange for the privilege of shorter prison time. This means their behavior will be monitored. Either way their civil liberties are not being infringed without due process. They had their due process, their freedom taken away after being charged and convicted of a crime, then they were released on probation with the understanding that they will be supervised. Now, we can expend resources in order to monitor each house individually on Halloween night and ensure that convicted child sex offenders leave their lights out, or we could require that they all show up at a designated location and save tax dollars for something else. Either way, these people will be monitored carefully by law enforcement agents on that night. In the interest of saving resources (so that law enforcement officials can spend their time monitoring criminal activity elsewhere on Halloween night) I’m for option two.

It is gratifying to read the posts of others who recognize the practicality of keeping track of convicted sex offenders for four hours during Halloween night. Of course, there are those who commit crimes who have not been caught yet, but the incidence of these crimes should be reduced, and the "usual suspects" will not have to be rounded up and questioned because they will not have had the opportunity to commit the offenses.

Certainly, if anyone does not want to participate in Halloween trick or treating, they need merely to keep their porch lights off and not have decorations like jack o' lanterns outside to suggest their participation. We have neighbors, a retired minister and his wife, who have never participated in Halloween, and their house is left alone. But what is to stop a sex offender from turning the lights on again and opening his/her door to trick or treaters once the probation officer leaves? Unless the probation officer determines to babysit the ex-con through the evening, s/he does not know what that person is going to do. What is to stop the ex-con on probation from turning off the house or apartment lights and then going for a walk?

For many of us, child molestation is just a statistic in the news until someone we know or a member of our family becomes a victim. For those involved, it is hellish. Sex offenders, especially child molesters, have a particularly difficult time resisting temptation, worse than for a bank robber or someone convicted of larceny; this has been documented. For child molesters, Halloween night is like someone peddling cheap bottles of booze up and down the street with struggling alcoholics at home all too aware of it.

Source?

---------

On the whole I feel that this is a very sticky subject, though I disagree with the jailing/detaining/detention/halloween party for pedophiles/whatever. Obviously no one wants their children to trick-or-treat at pedophiles homes because of what could happen. I also agree that, unlike the other 364 days in a year Halloween is special because so many kids are out and they're going up to houses with strangers they might not know. Though I also feel that, unless stipulated in their probation hearing and or by the judge, this is wrong. The system can't just go around and choose when and where it is convenient to remove certain people. Although some people on this board don't seem to agree, certain freedoms are guaranteed.

Now of course freedoms can be taken away (jail) when crimes are committed, but upon release and unless noted, they should not be able to be taken away for a light cause. If the system feels that they can be put back into society then that's how it is, and changes need to be made to the system, not special rules made here and there. To go back to Doomed Planet's pot growers vs. pedophiles argument I would recommend changing the system instead of having the system allowed to pick and choose when and where it's convenient to have a person around. This is definitely Minority Report, have we learned nothing from Hollywood?

Convicted Child Molesters often strike again


Child Molester Recidivism

That's just a couple of links I found right away. There are more if you require them.

Recidivism is a problem with sex offenders, especially child molesters.

EDIT: Additionally, there are degrees of injury suffered by bankers whose banks have been robbed versus children who have been molested. Can we agree on that?

The questions for debate are:

1. Do you agree or disagree with Parker County’s decision? Why or Why not?

2. Is this a prudent action or an overreaction?

3. If the scheduled four hour jailing is not part of the original probation terms, are Parker County officials out of line? Why or why not?

This will likely end up being appealed, and fought through the court system. But for this Holiday at least, they're off the streets, and parents will feel a bit safer.

In Michigan, at present, we have a sex offenders registry that lists the name, address, and physical description of all known sex offenders convicted in the past 25 years. The big problem that gets dealt with periodically in the newspapers and TV, but hasn't been changed by the legislature has to do with teenage boys and girls. If they have sex with each other before they're 16, and it gets documented by the local prosecutor as statutory rape, they're required to notify the police of every move, job change, etc. for the next 25 years. It's been awhile since I checked the list. I was discouraged at the time to find someone on the list living about a block away, and someone on the list living across from my daughter's elementary school.

On the local scene, during the time we have lived in this community; a young girl was raped in the bathroom at the public library, and another young girl had her underpants stolen at knifepoint in the K-Mart bathroom. Presumably, both girls had parents nearby.

What does a single parent do on Halloween? Option A is stay home and hand out candy. Option B is to go out with your child. Option C would be to look for a party. Option D would be to let your child go out with someone else.

As a parent, having the known sex offenders locked up for the evening sounds very comforting and reassuring. It most likely violates their rights. It most likely will be turned over on appeal. But, if we can start locking these "people" up four hours a year so that children can trick or treat, it might be worth it. Then again, if the police are unable to locate all of the people they want locked up, it may only result in a false sense of security,,,

Look, anyone who says that this sets a precedent for erosion of civil liberties is just someone willing to sacrifice a child. There are a lot of things that set precident against civil liberties and this is not one to fight battles for, rights for child molesters for christ sake! There is no incidence of one child molester having ever been rehabilitated, they cannot be rehabilitated, they know it and now so do we and we must stop being victims to it. We must DO something about it.
Child Molesters should have NO civil liberties after first conviction, the price is too great.
I cannot believe what is beng said here, that after paying the price to society a convicted child molester is alllowed to go forth and do the same thing again! These are innnocent children, not just any children, all our children.
I cut out a newspaper article this week, a Coast Guard Officer who got 4 years for enticing children to make porn, 4 years for ruining these kids lives forever.
There is something wrong with society, a society that considers pedophilia kind of 'no big deal'.
These are OUR CHILDREN. They become adults and carry scars for life, if they survive.
We might want to consider WHY child molesters and pedophiles are getting off easy, and why some people consider this a minor crime when it is NOT.

I could not agree more with you Artemise. I think the term 'civil liberties' is being thrown around to protect people it really should not protect. Criminals and predators will always hide behind the guise of civil liberties, even as they commit heinous crimes against innocent people and children. I think some people cannot take off their political blinders to see just how wrong it is to allow sexual predators fall under the protection of civil liberties.

[I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]
Okay.. I'm a neutral person and I have two sides to everything, so I see things in both lights for the most part.

1. There are things such as, once someone begins molesting kids, ect, that they just don't stop or learn.. but not everyone can be placed under that opinion.
I'm not going to put my personal opinion about sex offenders under here because it will go way off topic, but I'll go with one side of the story.
It isn't fair to put away someone who is on probation for something they have not yet done and of course we don't want them to do it, but it just isn't right.
Taxes pay for jails, correct? Well we're arresting people who, according to the state, do not belong in there. Am I wrong?
They have more than less paid for what they have done, in the states eyes, or else they wouldn't be out of jail, therefore, what right does anyone have to rejail the offender? This person has been labled for life, served their time and are on probation.
I can understand that parents would certainly beg to differ because no one wants something bad to happen to their kids, which is why parents go WITH their children, trick or treating. Who is to say the offender will do anything wrong? It just isn't right or fair.

Thats all I have to say. Thankies.

Here is my (restated) opinion.

Someone who harms children (or animals, in my opinion) has committed a worse crime even than murder. In my mind, such a person can NEVER pay for what s/he has done, no matter how much prison time they serve. A person who would molest a helpless child or torture a helpless animal SHOULD be labeled for life -- and jailed for life too, never to draw a free breath again. Such people 'get off' on overpowering the weak, and will never be cured. The rest of society should not have to worry about re-offenses happening. Let them rot in prison and prey on each other.

People who are on probation have not served their debt to society. Casting it in this light is disingenuous. People are probation are subject to whatever terms the judge sets for them, including meeting with their probation officer, getting gainful employment, abiding by a curfew or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probation

Therefore, this is completely legal and does not infringe on anyone's civil liberties.

Whether or not this is effective is harder to judge. It probably removes some temptation and opportunity from the offenders (if they are predators of children and not adults). However, temptation and opportunity are only two ingredients to someone committing a crime. Criminals will be criminals.

Since there is no infringement on civil liberties and it may prevent crime, then this is ok, if the judge deems it so. Many things the government does are of dubious efficacy and this is just another one. However, it does put some parents at ease, which is worth something.

Update

I saw this on Rita Cosby Live and Direct last night.

In a variation on what is happening in Parker County, Texas, the state of New Jersey is demanding that sex offender’s convicted under Megan’ Law be required to stay home on Halloween night.

The debate on Cosby’s show seem to divide along the same lines as the one on this board, that is, Acting Governor Richard Cody arguing that the measure is a prudent exercise to protect children while defense attorney Robert Tarver has questioned the practice.





<snip>



Rita Cosby Live and Direct Transcript, 10-26-05

Awwww the poor sex offender.

What about the remainder of Christmases and other holidays a sex offender's victim has while in the back of their mind reliving the horror inflicted upon them. I can, and never will have sympathy for this kind of scum of the earth. Sex offenders ruin the lives of others, and I will never have sympathy for them.

Amen. I couldn't have said it better myself. I know it's not very kind of me, but there aren't words strong enough to express my disgust with someone who would hurt a child or an animal.

Edited to reinstate the source of the quotation. Thanks for editing it out, Sleeper. You completely destroyed the context of the story from last night's Rita Cosby Live and Direct.

Click below for the lines Sleeper removed from context.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=171527

The history of Civil liberties in this country has often been about how far we go in protecting unpopular groups.

Okay,
I completely see where you all are coming from, and as I said before I set one side of my opinion into my earlier post. When I was six, something happened to me.. so.. I have strong feelings for this matter. When I said they had paid their price or whatever, I meant in the states eyes because if they let them out of jail, they served their due time. I personally believe that they should just be hung. Plain and simple, but I'm a really nice person and I feel neutral to a lot of things.
I just think people change and deserve second changes.. but I do feel horrible for their victum and how they have been violated.. and thats what makes me feel like the offender to be hung.

Where in the hell did I remove anything?!?! I cut and pasted the entire quote from your original post. That was from the last snip box you posted. These people are SCUM!! Why on earth would you want to be looking out for their best interests?

Look we all have political differences. Taxes, health care, education, foreign policy. But this is not about politics(civil liberties). This is about the safety of our children.