I think if I were a parent, I would want to know. Call me paranoid if you want, but from what I know, people who are sex offenders are often fighting with this on a constant basis. Alcoholics should probably avoid bars, so perhaps sex offenders should avoid Halloween.

I also know that I would be watching my children while they were trick-or-treating, so they would be in no danger from anyone in this way.

I don't think that it has anything to do with it being a pagan holiday. The idea of knocking on relative strangers' doors is disconcerting to people in general. I think that it has more to do with not knowing your neighbors and the fear that that creates. If everyone knew their neighbors, this wouldn't be a worry, but unfortunately, we don't.

I say all of this without (to my knowledge) knowing any sex offenders, so take it with a grain of aalt. However, I think that most parents just want their kids to be safe, pagan holiday or not.

I think this is a bit strange

Firstly I don't think that being a bit careful on Halloween is religious propaganda. I live in a house on a huge road with lots of traffic. 3/4/5 year olds wandering around in the dark while cars zoom by? Yeah, really safe. Also, by where I live - teenagers go a bit crazy, putting fireworks through letter boxes, vandalizing cars. I don't feel THAT safe on Halloween myself.

Anyway, re the signs. It seems a bit pointless. Most child molesters are very careful and predatory in that they target children who wont tell. Family, friends etc. Random strangers will probably be arrested whereas 'grandfather' or 'mom's boyfriend' can get away with this stuff for years, and even then when it comes out not be prosecuted.

However sending children to a pedophile's house at night may be a bit like waving candy in front of a diabetic, so maybe it's better safe than sorry.

Grain of salt, grain of salt. It's not morning, so I don't have an excuse for the typo.

Also, aren't Christmas and Easter pagan holidays, too? Co-opted, but still pagan roots.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, because I know I fall on the tough-on-crime side of the fence when it comes to violent crime so I might just be echoing some of the thoughts already expressed above, but shouldn't parents be accompanying their kids from house to house anyways, or at least sending them out with trusted adults? I always went trick-or-treating with a group of friends with one or two parents or older siblings with us. And if they do, then isn't this just a little bit of overkill and just serving to punish the offender?

When I was little, a kid in my town died on halloween night while trick or treating. Dropped dead from no immediately apparent cause. There was a big scare and parents took candy away from kids, etc, but it turned out to be a heart defect. I've never heard of anyone honestly really being poisoned by halloween candy, but it could certainly happen. We were always taught only to take packaged name brand candy, no homemade cookies or unwrapped candy corn.

I think if I had kids out trick or treating, I'd like to know which houses have pedophiles in them, even if it might make them more of a target for teenagers egging their houses. But are they only using these signs for pedophiles, or at least pedophiles and violent criminals? Because I keep hearing about people being put on the sex offender registry for such ridiculous minor offenses that it makes the whole thing hard to take seriously at all. If I saw a sign like that I'd have to ask myself, is this really a dangerous person? Or is this a person who had consensual sex when they were 18 with someone who was 17 and is now stuck putting up with this kind of thing for the rest of their life?

A related topic: Child porn. Obviously when child porn involves actual children it should be very very illegal. But now there is technology that people are using to make fake child porn that does not involve any children, or sometimes any people at all. Should that be illegal? My gut feeling is its really icky, but I wonder if anyone will do any real studies on it. Does access to this kind of fake child porn make pedophiles tempted and more likely to attack real children? Or does it allow them an outlet and make it easier to control themselves around real children?

I young kids definitely should have parents with them while trick or treating, and probably always do. But there might be an age where its ok to let them go by themselves in groups, depending on what kind of area you live in. Also, some parents might just be flaky-- I knew kids who hitchhiked home from school in 6th grade.

This is a serious question: What is a "former" sex offender, and how does a person become one?

On the one hand, I think that the overall hysteria about sex offenders moving into neighborhoods and whatnot is largely a way that people try to cope with the fact that the actual danger to children is almost always from known family, teachers, coaches, etc. Since that is a terrifying thing to comprehend for a parent who just wants their child to be safe, I think people place a disproportionate emphasis on the danger prestened by a random stranger in their neighborhood. You see similar thinking with rapists - the vast majority of rape is acquaintance rape, but it's hard for people to process that so there is continued emphasis on the "man jumping out of the bushes."

However, as uncomfortable as I am with infringing on ex-convict's civil liberties in ways like GPS tracking, etc, I think this is a very difficult situation. I have always read/heard that pedophilia has a high recidivism rate and that it's difficult and rare to "cure" someone of pedophilia. Does that mean someone should get run out of a neighborhood? No. But should they do their part to stay away from children? Probably. Perhaps the addiction analogy is apt -- you are always a recovering addict, never fully recovered, and therefore you shouldn't get lax and allow yourself to be in situations that will tempt you.

This is a tough one- labeling is such a dangerous thing. But, of course, so are child predators.

The child porn thing- it seems that images depicting clearly nonconsensual sex promote forced sex, glorifying it as an appropriate sexual endeavor, yeah? So, if the images are those of kids, real or animated or whatever, it doesn't seem that it would serve at all as a safe way to deal with those urges. The real problem with pedophilia isn't simply an unfortunate expression of pedophilia but pedophilia itself. So, does "fake" child porn or whatever you'd call it really provide the help necessary to people with those desires?

I hope I don't sound to sympathetic to pedophiles. But, I do think it is important to have systems in place to help those citizens. I understand the whole "warn the neighborhood" thing. But, shouldn't communities also have help for the predators? Maybe I just don't know much about those programs.

but shouldn't parents be accompanying their kids from house to house anyways, or at least sending them out with trusted adults?

Depends on how old they are.

I have a 12 year old, an 11 year old, a 4 year old and a 2 year old. We might all *start* together, but it would be penalizing the older ones if I made them stay with me and the younger ones, given that the younger ones don't have the stamina the older ones do.

So we start out together, and once we've done a block or two, the young ones are tired and want to go home and eat their loot. At that point I cut the older ones loose to do their own thing.

And yes, I would prefer they don't go near child sex offenders. In fact, my major problem with how the laws handle child sex offenders is not the principle of the thing -- I am perfectly okay with marking you for the rest of your life if you are a sex offender. If you rape anyone, ever, you should never be trusted by anyone ever again. But I *do* have a problem with how easy it is to get on the list. People who pee in public should not be sex offenders, prostitutes should not be sex offenders, teens who fall prey to the lack of a Romeo and Juliet provision in the state law should not be child sex offenders, children should not be child sex offenders because they circulated pictures of themselves and fell awry of child porn laws, and so forth.

My basic feeling is that there is paying your debt to society, and then there is making sure you cannot re-offend. Rape has greater destructive potential than almost any other non-murder crime, it can never be committed for legitimate reasons (unlike murder, where there are self-defense provisions, for example), it can't be committed by accident (well, one can make the argument that some forms of statutory rape can be committed by accident, but I'd like to see a gray area there acknowledged and the people who have sex with a "consenting" post-pubescent minor *not* treated the same as other sex offenders) and it is frequently committed against people who trust the offender. It's also, in the case of some rapists (particularly pedophiles), tied to how they experience sex, and therefore as hard to get rid of or control in that individual as it is to make a gay person "ex-gay". Rapists *should* have a big letter R tattooed on their forehead, and should only be able to make friends and get jobs amongst people who understand that they are rapists and know to be appropriately cautious with them.

But I also do know that odds are, my kids will not be attacked by child sex offenders ON HALLOWEEN. We live in a city and everyone is out on their porch on Halloween. If someone dragged kids into their house, there would be witnesses. So I *suspect* that forbidding child sex offenders to participate in Halloween is overkill; on the other hand, I really don't give a shit if any rapist, ever, is allowed to participate in *anything* ever again, and I really can't muster up any concern for rapists. (Again, the fact that you can get onto the list for reasons that are *not* raping children, and in fact could be as harmless as taking a picture of your child breastfeeding, is, in fact, of great concern to me. But I would focus on reforming the procedure for who gets on the list, and making it possible for people who are not rapists or actual child pornographers to get off it, not worrying about the rights of the people who are on it.)

We expect that rapists are to take responsibility for their actions, rather than teaching young women to live by a rape schedule. I don't see how this is different. Sex offenders in DC are being asked to be responsible for themselves, and instead of the authorities saying "you can't trust anyone, so don't let your kids have fun on Halloween night", they're saying to the offenders "you need to be responsible for your actions and that involves doing these things".

While I agree that GPS devices go a mile too far, and preventing registered sex offenders from living within a certain distance of a school is a paranoid measure pushed by people who want to make sex offenders another demonized "THEM"; I don't think that asking sex offenders to refuse to distribute candy to children is going too far. Maybe they won't hurt anyone -- maybe children will be out with adults in a "safe" sort of way, but I think if, in the mind of the offender or the authorities, there's a chance that the sex offender will re-offend, they shouldn't be exposing themselves to kids demanding candy.

Along the same lines of what pololly, this kind of punishment is kind of pointless, since the vast majority of child molesters harm children they know (neighbors, family friends, or a grandpa/father/etc). As Miriam said, this is a touchy subject, and I am also not one to have much sympathy for someone who messed up a kid out of some desire to have power over another (I've heard that most child molesters are interested in power and having dominance over the child, while a very small amount of child molesters are actually physically attracted to children). At the same time, we need to look at how effective tactics like banning child molesters from being involved in halloween are. What does this accomplish? Iowa has a similar law to CA in terms of banning registered sex offenders from living a certain distance from schools and daycare centers. In Cedar Rapids, IA, they can't live within 2,000 feet. I went to a local civil rights committee meeting when I was in high school there. The wife of a registered sex offender was there and talked about how there's no where in town that's not 2,000 feet of a school or daycare, so they were forced to live outside of city limits. She didn't say what he had done to get on the registry or how long he had been on it (and it varies state to state, but I believe in Iowa you're on it for 10 years or something), but it made me think about how punishments like that also affect that person's family... and further isolate them from society and carry an economic burden (having to drive from out of town into town, if they have a job in town and so on). Again, it's hard for me to feel too bad for them, since they most likely did something pretty atrocious to be put in the registry in the first place, and that victim has to walk around with those memories and experiences, but at the same time... Are punishments like these the right thing to do? Are they effective?

I don't think that asking registered offenders to opt out of Halloween (a holiday when small children go up to strangers' houses at night, en masse). Putting up a sign seems extreme, but in cases where kids might approach the house repeatedly and ring the doorbell because they see someone inside, it might make sense. Personally, I would rather have an offender feel discriminated against than have a child be victimized.

The problem is in people's perceptions. If I were a parent, I would MUCH rather have my neighborhood former child abuser put up a sign, close his or her front gate, and stay in on Halloween than invite my child into his or her house to get candy. As a society, we should show gratitude to people who go out of their way to avoid being a danger to children, through counseling, through avoiding places where children play, and through avoiding a situation like Halloween. The response shouldn't be to shun someone who has one of these signs, it should be to show respect for their brave and responsible decision.

I'm also torn on the issue of sex offender ID. I feel that either you're a criminal and you're in jail, or your free and have you rights. But at the same time, I sure as hell wouldn't want my kids going near these people.

We'd like to be convinced that our justice system actually reforms criminals- but it can't even reforms reformable convicts, let alone people who literally can not control their urges. But that's why these types are in our neighborhoods to begin with. They're out of jail, so they have to live somewhere! But no one wants to be near them, because of so many repeat offenses.

If you ask me, the entire freaking system needs a make over and dangerous child predators shouldn't even know what the word "parole" means!

I have some experience with supervision of sex offenders. I was an Intern Probation & Parole Officer for six months when I was obtaining my BA in Justice.

In the great state of Alaska, sexual offenders are generally allowed no contact with minors. They are expected to go shopping when minors are in school. If somehow a minor starts to talk to them they are expected to leave the store, and so forth. If they are on supervision, those are the rules.

Also, the current research and academic paradigm is that you cannot 'cure' sexual offenders, you can only 'contain' them. They will be a constant threat until they die.

I don't think it is overkill at all. If a 12 y/o walks up do a door and the offender offers some alcohol or whatever and the youth enters, no suspicion would be raised at all.

The assumption that sexual offenders snatch and grab their subjects is false. They are very experienced at manipulating targets into positions where the victims are vulnerable.

The whole problem with sex offender registries is that it is a form of after the fact punishment, and what gets you on the registry can vary so wildly that it isn't always pedophiles.

There was a case covered extensively on this blog, for instance, about how a young man who had sex with his 15-year old girlfriend (while he was like 18) ended up serving time. I think we can all agree here that given the range of ages in the average high school that is pretty silly -- I mean, under those laws half my class would have had to go to jail after the prom. And all the fathers of those babies born to teenage girls would go to jail too.

But all those people would be classsified as sex offenders, and on the registr(ies).

Then there's the issue of "once a pedophile always a pedophile." It isn't at all clear to me that recidivism isn't the result of a lack of facilities to help people out as much as something in the nature of being one to begin with.

If we use addiction as a model, and treated other addicts the way we treat pedophiles, we'd be asking drunk drivers to live more than 2000 feet from liquor stores and such. Again, that would be a little absurd.

Now, I understand the issue of parents' concerns, lord knows. But as another commenter pointed out, pedophiles go after people they know, just like most rapists do. And if it's a bunch of kids together it's even less likely, since you'd have to have a stranger able to get your kid alone somehow. When I was 8 we trick-or-treated and I can't imagine any of us willing to go alone anyplace with someone we didn't know --especially when you want to hang with your buddies. "Grooming" someone takes too long, you know?

As to whether Halloween hysteria is a religious thing, no. That was brought out in the movie "Halloween" (The 1980 version) and all those urban legends -- poisoned candy, razors in apples -- were current in the 70s. The religious right as we know it today didn't really exist yet. And frankly any toxin on a candy you would notice immediately because most of them taste nasty, and how the heck would you hide a razor in an apple? (You'd have to make a slit in it).

Snopes.com has the lowdown on how many people were ever harmed by poisoned candy. Not many and it wasn't a stranger.

Gotta take issue with this myth that 'it is easy to get on the sex offenders register'. It's not. It's hard. It's hard to prosecute sex attacks, it's hard to prosecute rape. It's hard to prosecute child molestation - most of it goes unpunished. The media print ONE story every six months for the entire country of a '17 year old + 18 year old story'. This then becomes the story. Not the millions of unrepentant child molesters and the family members/wives and friends who enable them.

A cop was convicted of molesting three children under 12 a week ago - he got 6 years. It's a load of crap. The system errs on the side of the innocent and children are not protected. If anyone wants to spout NAMBLA talking points about how 'most allegations are just between 'sexy' 15 year olds and 18 year olds then I'm gonna need some proof. Otherwise, I'm gonna assume that you are believing what you want to believe, and I can't think of any wholesome reasons why someone would want to believe that people empathize with sex offenders.

On the one hand, I'd like to have one of those signs for my own house, since a darkened doorway doesn't always work.

On the other hand, I think that - regardless of the reasoning behind such a sign - it's an invitation to have your house egged on Halloween. Are the kids even going to know what the sign means?

Sorry if that's not clear - I'm asking if anyone has any PROOF that it's easy to get on the sex offenders register? Here's an example of your logic in action - I think that we need more white electoral candidates. Why? Because in this election all I see on the television is Obama, we need to racially even out Washington by recruiting more white people to Washington. See how stupid that sounds?

No offense, but you all sound pretty stupid when you rail against non existent nonsense with anti-women propaganda involving teenage jezebels and apologist patriarchal crap.

While it doesn't really relate to the whole Halloween issue, I do think that there needs to be some change in the way that sex offenders register and where they are allowed to live. I personally live in a college town in the middle of nowhere. Not even exaggerating, it's about a 3 hour drive through wheatfields to get anywhere else. Of the 26,000 people who live here, 19,000 of them are college undergraduates. Just this fall, a Level 3 sex offender was allowed to move into our town and live out of his van. While no, there aren't that many little children around, this specific sex offender targeted young women (15-18 yrs. old), and is now being allowed to live unsupervised in a town full of young women who do party and consume alcohol and make the perfect victims for this man who, according to his sex offender level, will be very likely to SEEK OUT victims in the future. I understand that we, as college women, have to be responsible whenever we consume alcohol and be aware of our surroundings at all times, but isn't it just ASKING for another incident to happen by allowing this man to run around Pullman without anyone knowing his true whereabouts, since he has no permanent address? With any other crime, I feel that a person should be able to do their time and then not have to live with the stigma of that crime from then on. We need to realize though that in our rape culture, by not making a big deal out of the dangerous situations women and children are being put into every day by these offenders living near is making it seem like their crimes, and the crimes they are very likely to re-commit, aren't that important or detrimental to the well being of our women and children (and men, since they do make up 1/10 of the victims of sexual assault.)

The hysteria over child molesters started some time in the early 1990s with all the B.S. about recovered memories. All of a sudden, people blamed their lousy lives on molestation they had buried in their psyche. In fact, the science of memory isn't clear on whether we can bury memories, but many people think that after the age of about 5 major events, as I assume being molested would be, don't just disappear into a safe room in the mind.

With all of these sex offenders suddenly being discovered buried in the minds of troubled or suggestable people, everyone started seeing child molesters everywhere. Several day care owners were railroaded a la the Salem Witch Trials, and their lives were ruined.

When I was a child, even a young child, I used to trick or treat with friends and my brother. Everyone did. We all loved the house that offered homemade popcorn balls hot off the stove. Now because of an urban legend or two, children can't get treats like that. Their parents would rather they fed their obesity with candy instead of apples.

Should sex offenders sit out Halloween? Why don't you ask your bachelor uncle or maiden aunt, anyone who doesn't seem to be having normal sexual relations? Ask whether a sex offender is lying in wait for the perfect boy or girl to come to his or her door so they can become the next victim. The idea is ludicrous. If you want to take your kids around, fine. Just saying we've become a country of paranoids.

This issue actually hits close to home for me because my best friend's dad was a "sex offender."

he was an accomplished doctor who liked to watch porn. by the way, he had two daughters and a son, but one time, he clicked on a child porn site. the next day, the police surrounded his house and took him to jail. he lost his license to practice medicine and was publicly shamed by his neighbors and in the newspapers.

I was in middle school at the time and lived in his neighborhood. my parents (who are voting for McCain btw, just to get some perspective) did not shun him like the rest of the neighborhood did and still let me go over to his house to see my friend.

my best friend's dad was not a rapist or a child molester. he just liked to watch porn and unfortunately clicked on the wrong site. I don't condone child pornography by any means, but the fact that my best friend's dad (who was a decent man) is put in the same category as people who actually do commit sex crimes is unfair.

grumpgirl.blogspot.com

@pololly--

I wasn't saying it's necessarily easy to get on the sex offender list. Or even that most prosecuted cases are between people who can kind's-sorta consent.

I am saying the differences are pretty wide state to state and depend on what the local prosecutor is like. And as a result, bad things can happen.

That is precisely one reason sex offenses are under-reported, by the way. Got a conservative prosecutor in your town who is one of those right-wing nuts and prosecuting rape becomes dicey. Get somebody different in the next county and the whole game changes. Care to play prosecution roulette?

Christ, I am not saying that what sex offenders do is right, or even excusable, But the term "sex offender" is a slippery one. i think while the crime of going after children deserves heavy sentencing, I don't think Palin's daughter's boyfriend ought to go to jail, though technically under Alaska law he could.

As to how it can differ state to state, Connecticut has a 2-year rule -- if you are having sex with someone within 2 years of your age it's okay providing its consensual. I don't know about too many others.

But many sex offender registries don't make those fine distinctions. And the Google map widget that spots them in your town certainly does not.

But leaving the conversation to pedophiles, the problem is that the scarlet letter treatment may not be terribly effective -- frankly I haven't seen much good data on it. It may deter repeat offenses, if only by forcing people to live away from children, but it does nothing for the fact that the people who do this are almost always people you know. This applies to rape as well -- stranger rape by the mythical guy jumping out of the bushes is a minority of sexual assaults.

I don't see stuff like this as particularly effective in addressing that.

None of this excuses the behavior. I'm saying that there may be more effective ways to deal with it. They may not be as emotionally satisfying to the hang-em-high crowd, but we don't have a whole lot of good data either way.

Pololly, when I was a reporter, I covered sex crimes registries. At the time the state where I worked was revamping its related laws, so I had to spend a lot of time going to seminars, looking at registries, and talking to law enforcement about it. That state had some discretion as far as where people lived and that, but a good 20% of the people on the list were there for statutory rape. When they were 21/22 getting out of jail, then they were pretty young when they went in. There the law was different for sex with someone 13 and under and someone 14-18, and these men (never saw a woman) had sex with someone in the 14-18 range. So I do think it's a problem that should be addressed based on my experience with that. Someone who at 19 has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend just does not pose the same threat as someone who raped his 8-year-old niece. The registries don't account for those differences.

As for the Halloween thing, I find it problematic. I have ambiguous feelings on the registries in the first place, but where I have a problem is that I think sending the letters and putting this into place is a dog and pony show. "Watch. We're working to stop child sexual abuse" while people who commit crimes against children are rarely prosecuted. Few police forces have the means or the ability to deal appropriately with these situations. So these gimmicks make it look as if the state's doing something when the reality is that it's not useful. How many children are snatched from trick-or-treating versus molested by the high school soccer coach, for instance? I wish policies about sexual abuse related to actual statistics about sexual abuse and not public relations efforts.

Regarding sex offender supervision...

Some states use polygraph examination to monitor sexual offenders. I know there are some Ivory Tower, academic arguments against the polygraph, but trust me, the sucker works.

While I was an Intern at Probation and Parole one of the things I did was assist in gathering data for their polygraph program so they could take the results to the Legislature to ask for money to expand the program.

There were so many times that an sex offender had "made one mistake" and were 'respected' members of the community, before they went into the polygraphy admited to one vicitm and when they came out they had admitted to 10, 30, in one case the guy did not pass until he said something along the lines of about 3 or 4 a year for the last 30 years.

These prolific offenders hide in plain sight. They are amazingly dangerous. Last Halloween I talked to two Sex Offender P.O. who were doing sex offender checks, one of the offenders had been planning a haunted house.

I'll just second everything Nora said - she put it much better than I could.

Also, from rereading the OP, it looks like this was targeted at offenders who were charged with a crime that was violent or against a child.

I know that the signs are no magic cure all, that they don't address the root causes of sexual violence or aid in rehabilitation. But, if I was trick or treating with little ones, I'd rather be able to simply bypass the home of someone charged with assaulting a child instead of bringing my child to the door.

While there are huge problems with the way sex-offender registries are implemented, I really don't have a problem with this. Granted, most child molesters target children known to them, etc. But if there's one thing the last twenty years of scandals and crimes have made painfully clear, it's that pedophiles and sexual predators cannot and will not be rehabilitated. And if child molesters, in particular, are let out of prison, there needs to be a priority on keeping them the hell away from children. Barring them from Halloween participation is like taking the New Year's champagne away from an alcoholic.

As to "underlying problems"... pedophiles and rapists may be disproportionately prosecuted according to stereotypes (e.g., socio-economic and ethnic ones), but they occur at all levels of society. Most of them are sane enough to go about their daily lives without a problem, and to try to avoid getting caught (and often succeed). A basically functional, normal-seeming adult who would go through all the actions necessary to commit an act of sexual or even aggravated simple assault isn't suffering from a lack of education or services. And someone who does something like that, in mind of abysmally high violent recidivism rates even in systems that emphasize prevention and rehabilitation above all else (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, e.g.), tells me that these people SHOULD be stigmatized.

Considering that, with laws what they are, my boyfriend could technically have ended up on the sex offender registry for the sex he had at age 18 with his three-months-younger girlfriend (if her parents had made a fuss), I do tend to think that, yeah, we need to look closer at the situation rather than slap heavier layers of stigma on everything.

Pololly - it depends on the state. It's true that prosecution is difficult and convictions can be hard to get, BUT in some states (such as here in CO) you don't need a conviction in order to get on the registry - just a charge will do it!

I don't think there has been near enough research done on sex offenders and what works for rehabilitation. Let's face it, sex offenders are some of the most reviled persons in society and no one wants to put money into "helping them". It's unfortunate because that kind of research could help with prevention.
The Supreme Court calls the post-incarceration sex offender laws regulation when it's actually punishment. The ACLU has challenged these laws in a lot of states.
I would be interested in the studies and articles that have been done if anyone can cite to them.

The other thing that really, REALLY needs to be looked at is the high number of sex offenders who are, themselves, former victims of childhood abuse. A lot of compulsions can come from this sort of experience, and there's just so little in terms of support for the sorts of people who have sexual thoughts about children but have never acted on them and want to keep it that way. We still think of pedophilia leading to child molestation as a foregone conclusion, but it's not, and I imagine the numbers of closet pedophiles (who have never abused) is much higher than we would ever imagine.

Which brings me to this:

A related topic: Child porn. Obviously when child porn involves actual children it should be very very illegal. But now there is technology that people are using to make fake child porn that does not involve any children, or sometimes any people at all. Should that be illegal? My gut feeling is its really icky, but I wonder if anyone will do any real studies on it. Does access to this kind of fake child porn make pedophiles tempted and more likely to attack real children? Or does it allow them an outlet and make it easier to control themselves around real children?

I don't think there's a definitive answer to that question. It would be different with different people. In Japan, they have Lolicon Manga comics (featuring drawings of adolescent and pre-adolescent girls in sexual situations) and all popular statistics indicate that child molestation rates are lower. But would it happen the same way here, or would it be seen as giving permission and acceptance? Hard to say.

However, I will say that I'm opposed to making any such images illegal because you're really setting yourself up for establishing "thought crime" laws in that case. You can't ever know for certain why someone is partaking of a certain piece of media and whether or not it means they have any intention of committing a criminal act, even if the idea of doing so is emotionally appealing to them.

I mean, I know I've fantasized about violence and murder towards certain people at certain times in my life, you know?

Here's some food for thought. I've heard estimates that less than 5% of offenders are registered.

I saw a presentation once called the "Disappearing Sex Offender", showing the breakdown.

100 offenses, about 50 reported, about 20 prosecuted, about 9 convictions, and about 4 do any time in jail.

Those numbers might be off a bit, because the presentation was a few years ago, so numbers change and my memory isn't the best, but that's the gist of it.

I know here in Mass, only level 3 offenders are on the online registry, and level 2s are only recorded at the police station, available to anyone who asks, but how many people do? Level 1, you don't get to hear about.

Given those stats, how effective can this law be at stopping victimization?

No offense, but you all sound pretty stupid...

No offense, but you smell bad and your mother dresses you funny. No hard feelings? Good.

OK-
As far as the ease of getting on the sex offender registry:
If an 18 year old buys their younger sibling a pornographic magazine, they would be guilty of providing porn to a minor and be required to register.

If a person was seen urinating in public (not the person's genitalia, just "assuming the position”) they would be guilty of a sex offense, and be required to register.

If two consenting 14 year olds (I think way too young..) engaged in sexual intercourse, then that would be a sex offense.

If a person under the age of 18 took a photo of their own genitalia, they would be guilty of the manufacture and possession of child porn. If they showed it to a friend, then it would compound the offense to child porn distribution.

Until recently, if a divorced parent took their child across state lines (which was considered kidnapping), then it would be considered a sex offense. This has since been repealed, but a fairly large percentage of people that were convicted are still on the registry.

Most of these offenses would require an individual to register for 10 years, unless they are not 18 at the time of conviction. After they reach the age of 18, they then go on the registry.

On the subject of who it is that commits these crimes. About 75% of all sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone that the victim or the victim's family knows well. When looking at pedophiles, the rate of "stranger rape" goes down drastically.

If people are genuinely worried about recidivism (committing the same type of crime again):

About 12% of the non-violent sex offenders commit a sex crime again (most pedophiles commit “non-violent sex crimes”, namely that they coerce victims or attempt “seduction” rather than hold them at gun/knife point). For a violent sex offender the rate rises to just over 14%. All other violent and non violent crimes have a recidivism rate of 13%.

Lastly, people should look at the number of people that are actually sex offenders that will statistically commit the crime again- less than .01% of the population. (This rate varies depending upon population density).

I'm all for punishing those that deserve to be punished. If we as a society deem that we don't trust these individuals out in society, then we should keep them incarcerated until they no longer present a threat to society. Megan's Law was a knee jerk reaction to placate an outraged public, over someone who should never have been in public society based on their previous crimes and state mandated psychological assessments. The reaction didn't actually solve any problems, it just made people feel like their government cared about them.

Incidentally, Hawaii has the only long-standing rehabilitation program for sex offenders. Sex offenders there have about a 4% recidivism rate, which is much lower than the nation's average.

I'm okay with sex offenders losing Halloween. I'm against the penalty, so I'm technically against killing them.

I think it's soooo important to remind everyone that "sex offender" and "pedophile" are NOT the same thing at all.

Macrae brings up several good points, but all of that depends on the state you are in, and I'm not aware of anywhere that 14 year olds can be prosecuted for having sex with each other... But I know that in California, we passed a completely effed up proposition last election, called "jessica's law" or some shit. It a) throws all sex offenders in the same catagory, and b) makes insane restrictions on them - GPS ankle bracelets and the like... This means that if you get caught screwing in your car, you are GPS tracked for life. If you are 18 and have sex with a 17 year old partner, GPS tracked for life. If you, yes, urinate in public, GPS tracked for life.

This is NUTS!

This is a typical overreaction that convienently ignores the roots of the problem. Seperating sex offenders from children one night of the year is not going to prevent this sort of crime from happening--nor is it even attmepting to address the societal problems in a culture where sexual assault is so common. I know that being seperated from a much younger person for one night is not going to reduce desire ... in fact, it'll probably jack it up a few notches, thus making the predator even more dangerous. Overreaction is always going to be a problem, and soreness--even after two nights--may still be an issue.

@ Terabithia: The Supreme Court has said that "virtual" child porn is protected speech and can't be banned, chiefly because real children are not harmed in its production. We really don't know whether this material promotes child abuse, but even if there were evidence about that, the fact that speech may influence someone to commit crimes is generally not a valid reason to censor it.

I've recently been writing about a fair amount about restrictions on sex offenders over at my above-linked blog Polymorphous Perversity.

What baffles me about this Halloween business is: are these instructions on "how they are to comport themselves" non-binding advice or binding legal requirements? and if they are legally required to follow these instructions, where does the state get this authority? Did Maryland pass some new law I haven't heard of? Conditions like this could be imposed if someone is on parole or probation or the like, but many registered sex offenders have fully completed their sentences.

this is an interesting post. it feels to me like looking like you're doing something about child molestation, while not actually addressing the root issue: most child molesters target those they know and those they have access to. most child molestation is never reported let alone brought to a court of law ending in a conviction.

something in your post that rubbed me the wrong way, though, was conflating convicted sex offenders with other people who have served time.

stigma around people who have served time is a serious problem. our system unfairly targets according to class, race and gender. our system criminalizes behaviour that shouldn't be illegal.

stigma around people who have committed sex offenses, whether or not they've been convicted in a court of law and served time, is justified. people who commit sex offenses have the highest recidivism rate of any crime, particularly pedophiles.

oh, and alara rogers: i'm a bit put off by your comparison of pedophiles and gay people. my sharing a consensual orgasm with a female lover is not in the same category as people who get off on sexual acts with people who are incapable of consent.

feminist love to all. i know we all just want to see kids safe from sexual trauma.

-jen

It is true that most sex offenders target people they know. What better way to get to meet new kids than to chat up their parents while giving out candy? I'm in favor of not taking kids to homes of pedophiles. I'm not in favor of big signs on the door b/c I think that makes them a target.

I'd also be in favor of rapists of adults being forbidden from working with adults of the gender they raped. Why are only rapists of children forbidden to have contact with their targets?

From the AP story:

"Maryland, which began the program in 2005, is among a number of states placing Halloween restrictions on sex offenders. Maryland's regulations are almost identical to those adopted in Missouri, where four convicted sex offenders and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the state law in federal court."

I know it really has nothing to do with the discussion, but could you remove the statement that Halloween has pagan roots? It's quite profoundly Christian in origin; the name and date derive from All Saints Day (also called All Hallows Day, the 1st of November), the practice of trick-or-treating comes from soul cakes, and the jack'o'lantern story is obviously Christian, as it includes the Devil.

Samhain, on the other hand, is based in a lunar calendar, so there is no date or name correlation. There are also no modern practices that derive from pagan celebrations of Samhain.

Just because some Christians think it's pagan and some modern pagans celebrate it does not mean that it is pagan in origin. Just because two celebrations are at the same time of year does not mean they are connected.

Sorry. I just sincerely dislike misinformation.

Looking at the fact that only 1,200 sexual offenders are receiving the instructions for the whole state of Maryland I would say that the number is those who are under active supervision for probation/parole.

For comparison, in 2003 the whole number of sex offenders in Alaska (pop less than 700,000) was about 780.

Maybe the sex offender registry had value at one time, when it was warning you about the one or two really dangerous people who lived nearby, but it is totally worthless now.

I just checked, and in my Ohio town (a well-to-do suburb of Columbus), there are 37,000 residents, and a whooping 187 registered sex offenders! Even if I wanted to, how could I, a private citizen, possibly keep track of that many people?

Recently it was reported in the local newspaper that prostitutes and their clients who are convicted of solicitation have to register. Aside from whether or not prostitution should be illegal, does anyone really think these people are a threat? Much less to children?

"The media print ONE story every six months for the entire country of a '17 year old + 18 year old story'. This then becomes the story. Not the millions of unrepentant child molesters and the family members/wives and friends who enable them."

Frankly, ONE person on the sex offender registry for a reason like that is too much. Why? Because it ruins the sex offender registry. It was a great idea but now it is used too much and so no one can take it seriously. But it IS a good idea to have a registry of serious sexual predators. Why don't we also have a murderer registry? Obviously, only serious violent murderers, not, like, involuntary vehicular manslaughter or self defense. I don't know the exact statistics of who is put on the registry for what but as long as the rules say someone can be put on it for ridiculous trivial reasons, it defeats the purpose of even having the list.

DykeLawyer-- I didn't know that, that's really interesting. I thought it was still being debated. I think I agree with the free speech argument, although I still wish someone would do a real study on the effects. Does that mean that "erotic stories" featuring people under 18 are legal also?

Artdyke: "in California....This means that if you get caught screwing in your car, you are GPS tracked for life. "
Really? That's scary. I've always wondered what the penalties are for getting caught having sex in various public places where you hear about people doing it-- the beach, in their car, in an airplane bathroom (these days I assume the penalties for that are high, but I don't really know), or Disneyland (I had friends who work there and it doesn't sound like people get in much trouble other than getting kicked out of Disneyland).

I do think its interesting that everyone is pointing out that pedophiles and rapists mostly target people they know. That's true, but it doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that SOME do attack people they don't know. Just like most people on the sex offender registry may have committed a real crime, but SOME of them are on there for silly things, and that is still very worrying and should be fixed.

"Rape has greater destructive potential than almost any other non-murder crime, it can never be committed for legitimate reasons (unlike murder, where there are self-defense provisions, for example), it can't be committed by accident (well, one can make the argument that some forms of statutory rape can be committed by accident, but I'd like to see a gray area there acknowledged and the people who have sex with a "consenting" post-pubescent minor *not* treated the same as other sex offenders) and it is frequently committed against people who trust the offender. It's also, in the case of some rapists (particularly pedophiles), tied to how they experience sex, and therefore as hard to get rid of or control in that individual as it is to make a gay person "ex-gay"."

I work in health care, as a nurse. Despite all that is said and taught about nurses being "patient advocates", as in, we are supposed to be willing to go against doctors or institution policy in the name of patient rights and dignity, there are things that are done in the name of client health, practicality, or for lack of a better term, convenience.

Unlike someone visiting a clinic who has the option to refuse vaccination for their children, or simply forgo any form of OB/GYN care, many people in long term care have signed representatives such as spouses or children who make their health decisions for them, and they and health care providers acting on their behalf may go against what a long term care resident declares (if able) they want for themselves. As long as a resident is in the care of the institution, they are going to receive care. If a 100 year old woman doesn't want to take her daily fiber supplement because she is concerned she will not be able to get herself to the bathroom on time, that is ok. But if someone with complete or partial paralysis (or dementia) who requires assistance for the most basic personal needs such as feeding, toileting or hygiene refuses to take a shower more than once a week, or doesn't want anyone to look at or touch their privates (despite being completely unable to go to the bathroom themselves, or to change their diapers and clean themselves), it's probably going to be done against their will in the name of health or their personal safety. Against their will. Even if they are kicking, punching, clawing, or screaming.

I believe that the resistance to care I witness or hear about in health care is an expression of personal violation as serious as any sexual assault. There are people who most definitely do not want others to see them unclothed or others handling their privates, or sticking and probing them with needles, thermometers, suppositories or enemas, or in some cases, requiring manual removal of impacted feces with gloved fingers. I would hope there is no joy in treating residents in this way. I certainly experience none. But to a certain degree, it is necessary. You don't want a man in the room or touching you? Fine. There are only two men working here anyway. Less work for me. But if someone hasn't had a bowel movement in a given period of time, say three or five days, and a less invasive method such as a stool softener has not worked, they are getting a suppository or enema to help things along. And someone is certainly not going to spend the day in soiled diapers or clothing.

Short version: I believe there is such a thing as rape or sexual assault without intending it, or for lack of a better term, in the name of a person's personal safety or well being. Health care providers might do it. Rescue workers might do it. Parents might do it.

"stigma around people who have committed sex offenses, whether or not they've been convicted in a court of law and served time, is justified. people who commit sex offenses have the highest recidivism rate of any crime, particularly pedophiles."

One reason being there is allegedly no cure. When I visit local meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, or Al-Anon (for loved ones of addicts), I do not hear anyone say "I'm a former meth addict" or "I'm a former alcoholic," even if they have not used in over 30 years, have completely turned their lives around from the days they spent in prison or nearly killed themselves with their own behavior, and there being effective forms of treatment for substance abuse and addiction. No, they speak in the present tense, and if they can, count to the day.

If I may be allowed to nitpick, I do not believe pedophile equals sex offender, unless they have broken some law such as receiving child porn, solicited to meet a child for the purposes of sex, or done something to a child. Otherwise you are descending into thought crime (or counting sins like the New Testament does), and people would also be liable for wanting to castrate or kill rapists.

If you ask me, the entire freaking system needs a make over and dangerous child predators shouldn't even know what the word "parole" means!

A cop was convicted of molesting three children under 12 a week ago - he got 6 years.

If we as a society deem that we don't trust these individuals out in society, then we should keep them incarcerated until they no longer present a threat to society

No, no, just no, absolutely not.

Many state legislatures have proposed tougher sentences for sex offenders. Louisiana is the most extreme example with their (now struck down) law that made child rape a capital offense.

The fact is that some victims of sex offenses, primarily children, are less likely to testify against their attacker if the attacker is facing a severe sentence. In many cases, the attacker is a family member or friend of the family. In many cases, the children identify with their attacker to some degree (probably a result of the predatory practice of "grooming" a victim). In many cases, children blame themselves to a great degree.

Impose life sentences for rape and child molestation and prosecutors won't be able to get convictions in the majority of cases. That's why prosecutors typically oppose legislatures' attempts to impose harsher punishments. Prosecutors want to get sex offenders in the system so their chances of harming someone ever again drastically decreases.

In other words, we need monitoring of sex offenders after they get out of prison, because that's the most effective option we have.

"In other words, we need monitoring of sex offenders after they get out of prison, because that's the most effective option we have."

TRIGGER ALERT: I am going to go out on a limb and declare that my studies in psychology and nursing psychiatry and personal reading lead me to believe that a considerable amount of deviant or criminal behavior has roots in psychology, and psychiatric disorder. There may be a perfectly good explanation for the behavior (though not excusing it), as when one survivor was *immediately* motivated to escape after silently enduring ten years of abuse, after witnessing her (IIRC 8 year old) son suddenly choke his younger sister till she was blue in the face, saying it was ok because it's what Daddy does to Mommy. After all the years of being kept down and actively hiding the abuse from her own immediate family, including concealing being literally deadbolt or padlocked in the house with the windows covered, and being allowed no phone in the house, and being raped five or six times every single day in addition to being beaten; it took seeing the effects on her own children (son the abuser) to realize it was not acceptable. After escaping and divorcing her husband, and the man being sent to prison, the son undergoes counseling for his outbursts of anger. You'd never know the effects from seeing the video presented of her children. They all look so happy and playful, victims all, and the son already an abuser with murder just a step away. His school administration, at least, deserves to hear about him, for his protection as well as theirs. He could get expelled or arrested for doing something he claims he's learned, like expressing his emotions in a physically violent manner as opposed to saying, "When I saw you laughing with your friends in the classroom, I thought you were laughing at ME. It made me feel bad. Is it just my misunderstanding? I'd like us to remain friends." No, he'd probably beat them if he believed he could.

Well, fuck the ex-husband. He also openly threatened her on his way out of the courtroom after sentencing. But that eight year old son, who will most certainly continue his way of thinking and behavior, because it has already begun, needs treatment, not to be thrown in jail for attempted murder of his sister, or he'll spend his adulthood in prison anyway.

Point being, for those who can be treated, *treatment* is the most effective option. Perhaps the treatment will be given while incarcerated, or after being institutionalized in a psychiatric hospital, or AFTER being released from prison, if ever. For those who cannot be treated, like that particular ex-husband, you shouldn't ask me to care too much about their fate, and despite what some say, I do know what can and does occur in prison. I can see or hear it firsthand, in addition to seeing or reading some of the worst of it, in the alleged worst of America's prisons.

Also, about sexual assault of children in particular being committed by someone they know,

"Over 90 percent of juvenile sexual assault victims reported knowing their attacker: 34 percent were family members and 59 percent acquaintances. Only seven percent of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim. (Snyder 2000)"

also,

"Of all sexual assault victimizations reported to law enforcement agencies, 67 percent of victims were under 18 years of age, 34 percent were under 12 and 14 percent were six years old or younger. (Snyder 2000)."

http://satchawaii.com/statistics.html
Via the Sex Abuse Treatment Center of Hawaii
http://satchawaii.com/index.html

Not only does sexual violence victimize women, it focuses on young women and children in particular.

There have NEVER been any reported crimes committed against a child on Halloween by a sex offender.

One father poisoned his son for insurance money in the '70's. One little girl trick or treating alone was murdered in the '70's as well. That's it. That's all, folks. All this hype, hysteria and money down the toilet for nothing.

Seriously. This is just Nazi Germany stuff going on here. You can cheer it on if you want. Personally, "there was no one left to speak up when they came for me..." puts more fear in my heart than all the non existant Halloween sex predator boogeyman hype ever could.

Wake up before it's too late.