Pet Worth: This Month's Highly Adoptable Animals
New Whole Foods to Open Up Exactly Where it is Needed Least
The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Jack Evans Hops Aboard a SmartBike at Bike Lane Unveiling
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Last year, we had a laugh or two about the signs that Maryland required registered sex offenders to post during last year's trick-or-treating hours, in order to let parents know which houses to avoid. We even had deeply offensive musical accompaniment! But despite last year's positive results, the signs were not required this year, according to WTOP. Why's that? "[T]he sign was confusing because it had a pumpkin," said the coordinator of the sex offender registry for the county sheriff's office. So confusing that you'd miss the large, green "NO CANDY AT THIS RESIDENCE" text which lies directly on top of the pumpkin's face?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
It really depends on how you measure "success". Last year's efforts were called "successful" because it was observed that most sex offenders had the signs prominently posted and didn't answer their door.
But statistically sex offenses are no more likely to occur on Halloween than any other day, and last year's 'no trick or treating' sign campaign did not lower these statistics at all.
Nor is their any indication that posting the signs was more effective than simply requiring that sex offenders turn off their porch light (the universal indicator of a household handing out candy).
Furthermore, last year's efforts required that all past sex offenders, even those who have completed their sentences and parole, display the signs--a requirement which is a matter of legal action in several states. Maryland is not currently one of those states but I suspect they would be if they attempted to repeat last year's sign requirements.
Good comment CG. Before I started in my current job (law enforcement orgainzation) and was exposed to the horrors behind the most heinous cases, I never thought too much about "sex offenses". The biggest problem I have is with the way this country treats sex offenders. The guy who sneaks behind a gas station to take a leak is treated the same as the man who produces child pornography with six week old children. The sentence is of course different for both but the concept of wearing a red "A" on your shirt, being told where to live and how to act gets me.
The pandering demagoguery of our legislators disgusts me.
As a parent, you want to know identify who is -- by far -- most likely to abuse your kids? It's you and your relatives. Statistically abuse, kidnapping, and murder of children is usually a family affair. But hey, you can't get ratings or votes talking about that.
Politicians know that being "tough on crime" is a sure vote-getter. And standing against a purported "tough on crime" measure -- even a ludicrously disproportional measure -- is a sure vote-loser.
What turns this into a "race to the bottom" of the worst kind is the fact that this year's tough-on-crime proposal has to be even harsher than the tough-on-crime law passed last year. And if you don't support the latest tough-on-crime proposal, well obviously you're soft on crime.
This is how America increased its prison population by a factor of seven since 1970. This is also how we created a post-release "sex offender" regime that is harsher than any other country in the western world. And our death-spiral towards ever-harsher punishments shows no signs of abating.
Maybe it will change in coming years, but for now my kids are young and I can't imagine letting them go trick-or-treating without me, or ever in a neighborhood I don't know well.
Come to think of it, I don't think even teens go by themselves, so I'm not sure this Halloween precaution is really necessary in the first place.
As Westender noted, the scarlet letter in this case seems "pandering demagoguery".
Only 2 out of every 1000 crime events on Halloween involve child sexual assaults. That's 0.002%. I suspect the money for this program would be better spent elsewhere.