Homeless sex offenders rounded up for Halloween

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104
Homeless sex offenders rounded up for Halloween

California's homeless sex offender parolees will be rounded up and kept indoors Halloween night under a new initiative announced under the state's annual Operation Boo crackdown.

The state corrections department began the Halloween night initiative in 1994 and has expanded it since.

Sex offenders on parole are required to remain indoors from 5 p.m. Halloween night to 5 a.m. the next day and are banned from turning on external lights or decorating their houses for Halloween.

During the curfew they may only open the door to law enforcement.

The new condition imposed this year deals with transient sex offenders, who will be required to report to special centers to spend the night under supervision.

In Southern California, several government entities have taken a hard line on sex offenders leading up to Halloween this year. Riverside County supervisors and the cities of Hemet and Temeculahave passed measures prohibiting sex offenders (including those not on parole) from decorating their houses or passing out candy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/operation-boo.html?track=icymi

Is this a good idea to help keep kids safe, or does it create a false sense of security? Anyone concerned about the rights of the parolees, or the cost of providing them a place to stay for the night?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I guess I can see prohibiting them from decorating their houses or handing out candy (because aren't at least some sex offenders supposed to not come within X feet of schools and whatnot? Kind of the same idea.) But rounding them all up seems a bit extreme. I would think that they could spend their time better promoting the idea that young children should be accompanied ToTing by an adult, and that older kids should go out in groups. The buddy system, ya know?

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

I don't mind them rounding them up at all. They, to me, have committed the most heinous of crimes anyone ever could. Plus, they've already proven that sex offenders can never really be rehabilitated like a burgler or a murderer can... as their crime is a type of illness. But, I also think that parents have to be responsible with their children. Get on the sex offenders websites and see where they live. Trick or treat with your children. The problem is a lot of offenders don't register, so because of that I have no problem with them rounding them all up.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

They should for sure have to stay inside and turn off lights etc on halloween. The one on our street isn't allowed to even talk to parents of minor children.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

Rounding them up, huh. Pretty sick.

How many of these people are on these lists for sleeping with their girlfriend who is 2 years younger?

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

If a segment of the population has to be "rounded up" then they shouldn't have been let out in the first place. They did their time and they already have to be listed on a website for all to see. If you are that worried as a parent that your child will come across a sex offender, then go with them or only let them go to the houses of peopel you knwo or go to a plan community event like trick or treat in the malls.

why is Halloween any different then any other day? I would guess one should be more worried on days when there aren't hundred of kids and adults out together.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"blather" wrote:

Rounding them up, huh. Pretty sick.

How many of these people are on these lists for sleeping with their girlfriend who is 2 years younger?

Probably not as "sick" as what they did to little children in the first place...

I have no problem with them making it mandatory for these individuals to remain indooors on a holiday where there are children everywhere.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 05/13/02
Posts: 414

I think this is talking about homeless sex offenders - not the ones who live on your street or nearby. So they could potentially be roaming the streets as well since they have no option to be inside, basically.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"blather" wrote:

Rounding them up, huh. Pretty sick.

How many of these people are on these lists for sleeping with their girlfriend who is 2 years younger?

The one living by us was convicted of multiple counts of sodomy against children age 2 -13.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"blather" wrote:

Rounding them up, huh. Pretty sick.

How many of these people are on these lists for sleeping with their girlfriend who is 2 years younger?

Illegal is illegal. Plus I'm quite sure the majority of sex offenders don't fall into the category listed above. If they do, then that's their own fault for having sex with someone that was underage... period.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

Probably not as "sick" as what they did to little children in the first place...

What is sick about a streaker at a college football game?

What is sick about a 19 year old sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend?

Where are the children involved there?

I agree with Lana, completely.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

We really should just round up these monsters and put them in concentration camps.

Oh, wait.

I agree with lana and blather 100%

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

They all get a free warm place to sleep one night of the year, sounds like a benefit to me.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

They all get a free warm place to sleep one night of the year, sounds like a benefit to me.

Maybe we should just jail them all year round, forever. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"blather" wrote:

What is sick about a streaker at a college football game?

What is sick about a 19 year old sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend?

Where are the children involved there?

I agree with Lana, completely.

I'm sure those are the minority cases. I would much rather they be on the safe side and make sex offenders stay inside then risk one getting a child into their house.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I'm sure those are the minority cases. I would much rather they be on the safe side and make sex offenders stay inside then risk one getting a child into their house.

The ones that are not allowed to be around minors should be made to stay inside. Each case is different as to what the regulations/punishment are for their crimes. Oh and I totally agree Wink

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think I agree with whoever asked what was special about Halloween. If anything, I would think that having the threat of dozens of witnesses (parents and kids out ToTing) would be more of a deterant than when, say, maybe it is a lone kid walking down the sidewalk with no one around. If anything, Halloween is probably safer than the rest of the year because of having so many potential witnesses.

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I'm with the others-- I think Halloween is probably one of the safest nights to be out....

This seems crazy to me. If they need to be rounded up, then they shouldn't have been let out IMO.

I think we've watered down the sex offender lists with people who are on the list for things less heinous than victimizing a child.....and I almost think that the lists and the maps create a false sense of security for folks....

Dumb idea and I think a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"boilermaker" wrote:

I'm with the others-- I think Halloween is probably one of the safest nights to be out....

This seems crazy to me. If they need to be rounded up, then they shouldn't have been let out IMO.

I think we've watered down the sex offender lists with people who are on the list for things less heinous than victimizing a child.....and I almost think that the lists and the maps create a false sense of security for folks....

Dumb idea and I think a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere.

I just wanted to add *and insecurity* because there are those that really shouldn't be on the list that are which compounds how large that list appears. The bigger the numbers, the more the public worries about the risks that are out there.

Yeah, the herding of the homeless is not the way to go. They served their time, they're in full cooperation with their probation officers, and they are reporting their whereabouts - just like they are supposed to. There's no justification to "arrest" them for the day.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"blather" wrote:

What is sick about a 19 year old sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend?

Actually, I'm pretty sure the law is that if there's more than two years in between the age gap then it's illegal. A 17 year old and a 19 year old wouldn't constitute breaking the law, so this statement doesn't even apply. The age of consent varies between 16 and 18 years old, depending on the person's state, and in the most severe cases, as long as the younger of the party isn't more than two years younger than the older it's not illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

It's early so maybe I am not reading it right, but I think the age gap thing is a federal law that deals with crossing state lines. Within states, it is up to the states to decide their age limits and what constitutes a minor. In Idaho a 16 year old and a 19 year old would be considered rape. It depends on the state.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Beertje" wrote:

I just wanted to add *and insecurity* because there are those that really shouldn't be on the list that are which compounds how large that list appears. The bigger the numbers, the more the public worries about the risks that are out there.

I look at the maps in my area all the time - but I also look at the charges related before making assumptions regarding my neighbors. I am glad they are published; some people should not be released from jail and I don't want my child playing anywhere near their house. I'm not "afraid" or "insecure" but rather prepared and knowledgeable about my area.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I look at the maps in my area all the time - but I also look at the charges related before making assumptions regarding my neighbors. I am glad they are published; some people should not be released from jail and I don't want my child playing anywhere near their house. I'm not "afraid" or "insecure" but rather prepared and knowledgeable about my area.

Right, I get that. What I'm saying is that you're presuming that there is a higher number of sex offenders out there because you look at the list and see the numbers and locations. Now if they remove those that should truly not be on the list, the list would look quite a bit different and the they would not all appear located around your neighborhood. Had they not been on the list to begin with, you would have brought your child to those houses for ToT, no?

For example juvenile records that are still technically sealed but did not report a change of address to a different state they moved to that requires address updates indefinitely and the now adult did not know of this law, they are automatically in violation of that particular state law and now added to the offender list. They were never added to the offender list in the state they offended in as a juvenile because they cooperated with their sentencing as a juvenile and did not need to report to a probation officer as an adult or be added to any offender list. Now that they "violated" the laws of the state they moved to because they unknowingly didn't report themselves in, they're now on the national offender list. One case I know of was a juvenile that had intercourse with his girlfriend 2 1/2 years younger than him. Her father was an attorney, got upset and pursued to criminally charge him. The daughter testified on her bf's behalf because it was mutually consented, but he still was found guilty in the juvenile system.

They sealed his records when he turned 18 and nothing was required of him afterwards and was told that he does not need to report this when looking for jobs because it was a juvenile record and it would not show up on background checks. As an adult, he moved to our state. Not knowing that he needed to report moving, he was charged for this offense in our state. Because of this particular charge, while it shows no conviction for any sex offense, it shows a different offense along the lines of an offender not reporting change of address, a misdemeanor. Now he can no longer retain a job that conducts background checks because of how that conviction is written. People assume he is a violent sex offender when he actually is not.

How many of these will appear on the offender lists when they should've been contained in sealed juvenile records? That's a prosecutor's way of disclosing a portion of the criminal history without actually showing the juvenile record. Some of the laws have become a bit overboard that makes it very gray to distinguish those that should be watched for life versus those that have served their time and should be able to be completely finished with the system and free to live like everyone else.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Tracey - what do the rules of his release into society say? I might not have the terminology right.. but when I look up offenders it states their restrictions and their conviction.
Not sure about Rebecca, but I don't go tot anyway, I know most who do only go to homes they know... Those that don't are participating in a risk I would not. When I found out about the sodomist of YOUNG children up the road from me I was happy to realize I didn't need to change our family rules much. They already had to stay together when they went out of sight of the house, and were not to go into homes of neighbors without asking, or onto their property. I told the boys there was someone who had hurt children and they were no longer allowed to SPEAK to anyone on that property. It would violate his parole to talk to them or even to me (parent of a minor).

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

How does he do things like grocery shop or take out books at the library? Does he have to wear a sign or something? How is he supposed to know if the stranger helping him purchase a pair of shoes has children or not? Really strange. Can he not work? I don't know of any real jobs where someone would have zero chance of interacting with colleagues who have children.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Tracey - what do the rules of his release into society say? I might not have the terminology right.. but when I look up offenders it states their restrictions and their conviction.
Not sure about Rebecca, but I don't go tot anyway, I know most who do only go to homes they know... Those that don't are participating in a risk I would not. When I found out about the sodomist of YOUNG children up the road from me I was happy to realize I didn't need to change our family rules much. They already had to stay together when they went out of sight of the house, and were not to go into homes of neighbors without asking, or onto their property. I told the boys there was someone who had hurt children and they were no longer allowed to SPEAK to anyone on that property. It would violate his parole to talk to them or even to me (parent of a minor).

In the state he was convicted in, there were absolutely no restrictions as an adult - when he turned 18. He was not on probation, he was living freely like the rest of society.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Potter75" wrote:

How does he do things like grocery shop or take out books at the library? Does he have to wear a sign or something? How is he supposed to know if the stranger helping him purchase a pair of shoes has children or not? Really strange. Can he not work? I don't know of any real jobs where someone would have zero chance of interacting with colleagues who have children.

These very things are what lands many convicted sex offenders recently released from prison and on probation to go directly back into the system. They are literally instructed to avoid all contact with children. One offender was rearrested within a couple days of his release because he was caught being with a child (relation of his), the child's parents, and grandparents on a public sidewalk. It was a violation of his parole. He was sent back to finish the duration of his sentencing. And yes, most convicted sex offenders have a horrific time finding a job that does not have a child present or requires criminal background studies. Many end up working for manufacturers or assembly positions.

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Tracey - what do the rules of his release into society say? I might not have the terminology right.. but when I look up offenders it states their restrictions and their conviction.
Not sure about Rebecca, but I don't go tot anyway, I know most who do only go to homes they know... Those that don't are participating in a risk I would not. When I found out about the sodomist of YOUNG children up the road from me I was happy to realize I didn't need to change our family rules much. They already had to stay together when they went out of sight of the house, and were not to go into homes of neighbors without asking, or onto their property. I told the boys there was someone who had hurt children and they were no longer allowed to SPEAK to anyone on that property. It would violate his parole to talk to them or even to me (parent of a minor).

To the bolded...really? I don't know many people who only take their kids ToT'ing to houses they know the people. I mean you do realize kids don't go IN the house right? What exactly is this risk?

I guess I don't get this intesnse fear of ToTing and pedophiles. I go with my kids. They knock on the door. They get candy. They say "thank you". Then they are on their way. They don't pass outa map to their house or tell them their name and age or go in their house. What is this worry on Halloween that kids are going to get molested, so much so that we need to round up people or worse,not even let kids go ToT'ing at all?

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I agree with Lana, we are with our kids so there is zero chance that someone is going to grab them. I have more fear of drunk drivers being out then pedophiles

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"culturedmom" wrote:

To the bolded...really? I don't know many people who only take their kids ToT'ing to houses they know the people. I mean you do realize kids don't go IN the house right? What exactly is this risk?

I guess I don't get this intesnse fear of ToTing and pedophiles. I go with my kids. They knock on the door. They get candy. They say "thank you". Then they are on their way. They don't pass outa map to their house or tell them their name and age or go in their house. What is this worry on Halloween that kids are going to get molested, so much so that we need to round up people or worse,not even let kids go ToT'ing at all?

1- it isn't just the risk of pedofiles that the people I know don't go to homes they don't know.. It is a comfortable issue, and also a risk of poison etc, that they think of, and our stores all give out candy and the majority of churches have alternatives they also attend.
2- I don't avoid toting at all due to pedofiles, we don't celebrate halloween at all.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

I'm going to get back to the issue of homeless sex offenders being rounded up. This seems completely ridiculous to me.

First of all, Halloween is practically the safest night of the year for kids to be out - parental supervision, police/EMS patrol, etc. Second, the sex offenders who have a physical address would be in a far better position to actually commit another offence on Halloween, of all nights, IF they were desperate and stupid enough to attempt it. The huge majority of cases I've heard or read about have happened, for example, in someone's home, or at a private daycare facility, in a church, library, etc. Pedophiles, in particular, like to fulfill their sick fantasies in private, if at all possible.

A close relative of mine was the victim of a sexual predator - a pedophile - when he was just a child. I think it started around age 9. He was molested at the perp's home, in the church hall, at camp, on his boat - any place the pedophile had uninterrupted, private access to the child. The guy went to jail for 4 years and although he wasn't supposed to put himself in a place where children regularly gathered, he's in charge at a church a few cities away and is surrounded by young boys all.the.time. He's been recently charged with other sexual crimes against children that happened a few decades ago.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

You have a point with the homeless.. How could you as a perp avoid children on that day and not violate your parole? Should instead of a round-up.. there be a free place overnight that they could go?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

[quote=Rivergallery]You have a point with the homeless.. How could you as a perp avoid children on that day and not violate your parole? Should instead of a round-up.. there be a free place overnight that they could go?[/quote]

How is it really different than any other day? Many homeless sleep in public places, so they face these issues daily. To the bolded, there's homeless shelters. They may not have adequate space for all the homeless or the homeless may opt to not go there. The choice should still be theirs as long as they're following the rules of their probation.

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Rivergallery" wrote:

1- it isn't just the risk of pedofiles that the people I know don't go to homes they don't know.. It is a comfortable issue, and also a risk of poison etc, that they think of, and our stores all give out candy and the majority of churches have alternatives they also attend.
2- I don't avoid toting at all due to pedofiles, we don't celebrate halloween at all.

I don't care that you don't ToT. You made that clear. But my response was to the bolded part of your post where you made a general statment about those people who do ToT.

I know most who do only go to homes they know... Those that don't are participating in a risk I would not.

I just found that really weird and completely outside my experience and the experience of those around me. Whatever, this is a futile tangent because I just don't think I can relate to your POV at all.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Beertje" wrote:

Right, I get that. What I'm saying is that you're presuming that there is a higher number of sex offenders out there because you look at the list and see the numbers and locations. Now if they remove those that should truly not be on the list, the list would look quite a bit different and the they would not all appear located around your neighborhood. Had they not been on the list to begin with, you would have brought your child to those houses for ToT, no?

Actually, we do not partcipate in tradtional ToT - we do the safer route of daytime ToT around the downtown businesses. Not that there is anything wrong with the traditional way, it's just not something I'm into right now for my two year old, it's not neccessary for her.

We all take risks, mine will vary from yours. This is one night where they make these predators stay indoors and I'm OK with them doing so. That doesn't mean I'm not aware that these type of people will be around my child at some point. I would rather they stay in prison away from children all together.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

Actually, we do not partcipate in tradtional ToT - we do the safer route of daytime ToT around the downtown businesses. Not that there is anything wrong with the traditional way, it's just not something I'm into right now for my two year old, it's not neccessary for her.

We all take risks, mine will vary from yours. This is one night where they make these predators stay indoors and I'm OK with them doing so. That doesn't mean I'm not aware that these type of people will be around my child at some point. I would rather they stay in prison away from children all together.

Exactly!
Our community has tons of options for kids on Halloween, from businesses mall ToTing, to all the churches having games and candy etc to non-profits doing haunted houses etc. I could understanding taking a risk if #1 the community didn't offer these things, and #2 valued ToTing above the risk you perceive.

One thing about going to other peoples homes, Even in school or scout fundraisers they advocate NOT going to peoples homes that you do not know.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Beertje" wrote:

[quote=Rivergallery]You have a point with the homeless.. How could you as a perp avoid children on that day and not violate your parole? Should instead of a round-up.. there be a free place overnight that they could go?[/quote]

How is it really different than any other day? Many homeless sleep in public places, so they face these issues daily. To the bolded, there's homeless shelters. They may not have adequate space for all the homeless or the homeless may opt to not go there. The choice should still be theirs as long as they're following the rules of their probation.

I would contend it is different in that there are many MORE people out on the street, and the holiday is focused on Kids being OUT. So though they face it daily the likelyhood of them not being able to avoid a child is increased. I contend it may be very hard to follow the rules of their probation (depending on they rules) on this night, more so than other nights. AND to make sure they have a bed to keep everyone else safe seems smart. If we are going to allow perps that should have no contact out into society at all, we should make it as easy as possible for them to follow their probation.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

How does he do things like grocery shop or take out books at the library? Does he have to wear a sign or something? How is he supposed to know if the stranger helping him purchase a pair of shoes has children or not? Really strange. Can he not work? I don't know of any real jobs where someone would have zero chance of interacting with colleagues who have children.

Not sure about the store, he isn't allowed in the public library. He can not work, I think that is why he is staying with my neighbors they have provided him a job, my neighbor works from home creating outdoor wooden decor.

ETA --- I reread it.. His registry --- says not to form personal relationships with Adults with Minor children.
Conditions & Restrictions: No contact with minors Shall not possess or use intoxicating beverages Not to form personal relationships with guardians of minor children Not to enter any public library or places where children congregate

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

1- it isn't just the risk of pedofiles that the people I know don't go to homes they don't know.. It is a comfortable issue, and also a risk of poison etc, that they think of, and our stores all give out candy and the majority of churches have alternatives they also attend.
2- I don't avoid toting at all due to pedofiles, we don't celebrate halloween at all.

A small note, and slightly off topic, but did you know that there are literally NO recorded incidences of poisoned Halloween candy being handed out by strangers? A couple of people have tried to use that myth to cover up murdering their children/drug overdoses/et cetera, but that doesn't count because they weren't randomly poisoning strangers.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/halloween.asp

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Yes I did hear that. But people I know still use it as a reason not to ToT at stranger's homes Wink

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Y'all keep using the word risk. My point is there is no risk. What risk? The poisoned candy was a hoax as Alissa said, to cover up the fact that it was a family member. Pedophiles lurking is not a risk because if anything there are tons of poeple int he neighborhood inlcuding parents and adults and usually kids and parents go in groups (like we do, not for the risk but because it's more fun).

I just still don't see this risk that normal everyday people are taking by ToTng around the nieghborhood.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"culturedmom" wrote:

Y'all keep using the word risk. My point is there is no risk. What risk? The poisoned candy was a hoax as Alissa said, to cover up the fact that it was a family member. Pedophiles lurking is not a risk because if anything there are tons of poeple int he neighborhood inlcuding parents and adults and usually kids and parents go in groups (like we do, not for the risk but because it's more fun).

I just still don't see this risk that normal everyday people are taking by ToTng around the nieghborhood.

I didn't mention risk regarding candy, that's not so much of my concern. And isn't the reason as to why we don't do the traditional ToT'ing.

Around here, I see MANY groups of kids ToT'ing alone without parents. The parents will let them off at the beginning of the neighborhood and sit far away until the kids come back.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I didn't mention risk regarding candy, that's not so much of my concern. And isn't the reason as to why we don't do the traditional ToT'ing.

Around here, I see MANY groups of kids ToT'ing alone without parents. The parents will let them off at the beginning of the neighborhood and sit far away until the kids come back.

Do you know of any incident where a pedophile lured a group of kids to perp?

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Beertje" wrote:

Do you know of any incident where a pedophile lured a group of kids to perp?

I don't care if it hasn't happened before, it could. It's just my opinion, I'm not comfortable with these types of people being on the loose around my children. It's one night that they are required to be indoors, their rights were gone when they started molesting children.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I don't care if it hasn't happened before, it could. It's just my opinion, I'm not comfortable with these types of people being on the loose around my children. It's one night that they are required to be indoors, their rights were gone when they started molesting children.

Doesn't that equate to insecurities? What about nights where neighborhoods have a bbq together and kids are running from house to house? Would you like to round up all the sex offenders on those nights that are in the area then, as well for your comfort, your convenience?

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Beertje" wrote:

Doesn't that equate to insecurities? What about nights where neighborhoods have a bbq together and kids are running from house to house? Would you like to round up all the sex offenders on those nights that are in the area then, as well for your comfort, your convenience?

I don't go around thinking about who is in the next house. But I do want to keep my child safe. If I know there is a sex offender near, I will avoid that house and be more cautious going forward that my child isn't alone near that area.

I'll say it again, they shouldn't allow these people out to begin with. Any act against a child, they should spend the rest of their lives in a hole. It would prevent situations like this from even being thought about.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I don't go around thinking about who is in the next house. But I do want to keep my child safe. If I know there is a sex offender near, I will avoid that house and be more cautious going forward that my child isn't alone near that area.

I'll say it again, they shouldn't allow these people out to begin with. Any act against a child, they should spend the rest of their lives in a hole. It would prevent situations like this from even being thought about.

Even in some statutory rape cases where they're both minors and both consented? You really think they should be locked up for the rest of their lives in a hole?

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"Beertje" wrote:

Even in some statutory rape cases where they're both minors and both consented? You really think they should be locked up for the rest of their lives in a hole?

I've already covered this. I am not even talking about those people that were 18 and had sex with their girlfriend that was 16. I'm talking about those people that have molested children and for some reason were released.

I have 3 sex offenders within a 10 mile radius of my neighborhood. Each one of them have disgusting offenses against them. No way would I send my child to their house for Halloween. Parents should be informed. That's completely different then being in fear or insecure.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"RebeccaA'07" wrote:

I've already covered this. I am not even talking about those people that were 18 and had sex with their girlfriend that was 16. I'm talking about those people that have molested children and for some reason were released.

I have 3 sex offenders within a 10 mile radius of my neighborhood. Each one of them have disgusting offenses against them. No way would I send my child to their house for Halloween. Parents should be informed. That's completely different then being in fear or insecure.

You said any act against a child, so you weren't very clear. But what about a minor who was sexually abused themselves and knew no better than to repeat the same acts with a child their age or younger? Many of these offenses are ranked along the same conviction titles that you read without knowing the full story. Others you'd never hear about had they not administratively violated parole. Many have just not been caught or reported in such as what's happened at Penn State. Shouldn't we then just round up all adults on Halloween who currently don't have minor children to ensure the safety and well being of all children? Wait, then no one would be home.

There's a difference in being informed and aware of some of those that are sex offenders, such as Level 3's, versus locking up all sex offenders who violated a child forever. But if an offender is released to the public and follows the criteria that was drafted for their probation plan, legally they should not be treated any differently than the rest of us no matter how a person feels or worries about what they have done.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Am I the only person who doesn't even look at the site showing my local child molesters?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Am I the only person who doesn't even look at the site showing my local child molesters?

No. I have seen the site either. I do not take my kids to strangers houses on Halloween either though. There are plenty of Trunk Or Treat events that are more fun IMO.

Pages