On Halloween, many sex offenders must post 'No Candy Here' signs

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

I'm sorry, but what does administrative registation have to do with the limits of the law? A city cannot impose stricter penalties on someone that federal or state statutes do. I am confused by the meaning of what you are trying to say, I apologize for that.

But cities do impose tougher requirements of registration. In some areas they have prohibited offenders from living within 1 mile of a school or place where a child may gather. Someone did the math, and drew a map to find that there was no place for the person to live. So my only problem is these issues. I do not agree with any form of a penalty applied retrospective of the act, irregardless of the justification. My forum name should tell you why I think this way. It is against the constitution although courts have ruled where public safety measures are taken the government may override a persons rights. I hold firm to the belief that punishment should be spelled out explicitly and not engineered later on and applied backwards.

If these people are that dangerous, they should have a life sentence anyway...no need to register them.

I think ensuring that all kids are accompanied by an adult is a more sensible solution. That is basically how it works nowdays anyway, it is just not enforced.

In somewhere like Georgia, I can forsee stuff like petrol being poured through peoples letterboxes and maybe some vandilized homes, assaults and even rarely someone being beaten to death. Not sure if that's a good way for civillized society to act.

I read that over 90% of child abuse happens by family members and goes unreported. This witch hunt attitude is unhelpful for finding a real solution to child abuse.

I'm going to rant about this subject.

Most of you have lost the true point of the holiday. Or should I say, you are bringing back it's dark past. If you worry about sex offenders, this only shows that you are horrible parents. Your children will only truly be safe if you are there with them. If you can't pull yourself away from your computer, complaining instead of accompaning your children.... or god forbid setting up someone to go with them, you should be locked up for neglect. And I was worried about something a little more relevan.... It is flu season. If you dont have good enough family values to protect your children, you should not have them.

Time For Me To Fess Up!

The conspiracy theorist in me was sure this whole gig was a set up.

I was sure this morning's paper would be full of accounts, reports of vigilantes going into homes marked *off limits* and beating and killing the sexual predators.

Problem being it would only spark more hate crime laws and in the end spawning nothing but more protection for the sexual predators.

I am so glad this scenario didn’t play out.

Why? Not because I want to protect child molesters - BUT - I sure didn’t want this to be used to give them MORE protection.

So, my thread does not come to the conclusion I thought it would, at least for another year.

Happy November All...
gracie


[edit on 1-11-2009 by silo13]

We had about got rid of this silly custom in the UK when it seems American influence has given it a new lease of life. Now with the 'no candy' idea, people who might want to put something out to deter 'trick or treaters' might end up suspected of paedophilia!
Frankly in many cases, it's become an excuse for vandalism and I wish the whole thing would go away. But seeing as this is not likely any time soon, parents should get their fat backsides off the sofa and either accompany their kids or assure that they only go out in a group accompanied by a responsible person.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
Anyone that thinks this rule is overboard must never have been raped or had your child molested

Wrong. I was molested as a child and raped at 17. My Opinion Here

Justice has no emotion. It is blind.

Originally posted by redseal
WOW seems like alot of you are on the side of sex offenders/ kid rapers...

Nope. Just the law.

It's a parent's job and obligation to protect their children from the dangers of the world. We can't put signs on everything that might bring danger to a child and then just let the child navigate it on his own. This is a big problem I see lately. Parents have better things to do than protect their children from life's dangers. The parents should be out there with their kids or else have organized groups with an adult along or something. Labeling the dangers for one night a year isn't going to help. It's a bandaid that makes some people feel better, but the next day, that predator could be at the school waiting for the child to walk home alone. And he won't be wearing a sign around his neck.

This is a stupid practice to make parents feel better about sitting on their lazy butts eating Halloween candy while they send their babies out into the neighborhood alone. Parents need to step up. Not put signs on the dangers in life and let their kids figure it out.

reply to post by redseal


I am willing to bet you are a big defender of the constitution though right? Yet here you are throwing that great piece of legislation out of the window just because it protects a group you don't like. Look i agree, these people are scumbags but they have served their time and therefore under constitutional law they are not subject to further punishment. The people here are not defending paedophiles, they are just upholding the law. I will bring up a famous quote that i tend to bring up everytime issues like this are discussed.

"The law is reason free from passion" - Aristotle

Put your anger aside, think logically and apply the law, or ignore the constitution if you prefer

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
these people are scumbags but they have served their time and therefore under constitutional law they are not subject to further punishment.

While you may not be American, your respect and understanding of our Constitution makes me happy.

--Not directed to anyone in particular, except for some of the posters that are coming across as EXTREMELY ignorant.... :

What many people in this thread cannot seem to comprehend, is that the label of "Sex Offender" does not automatically equate to "pedophile". It is making me sick, some of the responses in this thread.

Someone can simply be an 18 year old that slept with their 17 year old boy/girl friend and be labeled as a 'sex offender' because a family member wanted revenge. Or even, as someone pointed out, pissing on the sidewalk can bring this same result. So the way I am seeing this.... One bad decision while drunk as a dumb teenager, can cause parents to wish for your painful death, and call you a "child molester" for the rest of your life.

Anybody else see something wrong with this situation? The Constitution should ensure YOUR freedom, while you happily watch rights and freedoms getting stripped from fellow Americans without second thought?

Agree with AceWilliams and Benevolent Heretic....

Stop being an irresponsible parent and expecting society to guard your offspring's every move from danger. Don't strip happy holidays from your kids... Ones that you were able to enjoy as a kid, yourself. Just accompany them, and make sure they enjoy their times as kids, in safety.

Honestly, ensure they enjoy their time being young, while they have it... You know as well as I do, that soon enough they will probably be bitter adults like the rest of us, way too soon.
Being a kid used to be a magical and carefree time for us. Why not let our kids experience the same special holidays we had?
-Because some idiot that pissed on a sidewalk may live nearby? Dear god, read the Constitution and find out why some of us still believe in it. Once the Constitution stops applying to some group of people, how long will it be before someone finds a way to strip those rights and freedoms from the rest of us?

ATS members' ignorance has been upsetting me a lot lately. It's been giving me a look at how mass-media-hypnotized Americans our country, and that is depressing.

Might as well make them paint a big ol' bullseye on their house.

reply to post by silo13


Good thread, Silo. This definitely presents a moral dilemma. It's a touchy subject because you feel compelled to see the welfare of children as more important than an individual's rights as given by their country's constitution.

On balance, however, I believe this is a necessary move for child sex offenders. The potential for children to be exploited by a very small minority is more important that the rights of an individual who has committed mistreatment against children in the past. It is not as if the sex offenders are being forced to do anything unreasonable. The "No Candy Here" signs could be for a variety of reasons - people who dislike children coming and asking for candy, people who do not actually possess candy, people who hate Holloween etc.

If the signs said "I am a sex offender who is not allowed to offer you candy" then that would be taking it too far. Let's also remember that any responsible parent should not allow their young children to go to homes of strangers without guardian or adult supervision.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Dark Ghost]

I've been thinking about these so-called 'sex-offenders' recently due to all the news about missing children on the news.
I can't help but consider, many......if not the majority of these sex-offenders have this label slapped on them AFTER they had consensual sex with under-aged girls. This includes a male, let's say 19 years old who had sex with his then, 17 year girlfriend. Then, hypothetically.....she got mad at him or....her parents did thus, his arrest.
I mean after all.......if a real deviant man, say 45, had sex with a 5 year old little girl he would more than likely, NOT be out of jail and living in your neighborhood.
I am not saying some more-harden sex offenders aren't out there living among us, but I have a feeling, many of them are not what we (or the media or police) tend to portray them as.
Most rapist are in prison and most child-molesters are in prison. Grant it, they will (probably) be released at some point but when there's a news story (like this little girl Hailey down here in Florida) and it makes the air-waves and they report that there's some 48 sex-offenders in and around here area, something just does not sit right with me.
So like I state, many men bearing this title are not rapists and child-molstes...rather they're; majority-aged men having sex with their minor-age girlfriend.
I know....this happened to me when I was 16. He (18) got arrested when our parents found out but back then, there was no such thing as registration as an offender.
So I think there should be another label put on some of these so-called sex-offenders because I don't believe it's as bad as we think it is.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This is a stupid practice to make parents feel better about sitting on their lazy butts eating Halloween candy while they send their babies out into the neighborhood alone. Parents need to step up. Not put signs on the dangers in life and let their kids figure it out.

BS for gross over-generalization!

I was out this weekend with my daughter every step of the way, thank you very much. I actually looked for the sex offender housing locations on the public website ahead of time and marked them on a printout of our neighborhood - thank GOD there was only one located kind of near us and when we walked past that house the lights were off.

Had the lights been on and had that SOB been giving out candy you bet your a$$ I would have called the police and reported the bastard. And while yes, I can avoid the house, I don't want the stupid idiot so much as looking or smiling at my daughter - you get that?

So I don't think this is over-legislating at all. When you do stuff to CHILDREN that's unimaginable you give up certain rights. You inflict a lifetime of harm and counseling upon that child and make them more prone to suicide than they might be before that happened. All because of a sick depravity.

Child sex offenders can burn in hell and live in mockery, ridicule and humiliation for the rest of their lives here on this earth as far as I'm concerned.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by sos37]

Originally posted by TwoPhish
I've been thinking about these so-called 'sex-offenders' recently due to all the news about missing children on the news.
I can't help but consider, many......if not the majority of these sex-offenders have this label slapped on them AFTER they had consensual sex with under-aged girls. This includes a male, let's say 19 years old who had sex with his then, 17 year girlfriend. Then, hypothetically.....she got mad at him or....her parents did thus, his arrest.
I mean after all.......if a real deviant man, say 45, had sex with a 5 year old little girl he would more than likely, NOT be out of jail and living in your neighborhood.
I am not saying some more-harden sex offenders aren't out there living among us, but I have a feeling, many of them are not what we (or the media or police) tend to portray them as.
Most rapist are in prison and most child-molesters are in prison. Grant it, they will (probably) be released at some point but when there's a news story (like this little girl Hailey down here in Florida) and it makes the air-waves and they report that there's some 48 sex-offenders in and around here area, something just does not sit right with me.
So like I state, many men bearing this title are not rapists and child-molstes...rather they're; majority-aged men having sex with their minor-age girlfriend.
I know....this happened to me when I was 16. He (18) got arrested when our parents found out but back then, there was no such thing as registration as an offender.
So I think there should be another label put on some of these so-called sex-offenders because I don't believe it's as bad as we think it is.

depends on the state and offense.A lot of child molesters don't get a lot of time.Its still sickening and if you look on the family watchdog site i bet you'll find more child molesters in your town than rapist or sexual misconducts with minors.