I noticed in the link provided that anyone who was required to register as a sex offender in another state who moves to Maryland is also required to register in Maryland, and it doesn’t seem to make an exception for people who committed crimes which are not subject to Maryland registration (although I may have missed if it says that).
Which leads to another question: How consistent are crimes requiring sex offender registration from state to state?
Gosh, why be subtle? Why not just make them post a sign that says “Child rapist lives here”?
I realize that the idea of convicted pedophiles handing out candy to children on Hallowe’en is morbidly ironic, but that’s for pedophiles. What about the poor schlub who got caught pissing in the gutter outside the bar one night? Let’s face it, folks, sex offender registration is an unfair and illogical stigmatization based on puritanical hysteria. This in the same country that offers an uncountable number of websites featuring nubile females spreading their legs to display their hairless genitals! Trick or treat, indeed!
As said, that doesn’t account for people getting convicted out of state. And since BDSM ( or other ) porn over the Internet crosses state lines, you can end up getting hauled to and convicted in an entirely different state, for violating THEIR “community standards”. A Californian named Paul F. Little just got dragged all the way to Florida and convicted ( about 4 years in prison for “obscenity” ) for just that reason.
No, and the article mentions that the signs will be going to violent and child offenders, I wonder what the ratio is.
It’s just a dumb idea though.
They have to stay home?
Weird. No going to the movies or a bar and avoiding the kids altogether. No you stay home and turn off all your lights.
It does sound weird at first, but I think it has to do with Halloween costumes being unremarkable that night and the danger of a sex offender committing crimes under cover of a costume.
Perhaps they should think about setting fire to the sex offender’s homes while they are inside on Halloween. It will certainly keep the kiddies away and what ghastly ghostly stories they will have to tell their younger brothers and sisters on Halloweens yet to come, “Let me tell you about the creepy old guy around the corner. In 2008…”
This is completely frigging ridiculous. It’s completely punitive, and I seriously doubt there’s any chance that it’ll keep kids safer. It just seems like a way to keep people whipped into a frenzy and convince paranoid parents that the state is doing something to keep their children safe, even if it’s a waste of effort.
I’m sure having to put a big orange pumpkin that identifies someone as a sex offender is really protecting them. I mean, they already have to register so that anyone who wants to find out what offenders are in the neighborhood can do so; why not stop there? I also don’t understand how the system can get away with essentially putting people under house arrest if they’ve already done their time; is this something they’re doing as a term of their parole?
If I were even remotely convinced that this was being restricted a risky group and was at all likely to result in safer trick or treating, I wouldn’t think it was so stupid.
It’s appalling. For all of the reasons stated above and more.
Do other states prohibit registered sex offenders from giving out candy?
ETA: I’m inquiring about the giving out candy part, not the giant pumpkin sign part.
I’m pretty sure I read that Tennessee prohibits sex offenders from giving out candy, decorating their houses for Halloween, or wearing costumes.
Here’s a link thoough the original link to the Tennessean newspaper is broken.
I find this thread very heartening. For some reason, I had suspected there would be a lot more “Think of the children! Prison rape’s too good for sex offenders!”-type comments of kneejerk support, even here on the SDMB.
How about a smiling priest?
I’m kind of surprised that there haven’t been any comments from that side of the issue.
I, for one, am conflicted on the matter.
I remember from when I was living in Iowa that they had enacted a rule that convicted sex offenders couldn’t live within something like 2000 feet of a school. Then they had to rework the law because it turned out there was virtually nowhere for them to live under that restriction. It was pushing a lot of them into vagrancy and actually making them harder for the state to keep track of.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Run!!!
I wonder where I can get one of those signs? Because there’s a guy, a real asshole, he requested that I call him professionally, then he was vulgar and abusive to me over the phone, including suggesting that he would like to find out where I lived so he could come over and rape my wife. I have his address, I’d like to get my hands on one of these signs and go post it in front of his house Halloween night. Just so his neighbors could see it.
I’d like to but I won’t. Damn, the temptation is strong, though. Hmmmm. Another reason this is a bad idea.
It would actually be easy enough to make a replica . . .
NO CANDY, GERITOL, EMBALMING FLUID, MILK BONZ, FANCY FEAST, OR SALT LICKS AT THIS RESIDENCEa
What if they actually do have candy at their residence. Isn’t that lying to the children? Why won’t anyone think about the children?
Come to think, that sign makes no fucking sense at all. Kids too young to read will only see a pumpkin, and parents who stand at the corner while their little ghouls pester the neighbors will be standing too far away to read it. Somebody really should have thought this one through, just for functionality’s sake if nothing else.
Same kind of law was passed here in CA a few years ago. Our state supreme court threw it out once everyone realized how stupid an idea it was.
It seems a little silly to me. Sex offender not equaling child molester to me.
Regardless, it will be my house that hands out the king size Butterfingers this year.