Apparently legislators in Maryland (in addition to those in Texas, New Jersey, Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and elsewhere) missed my missive last year on Halloween sex offender crackdowns. Mirroring existing policies in many other states, Maryland will require paroled sex offenders to post these somewhat grotesque-looking paper pumpkins on their doors this Halloween, and will prohibit them from leaving their homes, answering knocks at their doors, or illuminating their homes' exterior lights on Halloween night.[sigh] Remember Don Music, the muppet on Sesame Street who would bang his head on the piano keys whenever he got frustrated? Reading about the Maryland initiative makes me feel like Don Music. I want to scream, "ON WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ARE YOU BASING THIS CRACKDOWN?!?" Let's turn to the folks behind this policy for more information, shall we?
"Because Halloween is a holiday in which large numbers of children interact with strangers, the concern among parents and other community members about sexual offenders in their neighborhoods is naturally intensified during this time of year," Patrick McGee, interim director of the state's Division of Parole and Probation, wrote in the Oct. 1 letter.OK, OK. Interaction between children and strangers -- sounds scary, but is there evidence of an actual spike in molestations on Halloween? Any reason at all to suspect that kids face a greater risk of being assaulted by a sex offender on Halloween than on any other day? Is anyone actually collecting any data on this?
Other states, including New Jersey and Texas, have begun tracking sex offenders at Halloween over the past five years.Good! Yes! OK, data. That's good. What does the article say about what these data collection efforts have found? Let's keep reading:
Sex offenders in Maryland who do not post the signs and stay home will be taken to court and charged with a violation of parole...What?! This is the very next sentence in the article! Nobody said anything about what the collected data show!
In light of this, I have decided to offer up a very special GBOC challenge: If you can find me one documented, published account that would justify these Halloween crackdowns, I will buy you a jumbo-sized package of your favorite Halloween candy. Really! I even told my students about this challenge. I don't care whether it is from a journal article, book chapter, research report, policy paper, newspaper or magazine article -- I just want to see one piece of documented evidence to suggest that Halloween night equals heightened predation of children by sex offenders. If you can do that, you'll win a big ol' package of whatever you like: Reese's peanut butter cups, Blow pops, Butterfingers, Nerds -- you name it, and I'll buy it for you.
Posts
11 comments:
You will all be very happy and relieved to know, that there has NEVER been a Halloweener in the history of the United States that has ever been molested by a registered sex offender.
Both Halloween and Election Day are coming. So, we’re not at all surprised that politicians across the nation are once again posing as Heroes in the fight against the Great Sex Offender Trick-or-Treat Bogeyman. Under the banner of protecting children, they’re restricting the actions of all sex offenders on Halloween, and sending out hordes of probation officers to make sure they stay in their homes (and, in some states, target themselves by posting “No Candy Here” signs), while expecting sheriff and police officials to monitor sex offender compliance on an already especially busy night.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/...
It amazes me that it can be proved with government statics that there has NEVER been a case where a REGISTERED sex offender EVER molested a trick or treater at their door. Or harmed them in any way. So what is the problem here.
Well, politicians are the real scary ones out there. They and the news media for ratings and votes will do and say anything. That’s the bottom line.
When I grew up, I heard some of my elders tell me not to drink in that fountain because a black man or woman would drink from it. I always asked why could I not drink there? Would I get germs??? Would it make me sick??
In today’s society, the politician’s have lied to the public about the recidivism rates of sex offenders. Politician’s have lied to the public about “stranger danger” as most offenses occur between a family member or someone the victim knows. These are facts not just spouting’s.
Parents do need to keep an eye on their children as they always have, but there is no reason to believe that someone is lurking around the corner or behind every bush that is going to take an hurt your child.
Happy Halloween. Beware of politicians. They are the scariest of them all.
Only one who is inherently interested in fear mongering would use Halloween to petrify the public into thinking that Halloween is unsafe because of the presence of RSO’s. To calculate risk in epidemiology, you divide the number of cases divided by the population of interest. In this case it would be 1/650,000. The risk is so incredibly low that my calculator gives the division an error!!!!!! ” That is only for 1 year, now times that by say, 50 years. OH MY! Fear mongering is what the entertainment news media and politicians are MORE concerned about than protecting children.
MSLGWCEO at www.cfcoklahoma.org
Read this article, "MORE SCARY HALLOWEEN LAWS AGAINST SEX OFFENDERS."
Here: http://www.cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=186%3Amore-scary-halloween-laws-against-sex-offenders&Itemid=1
I'm doning grey hair, a leather jacket, and hosting AMW for Halloween. Yeah, I'm dressing up as Satan this year
mslgwceo, I am curious how you know this fact with such apparent certainity?
Scooby, you might find this site informative.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/10/30/halloween-tricks-pols-vs-sex-offenders/
Last year we, a group which included a PhD and several great researchers. We could not find one case in the history of the United States where a child was molested by a REGISTERED sex offender on Halloween. Not one. I, and others have challenged journalists, politicians and researchers alike to find one case. No one can because there simply isn't one.
www.cfcoklahoma.org
Ok, just checked lexis nexis and found this story as the 4 story down on a list:
Does this make me eligible to win the candy Dr. H?????
*******************************
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
January 10, 1994, Monday, FINAL EDITION
Man fined $ 500, jailed 45 days for sex assaults on 12-year- olds
BYLINE: GAZETTE
SECTION: NEWS; IN BRIEF; Pg. A3
LENGTH: 145 words
A 35-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting two 12- year-old girls has been fined $ 500 and sentenced to serve 45 days in jail on weekends by Quebec Court Judge Jerome Somers.
The crimes occurred on Halloween 1992 in the Gatineau village of Val des Monts, about 20 kilometres north of Ottawa, when the two girls visited the man's home.
The man said he was drunk at the time.
The judge placed him on probation for two years and ordered him to undergo treatment for his alcohol problem.
In another case, a 33-year-old Gatineau man was fined $ 600 for molesting his common-law wife's 11-year-old daughter on several occasions while the mother slept.
The accused in that case also said he was drunk at the time the offences were committed. That man was also ordered to spend 45 days in jail on weekends and was placed on probation for two years.
* Although no evidence of sex offending on Halloween night, would you want you kid at this guy's house?
The Philadelphia Inquirer
APRIL 25, 2001 Wednesday PENNA EDITION
Delco man is facing child-porn charges
BYLINE: Chani Katzen INQUIRER SUBURBAN STAFF
SECTION: LOCAL NEWS; Pg. B09
LENGTH: 359 words
DATELINE: NEWTOWN
A Newtown Square computer executive who has drawn neighborhood children to his home with elaborate Halloween displays faces child-pornography charges after police arrested him and said he took nude pictures of two 7-year-old neighbor boys.
William J. Stravinsky Jr., 52, of the 700 block of Ellis Drive, a systems supervisor for Unisys Corp. in Malvern, was being held last night at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility with bail set at $10,000.
Charges against him include sexual abuse of children, indecent assault and related offenses. Police said he would also be charged with child pornography.
After a 10-hour search of Stravinsky's home late Monday, police took away hundreds of computer disks and sophisticated camera and computer equipment, as well as hanging pictures showing boys undressed. Police said it would take several weeks for the state Attorney General's Office to examine all the disks and computer hard drives that were seized.
Police said the two boys went to Stravinsky's house last weekend, asking to see a Halloween toy he used to make children's hair stand up through static electricity.
Stravinsky photographed them with a digital camera that instantly displayed the images on a computer screen in front of them, police said.
The boys later told their parents of the encounter, and the parents called police.
Police said Stravinsky built a relationship with neighborhood youngsters by decorating his yard and house with lights and scary sets at Halloween. When children went by for candy, he would invite them in to snap their pictures, which he would save and then display the following year, said Lt. Michael Savitski of the Newtown police.
Savitski said parents in the neighborhood, where there are many families with children, did not seem to think there was anything unusual about it.
But he said Stravinsky came under police scrutiny in February 2000 after a neighbor complained that Stravinsky made sexual comments to children. Police also received information that Stravinsky was corresponding with teenagers on-line, Savitski said.
Chani Katzen's e-mail address is katzenc@phillynews.com.
Hmm...I don't know, Scoob. First off, I am VERY impressed that you were able to find anything, as my Internet and literature searches turned up nothing. However, my one quibble with the case you posted is that the man was not a REGISTERED sex offender at the time he committed the assault, therefore he would not have been subject to any Halloween crackdown -- after all, those only target people ALREADY on probation or parole for a sex offense. However, I didn't explicitly state in my post that the example had to involve a registered sex offender, so I think you'll get candy on a technicality. Let me know what you want!
Also, since I'm going to see you in just a few weeks, feel free to substitute a drink order for the candy order...your call. : )
Can anyone else find an example with a registered sex offender? If so, let me know and you'll get candy, too!
I see your point, but will raise you two bags. First, that is a bit of a semantics game. There is a lag issue here. Registration is still a relatively new legal tool. Thus, there has to be sufficient time to allow for such things to happen.
More problematic, your comments actually suggest that ***gasp*** maybe registration deters offenders. Meaning, if we accept the widely held truism that "sex offenders cannot be cured" and that "most sex offenders will reoffend" (actually, anyone know the truth to these claims. It occurred to be a few weeks ago that folks throw about that "fact" and yet I have never seen much concrete evidence on this), and as such, if registered sex offenders are NOT taking advantage of this incredible opportunity to reoffend, then possibly its because they are deterred. I am not suggesting I believe that, but that is how the spin machine works.
Truthfully, I believe that situations like this do happen - yet in VERY LOW PREVALENCE. Nearly all public hysterias like this are based to some degree or another in actual situations that happen, but the important question is how much at risk is the typical person.
I personally think the scenario could have been presented better. Is the real issue if it has EVER happened? I would suggest no. But to aruge with such a certain tone that it has never happened, sets up to have the whole argument dismissed if it has happened. Honestly, I found those two examples in seriously about 2 minutes. I suspect there are more out there. But like you, do I honestly think my kids are at risk? Now, no I don't.
Let me ask you this question, however - would you let your kids go up to the house of a known and registered sex offenders to get candy? How about when they are 13 and going out by themselves? I don't think I would - even though my nature is not to want to be that way, heck, these are my kids!
I honestly think we are often way too harsh on politicians (one of the few times you will hear me say that). If we, as "informed" academics think this process is so easy, why don't more of us run for office? If we think its so hard to deal with these competing issues of public safety and due process, why don't we see how easy it is so communicate to the public what seems to be obvious to us. At the end of the day, how certain or good is the "What works" literature about alternatives - not very good at all. Although interestingly enough, we criticize policymakers with such an aire of arrogance as if the alternatives of what to do are so obvious. We largely know what NOT to do, and much less about what TO do.
Dr. H - I have to be fair and say your post isn't specific to REGISTERED sex offenders, although LETSGETREAL's post is quite specific. I hate to tell you, but I think I'll take Nutragous - but more importantly, you must give them out to your class and tell them there is SOME evidence that such a risk exists. Thoughts?
Final thought that occurred to me in my grad class last week when we were talking about Moral Panics. Isn't it true that moral panics are often realized AFTER the fact? By and large, there tends to be large agreements about a general course of action (regardless of how that agreement is reached). Its only after some time we realized reality (or our version of reality). COuld this "financial crisis" be a moral panic exaggerated to force change?
Excellent points all around, Scooby. Also, for the record, I wasn't necessarily convinced that a sexual assault of a trick-or-treater by a sex offender had NEVER happened, I just couldn't find the proof that it had. I suspected that there might be at least one case on record SOMEWHERE...the question, though, is whether or not one such offense is sufficient justification for these crackdowns. I think we would all agree that it is not.
The biggest problem I have with these crackdowns -- incidentally, it's the same problem I have with passing out rape whistles on college campuses and other stranger-focused rape-prevention strategies -- is that they emphasize the risk of stranger assault while ignoring (or downplaying) the far greater risk of sexual assault by someone you know. The truth is, kids are more likely to be molested by the stepfather, uncle, or parent's roommate they go home to AFTER trick-or-treating than by a sex offender whose door they knock on. However, these crackdowns perpetuate fear of stranger assault that is disproportionate to one's actual risk. I am not saying that stranger assaults never occur, or that kids are never abducted and raped by registered sex offenders. Of course that does happen. But we also know that neighbors, coaches, friends, and acquaintances sexually assault children far more frequently than do strangers. (See here, for example.) Halloween crackdowns, in my opinion, encourage parents to shift their focus (and fear) toward a group of people who are statistically LESS likely to assault their children, instead of focusing on groups of people who are statistically MORE likely to assault their children -- that is, someone they know. Crime-specific prevention measures should, at minimum, target the people who pose the greatest risk of committing that crime. In my opinion, Halloween sex offender crackdowns do not target the people who pose the biggest risk of sexually assaulting children. The presence of one or two isolated cases in the last two or three decades only underscores that point, in my view.
It's funny you mention running for office, too. I have actually entertained the idea of one day running for public office. That's a conversation for another day, though -- maybe in a future post.
OK, so a bag of Nutrageouses (Nutragi?) will go to my class, courtesy of Scoob, with the disclaimer that at least one such case exists. I'll also pick up a package just for you to enjoy while we're in St. Louis. : )
SOMEONE RECORD THE DATE AND TIME - - we are 100% in agreement. Be more afraid of Uncle Chester versus Mr. Chester.
I am trying to watch my girlish figure so I will pass on the goodies - although there are tears rolling down my face as I write that. Feed those damn students who are getting exploited by the liberal university elites racking tuition up at such a level that would make Halliburton proud at the rate of revenue growth!
Please have a look at Terror State with System and leave a comment... (to change the world)
thanX
Post a Comment