.
The author of this post, Sandy Rozek, is communications director for Reform sznyankrdt
Sex Offender Laws, an organization that advocates for legislation based on facts and research, and for policies that support the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of law abiding, former sex offenders into society.
An open letter to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and DOCCS Commissioner Brian Fischer:
A true Halloween horror happened in your state this year. A horrific auto pedestrian accident claimed the lives of three people, one of them a ten-year-old trick-or-treater. The others were family members who were with her. Additionally, three more pedestrians were injured, one, a three year old child, critically. The rest of the nation grieves with you at this tragedy.
I have read with interest during the past week of the extensive efforts that New York, along with some other states, has taken to protect trick-or-treaters from the threat that registered sex offenders pose at Halloween. Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Fischer have proudly announced Operation Halloween in press releases and announcements, and the express purpose is made clear: to protect children at Halloween from a serious threat of harm. This has been carried out, at great expense and use of resources, in spite of the fact that experts and research have verified for years that there is no increased risk of sexual harm to children at Halloween and that there is no correlation between those on the registry and Halloween. Article after article and study after study concludes that this is a problem that doesn’t exist.
And yet you carried on with Operation Halloween as though it did. Media throughout the state warned parents and children to check the registry so they would know where the registered offenders lived, and they praised Operation Halloween for keeping children safe while trick-or-treating. According to sources, “The parole officers check up on the offenders multiple times over the course of Halloween night,†and one is quoted as saying, “ ‘If they’re not there, we’ll track them down. We’ll find them tonight.’ ”
Such dedication.
What might have been the result, I wonder, if instead of committing resources to this effort, New York had chosen instead to commit to a variety of other efforts directed toward a real risk—the reality that children are up to four times more likely to be killed in an auto-pedestrian accident on Halloween than any other night of the year.
What if, instead, money was expended on flooding the airwaves and media outlets with public service announcements cautioning both trick-or-treaters and drivers of the necessity for extra caution? Could all of those parole officers, rather than sitting and waiting for miscreant registrants to get home, or tracking them down all over the city, have been instead diverted, for the night, to traffic patrol and/or to manning intoxicated or impaired driver check-points? Could the efforts of all law enforcement have been increased toward those ends for just a few, short hours?
Would it have made a difference? This we will never know, but please let this be a lesson learned for next year. Given a choice between protecting against a non-existent problem and a very real one, please make the choice that every bit of logic dictates. – S. R.
The same goes for all the fears we inflate beyond belief — like the idea that a child playing make-believe with an imaginary bow and arrow is “violent” and must be punished. I guess it’s easier to be hysterical and then feel like you’re “doing something to safeguard the children” than to actually do the mundane but vital job of staying sane, righting real wrongs, and modeling coolheadedness. – L.
.
I’ve come to suck out your rationality! Mwahhh ha ha ha ha!!!!
.
What a great idea (not that it would ever happen): patrolmen and patrol cars out on Halloween night reminding drivers to slow down in neighborhoods and watch for kids. And perhaps even a small advertising campaign during the preceding week reminding drivers that kids will be walking the neighborhoods that night, and maybe a few signs at the entry-points to residential neighborhoods saying, “Drive Slow – Kids Trick-or-Treating.” I would think such a campaign would return a very high level of benefit compared to its cost, in contrast to the anti-pedophile Halloween efforts.
What happened is very sad. That you for a very well thought out and much needed letter. I hope to see it in the New York Times. Sandy Rozek is doing a great public service. I look forward to Governor Cuomo’s and Commissioner Fischer’s response.
Every year we have drivers zooming all around as they personally drive their children from house to house…yes, they DRIVE them. We live in possibly one of the flattest areas with balmy weather…why drive your kids? I walked with my large group. After they out grew the phase of wanting to enter every home them stop at, I have stayed on the street (apparently we don’t believe in sidewalks) and let them trick or treat. They are smart and mannerly and don’t need me. BUT, they do need me to cross the streets. Not because they don’t know how, but because of the insane people that feel the need the weave through kids on the streets. I usually keep a mag light with me and flash it at cars to warn them I have a group crossing. This year I came very close to busting in a car window with my mag light because the driver nearly hit a 12 year old, properly crossing, in a light colored costume. Why? So he could do 35 in the residential zone, zip into his garage and shut the door down to avoid the kids. I should have done it. I wish I had had eggs with me. Note to parents: Don’t drive your kids around. We come from the rural zone where there are no houses. We drive into town and park OUTSIDE one of the neighborhoods and proceed to WALK everywhere. When we leave, we are cautious because we know the kids are focused on candy, not cars. I never did encounter a sex offender, a creep or poisoned candy.
So if you’re a registered sex offender, forget going out for the night to an all-adult party in an all-adult district, like a normal person might wish to do.
I recently moved to a small rural neighborhood… I know there are kids here somewhere, cuz the school bus stops out yonder, but not a one came to my door. 🙁
From the Ny DOC web site http://www.doccs.ny.gov/NewsRoom/OperationHalloween.asp
“Halloween conditions require that sex offenders remain indoors at home on Halloween, not wear Halloween costumes, not open their doors to trick-or-treaters, and not have Halloween candy in their possession.”
I don’t know how you would define Halloween candy. I bought a bag of “Halloween” candy the Hershey mixed bag but I didn’t give any of it to trick or treaters. Is it still “Halloween” candy. This is a zero tolerance operation I wonder if anybody was arrested for the mere possession of cany.
If there weren’t so many parents driving their kids from house to house, most of said parents bored out of their skulls and in a hurry to get it over with, you wouldn’t have to help your kids dodge cars in the streets… made dangerous by bored impatient parents nonetheless indulging the paranoia of the day. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Great essay . . . thanks!
This was my first ever halloween trick or treating. Growing up in Australia, we never did it. My son was 3 last year, but we had terrible weather so we barely went out. This year, he went door to door for 2 hours.
I cant possibly imagine that a predator would find this night, of all nights, at all appealing to do anything bad. There are hundreds of parents out on the streets. There are people that will be seeing your face again and again as the night goes on. The children are generally in groups at your door. Just what, possibly, is anyone going to do? I’ve seen these warnings year after year and wondered how overblown the danger was. Now that I’ve seen it, yeah, what are people thinking with offender rules like that?
I received a notice from the police the other day that we had a sex offender working in town, had his picture, name, and a rough area on where he was hired.
Next day, the notice was updated as the employment had been terminated.
Just think, that’s the life of anyone on the registry, warranted or not.
It wouldn’t surprise me that Ms. Rozek gets no response from the Governor’s office on her letter. OR, she’ll get a short response from one of the Governor’s staff members saying something like, “We want to assure our children are safe from the criminal elements of this society” without addressing the studies that say kids are more likely the victims of accidents on Halloween and not sex offenders. If Cuomo were to relax some or all of the sex offender restrictions on Halloween and put more of the focus on traffic like he really should, he’d be committing political suicide.
The torch bearing lynch mob would not tolerate that because then the facts would get in the way of their witch hunt.
Michael, it is never warranted. Will there ever be a time when the greater good of society is better served by making it impossible for those who want to work to do so? The hoops that registrants have to jump through just to get a job have any necessary safeguards in place, and then for this kind of notification to result in them losing those hard-to-come-by jobs is simply unconscionable.
We simply must move to a system of enacting only legislation and practices that are supported by research. Otherwise, we will continue wasting millions in resources and destroying lives.
We went trick or treating with my daugter’s best friend this year. They live on the main street in the neighborhood but are kinda on the outskirts of the prime trick or treat area of the neighborhood – you have to cross a busy, nonresidential street to get to their house and some don’t venture over. They still handed out 600 pieces of candy on Halloween and ran out of candy before they ran out of trick or treaters.
What is it that these people think sex offenders are going to do on Halloween? Fondle a kid while 10 others wait in line for candy and 600 others are milling around potentially arriving at any minute? I realize this neighborhood is a tad extreme as far as trick or treaters, but it really boggles the mind that worry over sex offenders on Halloween is a thing.
“Just think, that’s the life of anyone on the registry, warranted or not.”
“Michael, it is never warranted.”
Never? I’ll give you “hardly ever”, but balk at “never”. There are people who should be prevented from certain jobs because of their past misdeeds. We ban people with criminal pasts from becoming cops (because they aren’t allowed to possess firearms), we ban people with a history of embezzlement from working in banks, we ban people with a history of securities fraud from working in the securities industry. So, yes, some people should be banned from working in childcare, from being school-bus drivers, from jobs where they are around the thing that got them in trouble before.
“We simply must move to a system of enacting only legislation and practices that are supported by research. Otherwise, we will continue wasting millions in resources and destroying lives.”
Good luck with that. Sorry to be cynical, but I think it’s a stretch to imagine that we will ever be free of insane laws. We can, however, focus on tearing them down one by one.
In my neighborhood people were out in extreme dark in dark clothing, no streetlights, no flashlights, and I didn’t see one reflective strip.
Communication on basic precautions for pedestrians would be a start.
Given I couldn’t get home because of the idiots though, I’m not inclined to expect more of drivers.
Thank you for pointing out what the research says is true. These Halloween Hunts are no more keeping children safe; it makes our officials look like they are doing their job and they care. A easy out for an elected official.
The scariest of Halloween horrors are not goblins and witches, but SUVs and minivans.
Cars driving over the speed limit and dangerous are almost as problematic as the creeper parents driving under the speed limit that put all trick-or-treaters on edge and clog the roads during this busy night. There are ALWAYS fatalities from hit-and-run accidents on Halloween.
I wish there was a big *safety* campaign encouraging everyone to minimize car trips on Halloween night. Keep the roads clear and keep local or stay put from dark until 9 pm. Close down roads where there’s heavy pedestrian traffic and encourage block parties, stoop sitting, and getting to know your neighborhoods and neighbors and not living in fear.
And it is people like James that are the problem. Once a criminal, always a criminal. No second chances. No chance to put your mistake behind you. Just always suspect.
Criminals may not be allowed to become cops, but they are employed routinely by law enforcement.
As for banking, securities and such. They are not banned from it, they just are very unlikely to be employed because of their record. Personally, if you could find someone that has turned their life around, why the hell not let them work. Hell put them in security. They can put their experience to good use.
James, ordinary criminal background checks work for keeping people out of “certain jobs” without the need for a separate registry.
“James, ordinary criminal background checks work for keeping people out of “certain jobs†without the need for a separate registry.”
A) not always, and B) only if they are run in the first place.
Note that in the instant case, the person apparently ran the employer’s “background check” gauntlet.
The SEC maintains a listing of people who cannot be hired in the securities field. Banks have it done by private industry (can this person be bonded?) The DMV keeps records of people who have suspended licenses… it might be a good idea to check to see if the person you’re hiring as a driver is on the list.
Typhoid Mary was banned from taking certain jobs, as well. Which did not keep her from taking such jobs.
I’ll stand on what I said before.
Never? I’ll give you “hardly everâ€, but balk at “neverâ€.
@MichaelF, that story makes me so sad. We as a nation are so focused on punishment when we need to be focused on rehabilitation and reintegration. And they probably did run a background check on the guy and were fine with his past, but the backlash when his name and pic were posted was too much for the business.
Good gosh, I agree. We had a death ourselves near me as well as a father and his babies badly injured. Not by sex offenders, but by cars.
That’s your danger. Focus on the traffic and sensible driver/pedestrian advice.
James, if it’s necessary to run a criminal background check, they can be run. I have no idea what “only if they are run” is supposed to mean. It’s a tool, it can be used, if there’s a concern. The incompetence of people to run background checks for jobs where background might be pertinent does not justify setting up a superfluous system that could be taken care of another way.
I’m not sure what “Instant case” you’re talking about — this is a story about a kid being hit by a car. At any rate, sex offenders who haven’t been caught don’t show up on the registry either so I have no idea how whatever case you’re thinking about, might apply.
“Typhoid Mary was banned from taking certain jobs, as well. Which did not keep her from taking such jobs.”
Uh, yeah, how does a registry prevent Typhoid Mary’s employers’ failure to do due diligence? You can just as easily get a Typhoid Mary situation by people not bothering to check The All Important Registry, If they’re not going to bother to do pertinent background checks.
“The SEC maintains a listing of people who cannot be hired in the securities field. Banks have it done by private industry (can this person be bonded?) The DMV keeps records of people who have suspended licenses… it might be a good idea to check to see if the person you’re hiring as a driver is on the list.”
Which has what to do with sex offenders, every one of whom is going to show up on a criminal background check, if they’re qualified for what now exists as the sex offender registry?
“James, if it’s necessary to run a criminal background check, they can be run.”
OK, I guess. Not sure what that’s relevant to, but it’s true enough.
“I have no idea what “only if they are run†is supposed to mean.”
A background check will only turn up a troublesome background if one is run. If no background check is run, then the background check that wasn’t run will not turn up anything. This is a fairly simple notion. Background checks vary widely in their quality and complete-ness.
As an example, a couple of decades ago there was a doctor in my state who racked up many malpractice awards before anyone found out that he’d lost his medical license in, I think it was Australia, because of incompetence. They ran background checks, but they only asked about his history in the U.S. Nobody thought to run an international check, until well after it was too late.
“The incompetence of people to run background checks for jobs where background might be pertinent does not justify setting up a superfluous system that could be taken care of another way.”
I agree with you halfway… it would be nice if people always had access to all the information they needed to make decisions, and sometimes the reasons they don’t is because of their own lack of skill in seeking out and obtaining the information they need. While we wait for people and information systems to become perfect, however…
“I’m not sure what “Instant case†you’re talking about”
That would be this one:
“I received a notice from the police the other day that we had a sex offender working in town, had his picture, name, and a rough area on where he was hired. Next day, the notice was updated as the employment had been terminated.”
” At any rate, sex offenders who haven’t been caught don’t show up on the registry either”
And that’s why we should ignore the ones who have? What kind of logic is that? Drunk drivers who haven’t been caught haven’t had their licenses suspended yet, therefore, we shouldn’t stop people who’ve been convicted of DUII from driving? Quack doctors who haven’t been caught yet mean that states shouldn’t revoke the medical licenses of the ones who have?
I think you’ve badly misunderstood the point I’m making.
It’s amazing to me that people are actually suggesting that a “recommendation” to minimize car travel on “Demanding Threatening Heathen Night” be put out.
It’s extremely entitled to think other people should rearrange their lives and schedule to account for people blocking the roads and committing mass extortion.
One of the key principles is that kids should be taught skills to keep safe. This instead teaches them that if stupid reaches a tipping point, it’s other people’s responsibility to protect them from not keeping to one side and ensuring they’re visible.
Sure it sounds good, just like locking up sex offenders, but the next step is harassing people that do go out.
All the major holidays are about nothing but greed, and expecting people to cater to them is greedy as well. If the kids, or adults for that matter, can’t follow foot traffic laws to prevent getting squashed, they don’t need to be out in public yet.
James, as I understand it, the point that you’re making is that the sex offender registry is necessary so that people can be conveniently harassed in case the people who are actually responsible for ensuring that they aren’t employed inappropriately, are too lazy or incompetent to require they pass a background check before being hired. Every employer in the world has “access” to the information needed — the information needed is an employee showing them a report of their criminal record.
And in my book, “making it easier for people to be lazy and incompetent without consequences, when there is a perfectly simple way for the moderately responsible and competent to handle the problem already” is not quite the same thing as “necessary.”
When I said I didn’t know what you meant by “only if they are run,” what I meant was not that I didn’t understand the meaning of the sentence, but that I couldn’t see how it was relevant or cogent within the discussion. Of course they only work if they’re run. So run them. That’s not a reason to set up another system that accomplishes the same thing.
We almost hit a group of older trick or treaters on our way home on Halloween. They were dressed completely in dark clothes and walking down the middle of the street (a street which had sidewalks on both sides btw). The only reason we didn’t hit them is that we were driving very slow (10 mph in a 25 mph zone) specifically because we knew what an issue this is on Halloween.
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo is TOUGH ON CRIME because his father Governor Mario Cuomo was the founder and executor of TOUGH ON CRIME in NYS back in the day. It is Governor Andrew Cuomo’s birthright, his heritage, his legacy, his obligation.
Sandy, you are wasting your time in New York. This State is tough on sex offenders. Our minds are made up. Kindly do not try to confuse us with facts.
“When I said I didn’t know what you meant by “only if they are run,†what I meant was not that I didn’t understand the meaning of the sentence, but that I couldn’t see how it was relevant or cogent within the discussion.”
This is a long one.
Today’s lesson is on the difference between two methods, “polling” and “interrupts”.
Suppose there’s some piece of information that I want to obtain, but I have no idea when, or if, it will be available. I have two options on how to proceed. Before we get started, however, let’s use a real, if fanciful, real-world example. I would like to know if the Publisher’s Clearinghouse folks are on my front porch, trying to give me the large oversized check for ten million dollars. I don’t want them to come to my porch, wait for me, decide I’m not interested, and then go to give the prize to somebody else. If they’re on the porch, I DEFINITELY want to open the door and let them into the house.
I could use a method called “polling”. In this approach, periodically I’ll stop whatever it is I’m doing, go to the front door, open it up, and see if anyone from PCH is standing there. If they are, I’ll let them in, if not, I’ll just close the door and go back to whatever it is I was working on. If I check often enough, I can be fairly sure I’ll open the door while the PCH people are still on it, before they can decide that I don’t want the prize and give it to somebody else. Of course, by now you’ve realized that this is not how it’s done in the real-world.
In the real-world, I’ll use the other method, called “interrupts”. I’ll put a doorbell near my front door, so that, if the Prize Patrol IS on my front porch, they can signal their presence and ask me to come open the door. If my doorbell is not ringing, the PCH folks are not on my porch with the comically-oversized prize check. If the doorbell is not ringing, I can continue about my business, secure in the knowledge that my presence is not needed at the door.
Both Polling and Interrupts have their place, just because Interrupts is the clear choice for solving the Publisher’s Clearinghouse people at the front door, doesn’t mean it’s always better. Polling works better when the likelihood that something that needs my attention is high; Interrupts work better when the likelihood is low but the need to know the information is particularly high (which is why the example is the Publisher’s Clearinghouse folks on the front porch… it’s very unlikely but the value of knowing it’s happening is very high.)
Consider a hospital, but not just any part of the hospital, the part of the hospital where the sickest people are, the ones closest to death and needing the most care. How does the staff determine if somebody does, in fact, require immediate attention? They could use polling (and they do), sending a duty nurse around from patient to patient to check on the patient’s condition and inquire as to the patient’s perceived needs. They could also use interrupts (and they do) with either a method for a patient to summon a duty nurse, or a monitoring device that generates a signal when specific conditions occur. (they do both).
In different parts of the hospital, however, they don’t. Once you get out of the intensive-care unit, for example, the amount of monitoring goes down (ultimately, to zero). Eventually, you get to the people who aren’t even IN the hospital… the hospital has clinics for people who think they might need care, and emergency rooms for people who DEFINITELY need care, but didn’t have it pre-scheduled. The appropriate signaling method varies depending on the need for immediate access to care, and the costs to provide it. You wouldn’t run an ICU with one nurse who comes around to check on people every eight hours, and you wouldn’t run an allergy clinic with all the monitoring that an ICU has… the first because the need for information is too high, and the cost of not having it is too high, to rely on such inefficient polling. The second one would be rejected, because the cost to provide all that care that isn’t needed is too high.
You don’t run a full national-security level background check on every person you hire, because it takes too long and costs too much. You wouldn’t run a $9.00 background check on a person you intended to trust your national secrets too. So “just run a background check” isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. And running background checks is “polling”, which is massively inefficient if the information you need rarely occurs.
And, finally, running background checks can have harmful effects, as well. If I’m applying for a job with Employer X, while still employed by Employer Y, and the background checker discloses the fact that my background is being checked for employment purposes, I may become no longer employed by employer Y without first becoming an employee of employer X. This harms my negotiating position with employer X… if they even offer me the job.
“James, as I understand it, the point that you’re making is that the sex offender registry is necessary so that people can be conveniently harassed in case the people who are actually responsible for ensuring that they aren’t employed inappropriately, are too lazy or incompetent to require they pass a background check before being hired.”
I was right… you badly misunderstand the point I made.
The claim was made that it is NEVER appropriate for the authorities to notify an employer about the history of an employee.
I offered the counterclaim that “never” should be replaced by “hardly ever”.
From which you pulled “the sex offender registry is necessary so that people can be conveniently harassed in case the people who are actually responsible for ensuring that they aren’t employed inappropriately, are too lazy or incompetent to require they pass a background check before being hired.”
Consider these possibilities:
1) the would-be employee (WBE) has influential references, who misrepresent the WBE’s past and suggest that the background check is not necessary.
2) the WBE has contacts within the background check provider, who falsify information.
3) the WBE arranges to have false information fed to the background check provider
4) the WBE has contacts within the employer, who falsify information
5) the WBE changes locations frequently, outrunning the negative information about them.
6) the employer, because of cost concerns, does a cheaper, less-extensive background search than is needed to discover the negative information about the WBE.
Such dedication, indeed! The Governor seems to know we are in a state of mass hysteria over child sex abuse, so if he wants to be popular he has to act crazy too.
I live in a small rural community of about 8,000 people. At Halloween, the police, fire department and explorer kids all stand at the main street intersections to stop any traffic and ensure the safety of children crossing the busy road — on the side streets, the kids are on their own. The adults, who are only there because it is too far for the kids to walk from home to downtown, typically lag behind the kids chatting and catching up.
There are people selling hotdogs, hamburgers and cider. . .I did not check their credentials but let the kids purchase whatever they liked( didn’t even feel compelled to cut the hotdog up into little pieces –though there was a crazy “mustard in the eye” incident that probably could have been prevented by some sort of safety device on the market today). There’s some men that always stand around a small bonfire drinking beer and handing out candy — to date, none of our kids have returned with a beer (nuts!). Incidentally, the police are too busy handing out candy, helping kids cross the street and reuniting lost princesses and power rangers with their parents to pay them any attention.
And, there’s the elderly couple who can’t get around well anymore. There’s always a line of kids waiting to squeeze onto their narrow closed in porch. The couple insists on taking pictures of each child in costume before handing out a juice box that the thirsty tricker-treaters promptly consume before anyone would ever have the chance to check it.
Come to think of it–candy was consumed throughout the evening as our trick or treaters got hungry. My diet precluded me from checking the rest of the candy this year and removing any “bad” stuff.
I heard that upstate a parent reported finding a razorblade in their child’s Halloween bag. I’m glad the kid didn’t get hurt. I’m inclined to believe it’s a hoax even though the police are investigating. Razor blades, like drugs, are far too expensive these days to be doling out to trick or treaters. And, since the kids dump their candy into a huge pile and start swapping as soon as they get home, I doubt there was any risk of accidentally ingesting it. Had it been stuck in an apple–same deal. I don’t know a kid alive that will eat an apple with a bruise or blemish on it–no matter how small–at least not the part that contains the imperfection. Alas, I am afraid that we will soon be overtaken by the insanity.
Jen, please do not reveal the name or address of the couple who took pictures of each child–in fact, just to be safe, not even the name of the town. You would be putting them at potential risk of being arrested and questioned and having any electronic devices they own being confiscated and searched for child porn. Because, you know, everyone who takes a picture of a child not his or her own has deviant motives.
This was our first Halloween living on a base. Since most Brits don’t do trick-or-treating, all the Americans who live off-base came one with their kids, and there were probably several thousand out and about.
There were MPs everywhere, just being nice and helping moms get their strollers across roads and giving high fives. Also, for weeks, all the Air Force members were warned about the extra foot traffic, and reminded that they could get paperwork (which could potentially lead to a lost stripe) if they broke any laws in a car that night.
The result? It was awesome and so safe. The cars were so polite and considerate, and everyone both in and out of a vehicle behaved.
So yes, I think having extra police out to ensure SAFE DRIVING instead of freaking out about sex offenders is a much better idea!
It doesn’t matter if there is an actual threat or not. There is a perceived threat brought about by media hype and the Government has to be seen doing something.
Our local news had a “breaking news” story this morning about a shooting near a school. There was a shooting, it was at 12:30 AM this morning and the nearest school was over a mile away but could be seen in the background with a zoom lens. Of course they had to zoom in to show the kids getting off of the buses.
As far as background checks go, there is a big push to not allow employers to ask about a perspective employee’s criminal background during the hiring process.
We had breaking news in the PA and NJ region about tainted candy. Twix bars! My favorite candy bar ever was much maligned and photos everywhere of pins in it. I had to confiscate it immediately from my children. Several cases reported in Kennett Square and others across the region. Kids and families interviewed on TV and everyone saying there’s a lot of sick people out there. One woman commented that “This is why I don’t let my kid trick-or-treat. I just go to the store and buy him the candy!” That sounds fun.
But every one of these stories was bogus, as usual.
http://6abc.com/news/da-report-of-needles-in-kennett-square-candy-unfounded/1071356/
The day after Halloween should be renamed from The Day of The Dead to the Day of the Hoax. I was especially alarmed this year but it only led to maximum Twix consumption (someone needs to have an intervention at our house and get this candy out of here.) Usually, they don’t do retractions on these types of stories but this one led the news for several nights.
There was even a razor blade hoax candy story in Western Pennsylvania. It’s like making up fake stories about poisonings is the new Mischief Night. Those crazy kids…there are a lot of sick people in the world. Sometimes they are kids.
“As far as background checks go, there is a big push to not allow employers to ask about a perspective employee’s criminal background during the hiring process.”
Actually, the push is to take it off of applications, not remove it from the hiring process entirely. Employers can still ask about history during interviews… but the idea is that people get selected for interviews based on their ability to the do the job. And employers can still ask questions like “are you bondable” and “are you currently licensed?” where those are relevant to the actual job.
One of the biggest reasons why criminals reoffend is because the majority of criminals are just not very bright. Another big reason is substance abuse, which makes people who maybe were bright at one point do a lot of not-very-bright stuff. But on the list of why criminals reoffend is because they’re unable to find lawful employment, and so turn to unlawful means of generating income.
@James…..I don’t think anybody here is advocating that a person on the SOR for, let’s say, raping a 7-year-old girl or fondling a 9-year-old boy should be able to work as a school teacher or in a Day Care center. I think the major heartburn we’re all having here is that they are treating a man who had consensual sex (socially, not legally) with a 15-year-old girl when he was 19 the same way they treat a man who did rape a 5-year-old girl or boy. This man poses absolutely no threat to trick-or-treaters knocking on his door for candy.
“…..I don’t think anybody here is advocating that a person on the SOR for, let’s say, raping a 7-year-old girl or fondling a 9-year-old boy should be able to work as a school teacher or in a Day Care center.”
Perhaps they didn’t MEAN to advocate that, but…
Again, the original exchange:
“Just think, that’s the life of anyone on the registry, warranted or not.â€
“Michael, it is never warranted.â€
(These are cut from longer comments, of course. Since it’s been a while, with many other comments since, the topic was whether a person on the registry should ever be forced from a job.)
My answer was (and still is):
Never? I’ll give you “hardly everâ€, but balk at “neverâ€.
So, John, it seems that your position and mine are about the same.
@lollipoplover……..thanks for posting that FOLLOW-UP story lollipoplover! You know, a coworker and I were discussing Halloween last week and he went on about how dangerous Halloween is for kids because there are lots of crazy people out there putting razor blades and pins in candy. Of course, my head wanted to explode as I explained to him that it is all a myth! So he went on to claim, “Oh no it isn’t John, you’re just being naïve because this happens to kids every single year, just read the news! My head wanted to explode again. Then on Monday he showed me that exact same article with the photos of the pins in candy up in Philly and said, “See I toldja so!” So I countered by pointing out to Phillip that there was one major thing missing in that news story and all news stories reporting about pins in Halloween candy. AN ARREST!
All of those articles NEVER mention anything about a person taken into custody or a person who admitted to hiding pins in candy and handing the candy out to trick-or-treaters. They only claim that pins and sharp objects were reported in Halloween candy. I explained to Phillip that you see these stories EVERY year the day after Halloween but they all turn out to be not what you think and this story is not going to be any different than those other stories. Well, sure enough and I think I can rest my case with Phillip!
Unfortunately, most news outlets who ran the original story do not write a follow-up and this is why the sharp objects found in Halloween candy stories get so blown out of proportion every single year!
@John- Even better, the police are pressing charges against these kids.
These kids infected their entire community with fear, cast suspicion on their neighbors, and caused many of their peers to have their Halloween booty completely thrown away or “surrendered to inspection” like at our house. But the worst of it is that they wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars, and placed undue burden on their community’s law enforcement, wasting their time for absolutely no reason whatsoever, keeping them from investigating real crimes.
GOOD that they will be charged with filing a false police report. These kids should be required to reimburse the police department for their costly investigation, as well as the Twix candy company for causing damage to their brand, their company, and their sales, and casting possible suspicion on Twix employees.
Next make these kids perform community service at a facility or organization (homeless shelter/food bank/domestic violence shelter/foster child group home/hospital children’s wing/etc) that helps children with REAL problems; kids who don’t get to go trick-or-treating because of their life circumstance or because they live in a neighborhood unsafe to trick-or-treat in, or who don’t even have the luxury of be able to afford to eat candy: foster kids, group home kids, homeless kids, abused kids, poverty-stricken kids, terminally ill kids. Kids who would give an arm or leg to don a silly costume and ring doorbells for candy.
Since Michael and I keep being re-quoted–in snippets–I’d like to look at the exchange in context. Michael said,
“I received a notice from the police the other day that we had a sex offender working in town, had his picture, name, and a rough area on where he was hired.
Next day, the notice was updated as the employment had been terminated.
Just think, that’s the life of anyone on the registry, warranted or not.”
Michael is talking about public notification–which includes the public registry–and implying there could be situations in which such public notification is warranted.
I replied, “Michael, it is never warranted. Will there ever be a time when the greater good of society is better served by making it impossible for those who want to work to do so? The hoops that registrants have to jump through just to get a job have any necessary safeguards in place….”
I stand by my statement. Public notification is never warranted. A public registry is never warranted. Research does not support the efficacy of public notification in providing public safety. I too feel that certain offenses preclude the desirability of those who had them in certain occupations. Thus the statement about having necessary safeguards in place. I am a strong proponent of individualized conditions based on the history of the individual. None of this requires or is aided by public notification. A law enforcement registry serves every needed purpose.
Michael’s statement and my response were not in regard to whether a person should be cut from a job but in regard to the detrimental value of public notices. Public notices result in registrants who are appropriately placed in jobs being “cut” from the job because the employer of the registrant receives public pressure, e.g., “I won’t do business with you anymore as long as a sex offender works for you.”
And I too almost always eschew absolutes–but when it comes to the public registry, I have no qualms whatsoever about saying never.
Quote:
“Even better, the police are pressing charges against these kids.”
@lollipoplover……Good! Kids SHOULD be charged for doing these type of things instead of being charged for biting a pop-tart into the shape of a gun or for PRETENDING to shoot a pretend bow and arrow!
The problem with public notifications is that even if the business owners want to hire the registrant, there will be public pressure to get rid of the sex offender. Thus, even if the job has nothing to do with whatever the sex offender’s predilection (a child molester working in a bar, for example), the employer will fire him to keep his own hassle to a minimum. People have been known to boycott for less.
David
“Michael is talking about public notification–which includes the public registry–and implying there could be situations in which such public notification is warranted.”
And I’m flat-out saying that there could be situations where public notification is warranted. Not many. But not zero.
“The problem with public notifications is that even if the business owners want to hire the registrant, there will be public pressure to get rid of the sex offender.”
So if the business owner wants to hire the registrant, but the registrant (objectively) should not have that particular job?
(If a guy who molests children wants to work in a tire shop, I don’t care. That’s honest work, and it’s none of my business if he earns his living that way. If he wants to work as an after-school sports coach, however, different story. Particularly if his previous victims were athletes he was coaching at the time.)
I ALSO want to be notified if an afterschool sports coach has a history of kids with blown-out knees, steroid abuse, or concussion.
My solution is to make background checks free for employers where sexual predilection is a factor (schools, after school programs, scouting, etc). Or, maybe a free access registration only available to such agencies. Mabel next door doesn’t need to know.
Public registrations are a problem because people don’t use them to block sex offenders from only jobs where they have such contact. They use them to influence any employer.
A parent doesn’t need to know, only employers and police do. That’s all that’s required to keep pervs off those jobs.
“Actually, the push is to take it off of applications, not remove it from the hiring process entirely.”
It is so incredibly amazing that James knows the application and hiring process of every single hiring entity everywhere. I don’t know why the rest of us even bother to comment.
“It is so incredibly amazing that James knows the application and hiring process of every single hiring entity everywhere. I don’t know why the rest of us even bother to comment.”
Maybe the problem is just your own ignorance? “Ban the box” has been around for a decade or more, and got a bunch of local news coverage because they actually qualified a measure for the ballot here.
http://bantheboxcampaign.org/?p=20#.Vj1CMzKFOic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_the_Box
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ban+the+box
Pick up a freaking newspaper from time to time.
Buffy, I believe that you have hit the nail on the head. We ordinary people simply must acknowledge that superior entities walk among us, those who know everything and have THE answer to every issue and situation. The only thing for it is to do exactly as you suggest; refrain from any attempt to respond to such people because our feeble attempts at discussions or opinions can never come up to their level. They have nothing to learn from any of us because they already know all that could be known on any topic, certainly more than mere research can reveal or those who have studied and worked in the field for years could learn. We should talk only to each other so as not to annoy these god-like creatures. That way they can commune with themselves, surely the only ones worthy of their discourse.
Oh, my God, Sandy. I’m so sorry. I didn’t realize having a slightly different opinion from yours would hurt your poor, delicate little fee-fee’s so much.
Not to mention that fact that the sudden police presence as they patrol and direct traffic would certainly deter any potential criminals. No one is going to try to snatch a kid when there is a cop on every other corner.
“We almost hit a group of older trick or treaters on our way home on Halloween. They were dressed completely in dark clothes and walking down the middle of the street (a street which had sidewalks on both sides btw). The only reason we didn’t hit them is that we were driving very slow (10 mph in a 25 mph zone) specifically because we knew what an issue this is on Halloween.”
This is exactly the thing I was wondering about when I read on kids being hit on Halloween. What are these drivers thinking? They KNOW it’s Halloween, they KNOW there’ll be many kids outside (walking all over the place, I imagine), they KNOW costumes are often black and barely visible (although you’d think there are such things as street lights…), yet they still choose to 1) go out in their car in the first place and 2) drive (way) too fast for the circumstances.
“We believe the Children” was a mantra in the late 1980′ and early ’90’s. Children were considered incapable of telling lies. The result was many innocent people behind bars, and penalties that have put some innocent people on registries for live. A friend of mine was pressured to testify against an adult friend charged with a sex offense in the mid-niineties. He refused and his family stood by him. Other children were bribed by the police to lie, and a person who went to jail for six years and is now on the registry for life may not have committed the crimes he was so conveniently charged with. Those were the days of “tough on crime” that filled our prisons and ran up great tax expenses we are trying to reduce today.
Now apparently the tide has turned! The kids can’t get away with “Mean, nasty Mr. So and So gave me a Twix with a razor and a Kit Kat with pins.” I have lived long to see justice!
When I was a kid trick or treating in the1950’s, the razor hoax was in every newspaper the day after Halloween. Some things never change. Until they are faced and corrected.
Thank you and kudos to the police who don’t believe the children.
James, the claim was NOT made that it was never appropriate for the authorities to notify an employer.
The claim was made that no one should be on the sex offender registry.
And none of your arguments refute that claim, since the sex offender registry is superfluous for the purpose of an employer who wants to know about people who should not be hired. Everyone who has ever been on a sex offender registry, will have his offenses show up on a criminal background check, which any employer is entitled to insist upon as a condition of employment, and many, many entities already do. The registry only adds the ability for people other than employers to find out information that is more often than not, of no practical value. The sex offender registry as such *adds no useful information to the hiring process.* That’s why your bringing up employment issues is a red herring — there are already ways to deal with offenders of that type, and any other type, when it might not be appropriate to hire someone with a particular background for a particular job.
“The registry only adds the ability for people other than employers to find out information that is more often than not, of no practical value.”
So you agree with me, too. Thanks.
The down side of “Tough on Crime” is the size of the dragnet.
High School kids in Colorado may find themselves on the Sex offender registry for life. This could happen even if the law officials in Colorado are lenient.
The U.S. Sentencung Commissioy is in the process of reclassifying sexting to be a “violent crime”.
If that amendment were on the books last week, those kids would face serious jail time and life on the sex offender registry.
Many of the sentencing amendments against sex offenders like these football players are actually retroactive and can be slapped on even years after the original offense.
Tough on crime. It is the law of the land. Do we want this?
This is our country. The law makers are our employees.
Let’s make the country safe as our children grow and learn and even make mistakes along the way.
Let’s also acknowledge that those laws against sex offenders on Halloween are targeting people who are no more dangerous than the Colorado Sexter Kiddies. Next year those kids may be on lock down on Halloween.
fee-fee’s? Are you a child? (And by the way, if you’re trying to say the word “feelings” which, you’re right, none of us would understand without the cute text-speak, there’s no apostrophe.)
James Pollock, I’m a professional preschool teacher, and there are background checks and fingerprinting for all persons employed in childcare.
The real problem with the sex offender registry is the fact that all sex offenders are treated the same. Yes, some have done truly horrible horrible things. Others haven’t. Someone raping a tiny child is a different case entirely than the teenager who had mutually consensual sex with another teenager. The real problem with the sex offender registry is the fact that it treats both cases as if they were the same.
“I’m a professional preschool teacher, and there are background checks and fingerprinting for all persons employed in childcare.”
All childcare workers in licensed daycare facilities, perhaps (not sure if even that’s true in all the states). Not sure what the relevance is.
“The real problem with the sex offender registry is the fact that all sex offenders are treated the same.”
The real problem with the sex offender registry is the fact that about 99.9% of the people who are on it shouldn’t be.
On the subject of background checks: To do a real background check, the FBI needs about six months and it costs around $10,000 (at least, these are the figures I was given in 1985, when mine was done. It did take about six months to come through, not sure how much they spent on it.)