| Tricks-Not-Treats: Halloween Predator Panic Laws Derek W. Logue October 15, 2008, Revised Oct. 16, 2011 INTRODUCTION I remember coming home from “trick-or-treating” as a child and turning over my bag of candy to my mother for inspection. After all, one of our neighbors could have slipped rat poison in our Tootsie Rolls or razor blades in our apples. Aside from certain choice pieces missing as a result of mom’s ingestion... er, “inspection” process, my mother never found any razor blades or rat poison in our Halloween Candy. Despite virtually no confirmed cases of Halloween poisonings, the myth has remained a constant in our culture [1]. In recent years, a new Halloween myth has emerged – the “sexual predator.” Similar to the poisoning myth, the Halloween sexual predator myth involves panic over a virtually non-existent threat and the typical corresponding response to the perceived threat. The first appearance of a Halloween restriction in the news was Virginia's "Operation Trick No Treat," a law requiring so-called high-risk registrants must report to their parole offices between 4:30 and 8 p.m. on Halloween, where many undergo treatment [2]. In 2008, CNN reported a number of states (Incl. CA, MD, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WI) are passing laws restricting sex offender activities during Halloween. A typical Halloween law aimed at sex offenders includes some or all of the following restrictions (below are the TN laws): 1. Do not answer the door to trick-or-treaters 2. No passing out of candy to children 3. No holiday decorations on homes 4. No visits to haunted houses, corn mazes, hay rides or other seasonal activities 5. Do not attend any party where children are gathered 6. No costumes 7. No trick-or-treating [3] Maryland has taken this law a step further, requiring Former Sex Offenders to place signs on their doors saying “No Candy at This Residence [4].” Louisiana passed a law barring Former Sex Offenders from wearing masks at carnivals and Halloween [5]. Missouri forces Former Sex Offenders to stay indoors, turn off all their lights, and have no contact with children [6]. While some of these restrictions are limited to those on supervision (probation/ parole), in some areas, like Missouri [6] and in Tulare County, CA [7], this law applies to all registrants regardless of status, with compliance checks sometime accompanying the no participation rules. These laws beg the question, “Are these laws effective or even necessary?” Certainly there are a lot of concerns with the law. Halloween Laws Based on FEAR not FACT The common mantra of proponents of sex offender laws is “it will make things safer/ protect children.” However, a simple Yahoo or Google search on “Kids Molested During Halloween” will turn up no cases of such a case happening, an experiment emulated by others with similar results [8]. A Live Science article describes the panic quite perfectly: “While children's safety is important, the concern far outweighs the real danger. There is no reason to think that sex offenders pose any more of a threat to children on Halloween than at any other time. In fact, there has not been a single case of any child being molested by a convicted sex offender while trick-or-treating. These measures are popular and well-intentioned—but ultimately ineffective—publicity stunts offered by police and politicians to placate parents. They provide a false sense of security, since there is no evidence that the policies actually make children any safer. Any opportunistic sexual predators who would attack children will simply wait until the next day. Ironically, a group of children dressed in costume at a sex offender's doorway are probably safer than at many other places they could be, including their own homes. This is because, contrary to popular belief, most released sex offenders do not re-offend, and because most attacks on children occur in their own home by someone they know. Furthermore, the simple logistics of trick-or-treating make an assault very unlikely. A sex offender would have great difficultly molesting a child who is in costume, outside his or her front door, and in front of other people and witnesses. Of course, the knowledge that such an attack has never happened and is very unlikely to ever occur won't calm the hysterical concern [9].” The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel offers the only recorded incident of any child raped and killed while out trick-or- treating. In 1973, a nine-year-old was killed by Gerald Turner, known as the “Halloween Killer.” Because of Turner, Wisconsin residents hold trick-or-treating during daytime hours [10]. However, the f/k/a Harvard Law Blog found two interesting things regarding the Turner case:
The Predator Panic surrounding Halloween and sex offenders can be called “Halloweenitis.” Below is the eAdvocate definition of Halloweenitis: "Halloween-itis is a coined term used to describe a mental abnormality often occurring in public servants and politically aspiring persons who can pass this psychological disorder onto others, generally occurring around holidays and elections. The disease is characterized by abnormal delusional visions of perceived horrific events creating an aura of public fear; these doomsayers get their rewards by painting a picture of "the sky is falling" and alienating the public. Significant harm is caused by people so afflicted because the objects of their obsession are persons which society already looks down on (including their family members), and the collateral harm caused society is truly a tragedy. Halloweenitis is a subset of offenderitis, and both are incurable social diseases because these people refuse to face reality, or facts and statistics which prove them wrong, they discount these facts and statistics because in their minds they only see horrific events in everyday life circumstances Those afflicted with Halloweenitis, fear based, focus on denial of civil rights of other persons under the pretext of public safety [12].” In short, the laws are based far more on fear than in fact. There is only ONE documented case of a sex offense occurring on Halloween, back in 1973, committed by someone with NO prior record. Meanwhile, there have been more documented cases of foreign objects in Halloween candy. Thus, the laws are based strictly on Predator Panic rather than truth. Litigation Against Sex Offender Halloween Laws A group of Former Offenders recently filed suit against Missouri’s Halloween laws for vagueness (including whether they are allowed to dress their own children up in costumes), ex post facto violations, fails to provide guidelines to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, and makes offenders targets for vigilantism and pranks [13]. Personally, this case reeks of the segregation days of the civil rights era. Halloween laws, coupled with residency restrictions, reintroduce the segregation concept into our society. The trend is becoming painfully obvious as comments are added to the aforementioned Washington Times article [4]: “This is absolutely despicable. What's next, a Red "A" for adulterers, the Star of David to label Jews, Crosses for Christians? How about some kind of label for those who hate animals, those who don't recycle, or don't limit their families to two children?” “These laws have good intentions, but are not what Americans are supposed to embrace. Soon everyone who's had a DWI will have a bumper sticker that says "my party is more important than your life," every divorcee will have a sign that says "Unwilling to commit," etc., etc. until everyone is properly labeled for every mistake they've ever made in their life. Then maybe we could establish towns for each category, so the good people don't have to be subjected to the evils of the lesser ones around them. Then we will all be safe and happy, right? No, I didn't think so!” The facts of the Missouri case: Charles Raynor is a registered sex offender in Audrain County pursuant to section 589.400(7) and 42 U.S.C. section 16913 due to a 1990 conviction in the state of Washington for indecent liberties with a child younger than 14 years old. Missouri's legislature enacted section 589.426,7 effective in August 2008, imposing certain restrictions on registered sex offenders' conduct on Halloween night. On Halloween, October 31, 2008, Mexico public safety officers checked registered sex offenders' residences for compliance with section 589.426. When an officer arrived at Raynor's registered address, the officer observed a woman passing out candy to children. She informed the officer that Raynor was inside the house, but that they both believed he was in compliance with the statute because he was not handing out candy. No sign was posted at the residence stating "No candy or treats at this address." Raynor was charged with a class A misdemeanor for failure to comply with section 589.426. Raynor argued the restriction violated ex post facto/ retroactive clause of Missouri law. The trial court agreed, ruling in Raynor's favor. Ultimately the state appealed the case went to the Missouri Supreme Court (State of Missouri v Raynor). The Missouri Supreme Court also found the law violated the state retroactivity clause and ruled in Raynor's favor: The new obligations and duties imposed on F.R. and Raynor are solely the result of their past criminal acts, and the failure to perform these new duties and obligations carries a criminal penalty. The obligations and duties, imposed after the fact of their criminal convictions and based solely on those prior convictions, violate F.R.'s and Raynor's rights under article I, section 13... As applied to Raynor, the Halloween requirements of section 589.426 are unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed [14]. Are Halloween Laws even necessary? There has been a lack of real Halloween danger stories in the media over the years. In fact, the biggest Halloween sex crime-related crime in recent years involved the annual streaking event, the "Boulder Pumpkin Run:" "Now that the general election's over, let's get on to more important matters: Justice for the Pumpkin 12. Recent University of Colorado graduate Eric Rasmussen, 23, is among the 12 runners ticketed Halloween night for indecent exposure after running naked with a wobbly orange squash on their heads along the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder. If convicted, he and 11 others could be required to register as sex offenders. Like many of the Pumpkin 12, he is finding a lawyer... He and nine others go to Boulder County Court on Dec. 17; two others will appear Jan. 12... In Boulder, the 10th annual Naked Pumpkin Run is a hot issue. The core question: Should these 12 face punishment?" [15] The runners, known as the "Pumpkin 12" (the dirty pumpkin dozen?) were allowed to plea to lesser charges to avoid registration as sex offenders [16]. Wow, our children are so much safer now that we stopped those dangerous pumpkin runners, right? A study released by Mark Chaffin, Jill Levenson, Elizabeth Letourneau and Paul Stern in 2009 examined whether fears of increased sexual abuse around Halloween justified the surge in Halloween laws. The researchers failed to find any link between sexual abusive activity and Halloween: "This study found no significant increase in risk for nonfamilial child sexual abuse on or just prior to Halloween. Although sex offenders may use seemingly innocent opportunities to engage children and sexually abuse and therefore might be hypothesized to use trick-or-treat for ulterior purposes, this logic does not appear to translate into any actual unusual rate of sex offenses on Halloween. The absence of a Halloween effect remained constant over the 9-year period, beginning well before the current interest in Halloween sex offender policies and extending to recent years. Any Halloween policies that have been adopted by reporting jurisdictions during that period appear not to have affected the overall sex offense rate. Halloween was also typical in terms of victim and offender characteristics, the types of child sex offenses reported, and the categories of victim–offender relationships involved. As with all other days of the year, young children are sexually victimized on Halloween. We do not suggest that there is no risk on Halloween or that anecdotal accounts of Halloween molestations should be dismissed. Nor do we suggest that parents should abandon caution and reasonable supervision of their children. But there does not appear to be need for alarm concerning sexual abuse on these particular days. In short, Halloween appears to be just another autumn day where rates of sex crimes against children are concerned. If anything, increased vigilance concerning risk should be directed to the summer months in general, where regular seasonal increases in rates are readily seen... In this case, worries and good intentions might have inspired advocates and lawmakers to propose legislation that combats a nonexistent problem. The findings suggest that Halloween policies may in fact be targeting a new urban myth similar to past myths warning of tainted treats. The results are consistent with observations offered by law enforcement officials who do not describe any epidemic of trick-or-treaters being assaulted by known sex offenders and who have observed no unusual rate of child sexual assault events on Halloween [17]." So if there is no increased sex crimes, could a Halloween law be credited for contributing to a non-event? The Frederick County Sheriff's Office (Maryland) certainly believes the law was beneficial: Teams of police officers and agents with the state Division of Parole and Probation stopped by 50 residences Halloween night to ensure that area sex offenders weren't interacting with children collecting candy. They liked what they found -- 47 of the offenders had "no candy" signs posted. As instructed, they weren't opening their doors. Authorities are following up with the three others they couldn't locate Oct. 31. Those three could face sanctions, but that hasn't been determined, said George V. Kirk, field supervisor of the Frederick field office of the Division of Parole and Probation. Some might have been working; agents are checking the situations out... "It makes me happy that I had no issues whatsoever," Robinson said of their five stops. "I made it very clear what would be happening Halloween night. I reminded them we would be stopping by." The night before Halloween, teams made preliminary visits to 57 homes. Those Robinson visited were extremely receptive. "I think they care very much about what members of society think," she said. "They want to be better citizens and do what they need to be doing to follow the law." Rounding out the effort were Cpl. Greg Stocksdale and Detective Gene Alston from the Frederick Police Department, and Detectives Michael Davies and Chris Smith from the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. Brandy Shafer of the sheriff's office and Krissie Smith-Alvey of parole and probation provided organizational assistance. Kirk found the initiative beneficial to the community. Having five additional police vehicles patrolling the streets is a good thing. "Even if we can prevent one person from being victimized, the operation is worth it," Kirk said. [18] The prevention argument is anecdotal at best, as the type of crime that the law is trying to prevent is virtually non- existent. There is, however, a major concern in areas where the laws are in place. While the following comment seems anecdotal, there are real concerns of vigilantism as a result of being confused as a sex offender: "And that pisses me off. I’ve been turning out my porch light and pretending I’m not home for years. And I’m no sex offender, registered or otherwise. So now my problem is what do I do this year? If I turn out the lights, and don’t answer the door, is that the same thing as advertising “sex offender here!!!!”? One can’t ignore the damn holiday without possibly getting accused of being an offender. For years I’ve safely ignored the holiday. Now, what will the neighbors think? Will they assume that the light is off because a sex offender lives here? Or will they just think an old grump who doesn’t care for being annoyed on Halloween is here? I don’t mind the old grump reputation -- I’ve earned it. But damn, that sex offender thing upsets me." [19] Conclusion Halloween laws aimed at sex offenders are perhaps the most blatant of excesses in feel-good legislation. There is no rational basis to pass these laws except to instill fear in the lives of constituents and garner votes. There has never been a documented case of a convicted sex offender molesting or killing a child on Halloween. Furthermore, the laws merely reinforce the segregationist movement and make former offenders who have served their time targets of more harassment and vigilante violence. This final article sums up Halloweenitis quite nicely: “With Halloween now two weeks away, it’s time to start thinking about Halloween safety. OK, that’s an understatement: if the local news programs are to be believed it’ time to start panicking. Poisoned Pixie Stix, needles- stuck Snickers, and razor-wielding Raisinets lurk behind every Jack-o-lantern-guarded door. Evil ne’er-do-wells lurk ready to pluck your children off the streets and do unspeakable things to them. The dead walk the earth and seek to steal the the souls of the unwary. I mock, but only because these myths of Halloween are so eminently mockable. As it happens, Halloween has generated a host of safety myths, turning a once wholesome celebration of zombies, vampires, and other dead, undead, and half-dead things into something rather more sinister. Let’s examine some of these myths… There’s child molesters roaming free in my neighborhood! You might have looked at one of the scare-sites (appropriate for Halloween, I suppose) that show you how many registered sex offenders live within spitting distance of your house, maybe even mapped their addresses. What you might not have known is how someone gets to be on the sex offenders registry. Many are folks who slept with their 15-year old girlfriends or boyfriends when they were 16 — or even when they were 14 (some states prosecute underage sex regardless of the age of the participants). Most, though, are in fact guilty of molesting children — almost always their own (or closely related). There are very, very few cases (less than 5%) of children being accosted by strangers — the number of cases over the last decade is in the hundreds, out of many thousands of child abuse cases… The reality is that your children are fairly safe from victimization by your neighbors. Statistically speaking, you and your family are the greatest threat your children face — far, far more dangerous than any stranger. While it makes good sense to teach your children to be aware of themselves and their surroundings in the company of strangers, the feverish panic that breaks out every year in the weeks before Halloween is way out of proportion to the actual threat posed to your children… So where does the panic come from? At least part of it has to be pinned on local news organizations and their addiction to the scare story as a way to drive ratings… But the more important story lies in the anxieties we as a society have fostered over the last several decades… And along comes Halloween, and what do we do? We allow our children to go door to door among those strangers and beg for candy. In anthropological terms, feeding someone and eating together are powerful markers of intimacy and demonstrations of solidarity — but we aren’t intimate with our neighbors and there is no sense of solidarity. So we worry. And one way we express those worries is by telling each other urban legends about the dangers of strangers with candy, especially on Halloween. This may also be a defensive strategy, allowing us to ignore the fact that the most real source of danger to our children is their own family. So don’t panic. Take reasonable safety precautions — make sure your kids are visible in the dark, have them carry flashlights, teach them traffic safety principles, supervise young trick-or-treaters, and don’t let Halloween pranks get out of hand. Don’t let these perfectly normal anxieties develop into irrational fears that end up polluting Halloween for yourself and your children [14].” Resources
|
| (c) 2007-2011 Derek W. Logue. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner. |
