Gov Blunt, Loudon, and Jay Nixon can pound sand. The current law stinks and this new one banning people from Halloween activities is beyond ridiculous.

I lived across the street for ten years from a registered sex offender. Her crime? When she was 18 she got knocked up by her then 16 year old boyfriend. His parents had her prosecuted for statutory rape so their little creep of a son wouldn’t have to pay child support. That was almost 15 years ago. She’s one of the sweetest, hardest working people I know, and is doomed to a life of low paying, unskilled jobs because she will forever be listed as a sex offender.

It seems to me that sex offenders are allowed to return to society because they have paid their debt to society (at least in theory). To put further restrictions upon them because of their crimes seem to be double jeopardy, or punishment for a crime twice.

If someone were to argue that they are not rehabilitated, then that begs the question, then why do we let them return to society? If they are rehabilitated, and fit for return to society, then why pursecute them further for their past crimes?

Go Fish,

While I feel for your neighbor, she is the exception to the rule. (And I don’t think she should continue to be labeled as a sex offender.)

Parents: Yes. It can happen to you. Protect your children. Any child under the age of 14 should be accompanied by an adult. Go with them door-to-door. Don’t park at the end of the street and wait for them.

To a child predator, these little ones, dressed up in costume, are eye candy.

Don’t get upset with the Governor for trying to protect your children, at the expense of those who have committed a crime. It is the Governor’s job to ensure that the public is safe. Sometimes that involves restricting the freedom of those that have been convicted. -On the other hand, we could just change the laws, so that we keep those convicted in prison.

Everyone likes to say…for safety sake, we should restrict freedoms of….(insert group of choice here). I don’t want to hear these people complaining when their group gets restrictions on their freedom in the name of percieved “safety” or “security measures”. So just remember.

and btw, I don’t doubt Blunt disagrees with this decision, due mostly to him being a moron and a patsy for his party which believes they can get votes from the fear of the uneducated masses.

Larry,

Nice job. Why didn’t you just say “I’m a liberal, and I want everyone to be free”?

Perhaps we should permit convicted felons to by handguns. (after all, they did their time.)

Perhaps we should let convicted felons hold public office. (with any luck, they could represent you.)

Instituting safeguards that attempt to prevent someone convicted of a crime from future violations of the rights of another is reasonable and necessary. -Children have a right to be protected from assault.

I think I may have figured out the difference between liberals and conservatives:

Liberals consider the rights of the individual to outweigh the rights of others. ME is more important than US.

Conservatives consider the rights of others to be just as important as their own. US is just as important as ME.

Larry,

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon agrees with this law too! Is Nixon a moron and a patsy also? I do not think that you should be slinging mud at people or one party when this is a non partisan issue.

I don’t care which political affiliation you’re with, if you read this law closely you’ll see that it is clearly unconstitutional. It’s so vague that it could be read to prevent a parent (who is also a sex offender) from carving a pumpkin with their kid or even watching a Halloween special with them on tv. It doesn’t specify what circumstances someone has good reason to be out of their home. This law would outlaw any sex offender from going on vacation over Halloween…even if they are vacationing somewhere far away from Missouri. It’s easy for politicians to support laws for “save the children”, but there is a proper way to write these laws, and this law was written with some of the sloppiest language I’ve ever seen..and I work in law. It doesn’t even say where on the residence the sign needs to be. An offender could put a post it note with the required language behind a bush if they wanted. The law just says on their “residence”. Plus, you simply can’t under the Constitution keep punishing someone who has served their time and is no longer on any supervised release, parole, or probation. Just like you can’t ban people with past DWI convictions from driving every New Years Eve, you can’t ban people with sex offense convictions to their home every Halloween. It’s house arrest. If you don’t like it, then work to change the Constitution, because it’s as clear as day.

Good for Blunt. How can his comments be responded to with anything less than praise? You may not agree with his politics - or likely his party, if you reading the PD - but I can’t see how he can be criticized here. It’s his job to ensure that the laws and regulations are in place to keep our children safe, and this time of the year it’s especially important to be vigilant. I say good for Blunt for standing up to the awful move to strike-down these important provisions.

I find it interesting that while our judicial system seeks to administer justice based upon truth, our legislators (including Governor Blunt) continue to pass laws that are predicated upon fear and ignorance. Yes, there are dangerous people out there, and there always will be. Do yourself and everyone in Missouri a favor, do the research.

Statistically, Sex Offenders who have been caught, punished, recieved treatment, and are returned to society are among the least likely to re-offend. A 2007 Minnesota study puts the rate of new sexual offenses by those previously convicted of a sexual offense at about 3%. This is fairly consistent nationwide. The Center for Sex Offender Mangement (CSOM) has good data as well, though not as current.

Bottom line, your children are more likely to be abused by someone they know and who is not currently a Registered Sex Offender. Most offenders acknowledge their crimes and the impact their behaviors have had on their victims. Most offenders who have been through treatment are aware of the factors that may lead to re-offending and have plans to avoid high risk situations or have changed the lifestyles/behaviors that helped lead to offending in the first place.

One of the biggest factors in reducing recidivism is for an offender to have a support network of people. If there is an offender living in your neighborhood, get to know that person. If you want a reality check, educate yourself about the restrictions that an RSO has to live under, then try to imagine yourself living with those restrictions; now be thankful that you don’t have to.

And what rule would that be? Can anyone cite even a single instance of a child in this state being abducted, harrassed, molested, or otherwise bothered by a pedophile while trick or treating? I can’t think of any.

Don’t get me wrong. I know full well there are creeps out there and what they’re capable of. But laws like this are written more for padding political resumes than they are to address legitimate public safety concerns. The “pedophile on every street corner” myth is to this decade what the hysteria over satanic cults were to the 80’s and 90’s.

Laws and sentence guidelines most definately need to be changed.