ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOLCaliforniaGeneral News

California Professor Asserts There’s Likely No Constitutional Grounds Giving Registrants A Right to Participate in Halloween Activities

A professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of law says, “I think it’s unlikely to be unconstitutional for the state or the city to prohibit sex offenders from handing out candy to little kids.”

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I invite the professor to cite any precedent or scientific studies to support his comments. Speaking in generalities seemingly based on biased personal assertions does service to nobody in this debate.

Everyone, or most folks are missing the specific point … even Bill Carroll on KFI and the Professor mentioned in this article, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it’s so much about “Halloween” it’s about EVERYTHING & Halloween happens to be part of it! I read somewhere … what’s next? Making it a law EVERYONE MUST decorate their house for Halloween so the ones that aren’t are clearly identified?? Sounds crazy, I know … but, think about it?! For me it’s not about Halloween … it’s about the beach, the piers, the parks, the movies, the swimming… Read more »

The punishment was given, jail or prison time, or a fine… then parole or probation.. And that should be it… return back to society and better hope you don’t screw up again.. its done for murders..

Rotunda is missing the point altogether, implying that registrants feel violated because they can no longer lure kids into their home on Halloween….Oh please, professor, that’s not it at all, nor would they want to, nor do all of them have convictions against children, nor has there ever been a case reported where a trick-or-treater was sexually violated on Halloween!! No, professor, it’s a matter of freedom, which they’ve earned. It’s a matter of family, which they have. It’s a matter of justice, which they deserve. And tell me, professor, what do you say about convicts whose crimes against children… Read more »

He doesn’t need to explain himself, he is a professor of jurisprudence(eyes rolling). He offers no legal explanation for his comments, which is something that if you ARE a professor of jurisprudence that I would expect you would do. Methinks he was merely expressing his own personal wishes when asked and someone went viral with a news article about his comment. My question is, at what point with continued restrictions, bans and obligations, does all of this actually become “unlawful detainment?” Think about it.

What about those with children? I have 4 daughters and a registered husband, who is their biological father, not some step-dad! We no longer get to take part in Halloween, our rights are stripped away too. My children are young, all under 12 years old, and these stupid rules prevent us from decorating our house, having to make the house dark, etc etc. It makes me so angry to know that none of these politicians take into account how these laws affect the children of offenders and the constitutional rights they deserve, they never hurt anyone, never broke a law,… Read more »

The attorney has an opinion, which is his right. Just because he teaches in a law school, does not mean his opinion is what the opinion of the courts will be when this gets before them. Even supreme court justices differ in opinions. It is easy to find someone to agree with any opinion if you look hard enough. Perhaps a more useful idea would be to look at the reasons behind the law. I assume it was passed because it was believed it would protect children. Perhaps it would protect children more if they passed a law that made… Read more »

Agree w/ Mr. B above, and further, I think the real offense and the core of the lawsuit, is both forced speech and freedom of speech. If the government requires anyone to wear a label or symbol, or put a sign on their house, or their car, it is forcing them to make a statement. Like an enormous dunce cap, or the allusion to the symbols Jews and other hated groups were forced to WEAR. Forcing someone to put a sign in their yard is also forced speech, no matter what the sign says. The other side of it is… Read more »