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.”

Related posts

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 pools, the amusement parks, the … the … the .. at this point the list can go on & on. I’m guess I’m just dumbfounded that a debt has been paid to society, some as long as 25+ years ago … yet, the punishments that keep coming never seem to stop.

With Prop 35 being up for vote, regarding human trafficking … there is a caveat that clearly states any RSO must disclose their internet addresses, etc., on line accounts, really? What’s next? Your password too? If someone finds enjoyment playing on line games with people around the world, now too – that is taken away?

The exact words I heard the other night when I shared that with my fiance were “… Really? why don’t they just kill me now?” – – 25+ years ago. There, I’ll get off my soapbox, for now.

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 were non-sexual….the drug dealers, the kidnappers, the murderers???? Who will protect the children from them? Who will protect the children from those who have yet to commit their crimes? This ordinance is a foolish, feel good, “please re-elect me”, “you will be safer”, scare tactic that isolates a specific group of people who have already paid their debt to society, been imprisoned, rehabilitated, and trying to get on with their normal lives. Get a grip! It IS unconstitutional!

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, but by no fault of their own, they miss out! F the system!

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 children only allowed to trick or treat if attached to a parent with a 5 ft harness, or if parents had to go to the door to get the candy, or… or… Passing a law our of ignorance, like this law, is a waste of money, and may be gives the parent of the trick or treating child the idea that the child is safe to go without parental supervision since they cannot go to dangerous homes. In the meantime, the authorities will be monitoring registrants rather than dealing with more likely crimes.

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 the freedom of speech,not allowing registrants and their families to celebrate a holiday…punishing everyone in the house by precluding them from participating. The silliness goes on .. so the registrant could pass out candy at another house, or on the corner. It’s not about the “right to hand out candy”, as the professor claims.