Lawyer [Janice M. Bellucci] seeks end to Halloween restrictions that target people convicted of sex offenses.
Before the police apprehended Steve, he tried to kill himself by cutting his wrists, he told The Appeal. Then 20 years old, he had attempted to sexually assault a 12-year-old girl in California.
“I couldn’t believe I had done that,” said Steve, whose name has been changed to protect his identity. “I felt I couldn’t live with myself.”
He spent three years in prison, and after he was released, stayed in California. He married, had two children, and found a career. “I made a decision that I’m going to try to be the best person I can be the rest of my life,” said Steve, who is now in his 50s.
But as a sex offender registrant, his past was never far behind him. In July 2012, Steve’s wife was reading the local paper and saw that people on the sex offender registry in Simi Valley, California, where they lived, would have to post “No Candy” signs on their homes on Halloween to, theoretically, limit their contact with children.
Registrants can be subjected to a range of restrictions, depending on the state, county, or city. They can, among other things, be banned from entering parks or their child’s school, or from living within a certain distance of a school or daycare center; registrants are often required to have their photos and addresses available in online databases.
Steve spoke out against the Halloween requirement at a City Council meeting where he met attorney Janice M. Bellucci, executive director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws. She was drawn to this work after learning that someone she had known for years was on the registry. In Oct. 2012, she successfully challenged the sign requirement on behalf of Steve and several other people.
“The work she did wasn’t really for me. It was for my family,” said Steve, who likened the “No Candy” sign to putting a bullseye on his door. “It affects people who have done nothing.”
Bellucci is now hoping for a similar victory. Today, she plans to file suit against Calimesa, California, challenging its Halloween ordinance as well.
“The [Halloween ordinances] punish people on the registry and they do not increase public safety,” Bellucci told The Appeal. “If this protected children, I would be the first one to say yes and to think they were a positive asset to our society, but they’re not.”
Even supporters keep overlooking the main point regarding Halloween:
In 240 – some odd Halloweens in the US, there has never been one single instance of a sex offense committed against a minor on Halloween. Period. Not one. One child was unfortunately murdered in Wisconsin on Halloween 1972, but there was no sexual component to that crime.
To say children are safer on Halloween now because all SOs are locked up or whatever is idiotic, in that there was never that sort of threat to begin with. If you want to increase child safety on Halloween night, make driving illegal from 12:01 AM to 11:59 PM on October 31st, since hard numbers show more children are hit by cars while trick or treating than will ever be sexually assaulted. Not to mention the hard numbers showing that those previously convicted of sex offenses are far less likely to commit another.
It must really suck to be a kid these days.
“The DOCCS website states parolees are not allowed to have Halloween candy in their possession, but the spokesperson told The Appeal in an email, “Possessing candy is not a violation of parole.”” Actually, this isn’t necessarily true. A number of years ago, a friend of mine, who was on parole in Santa Clara County, was given, as a condition of his parole, that he could possess no more than one candy bar at any one time (his crime did not involve candy in any way but, apparently, the cultural “candyman” mythology was behind this bizarre restriction). As it turned out, my friend’s home was, indeed, searched one day by his parole agent who found the one allowed candy bar in his kitchen but also found, after rummaging through his garbage, a single candy bar wrapper for candy that had obviously previously been consumed. For that, he was told that he violated parole. The following day, his parole officer notified him that he had to surrender himself at the parole office for this violation. Instead, my friend boarded a flight to Florida (where he had family) and left California behind. Later, California was denied extradition and he served out the entirety of his remaining parole in Florida. Years later, having returned to Santa Clara County after his parole was over, he was visited on Halloween by local police (more than once) and asked to sign an agreement that he would not possess Halloween candy nor open his door to trick-or-treaters. He always refused to sign and they could do nothing about it. So the whole societal candy obsession has played an outsized role in his life.
Please look into Colton California too !!!!
Halloween restrictions are still in place in San Mateo county…..a county that also allows alleged offenders of non-minors to live anywhere, and yet anything that attracts children is forbidden for all registrants, regardless of their situation. I’m puzzled as to why it is so inconsistent across the state….in some places it is a city ordinance. In others a county ordinance. Sure wish we could challenge the ordinances across the board across the state, and back it up with the statistics such as no crime against a child has ever been committed on Halloween!! The compliance sweep our family experienced last year was completely wrong on top of being forbidden to hand out candy, turn on outside and some inside lights, not answering the door, or enjoying a typically fun holiday in any way.
I have never once heard of a registrant snatching or assaulting a kid who comes to trick or treat at his door on Halloween night. Besides, the parents are usually waiting down on the sidewalk, so even if a registrant had ill intentions, the parents are standing 30 feet away.
However, I see news stories every year of kids getting hit by drunk drivers on Halloween night. Yet we never hear of restrictions for DUI offenders. Why is that?
As if it will matter, I sent this letter:
Georgia Department of Community Supervision
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive SE
Suite 458, East Tower
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-4909
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Please find enclosed an article (https://narsol.org/2016/10/national-rsol-challenges-media-stop-feeding-the-hysteria/) that documents that the Halloween directive imposed by the Ga DCS this year or any year prior does NOT protect any children from being a victim of a sex crime by a registered sex offender.
The additional punishment that is imposed by the Ga DCS is in direct conflict with 21 studies and reports over the last years that indicate 95+% of registered sex offenders do NOT commit new sex crimes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIt7-GcvLGk&t=0s&index=2&list=LLI_BeY1GpcD6xStKJXXsAmg). In addition to this video, the 21 documented studies can be researched if so desired, including one by our own government (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm ).
Many states have found this directive unneeded and unconstitutional and I implore Ga to do the same. This directive does NOT protect children and is only used as a way for law enforcement to violate a registered sex offender, otherwise known as a registered citizen, if they aren’t at home during the 6pm to 6am curfew or any of the other restrictions. What parents lets their children roam the streets at 6am anyway?
In short, 95+% of NEW sex crimes are NOT committed by registered sex offenders; they are committed by people with NO prior offenses and are usually parents, teachers, clergy, law enforcement, etc.… those close in relationship to the victim.
Sincerely,
(signed here)
My name
My street
My city