Friday, October 27, 2006

Is Lima going a bit to far?

I read this news item posted on a local message board and at first I thought it had to be some kind of a joke:

During the two hours Saturday afternoon when kids will be out collecting candy, people convicted of sex crimes will be rounded up and kept under supervision.

Then I visited Fox News and saw it wasn't a joke:

LIMA, Ohio — Officials in Lima want to make sure sex offenders have no contact with children out trick-or-treating.

During the two hours Saturday afternoon when kids will be out collecting candy, people convicted of sex crimes will be rounded up and kept under supervision.

Project director Jim Wingate with the Allen County Sex Offender Risk Reduction Court said children going to strangers' houses might be vulnerable. He said sex offenders who don't show up will be jailed.

Bill Kluge, a Lima defense attorney called the plan "ludicrous," noting that the sex offenders wear ankle monitors, so authorities already know where they are.

Approximately 40 sex offenders will be affected by the trick-or-treating roundup, according to the Lima News.

First off, if they really think these sexual offenders who are being monitored are that much of a danger to children than why are they not in jail? Secondly, whatever happened to parents actually going with their children when they went Trick or Treating to make sure they were safe? We never let our kids go out by themselves when they were young, even last year when Aubrey was 11 she went with her older sister and a friend who were 18.

10 comments:

Stephanie said...

In answer to your first question:

Sex crimes, even sex crimes against children, are not taken as seriously as the should be. These criminals should probably be in jail, but we don't keep them there; because the political climate just isn't right for that kind of justice.

In answer to your second question:

Children shouldn't be trick or treating alone, because -- among many other reasons -- sexual predators find victims before they ever end up in jail or become monitored; therefore if people are that concerned (justifiably so) about their child's safety they should be aware of their child's behavior and whereabouts all year long, including Halloween.

Hey, and if I get a penny for my thoughts; I actually put in two cents! How 'bout that!
;-)

Lisa Renee said...

I'd say your thoughts are worth much more than a penny. :-)

I agree with you 100%

Colleen said...

1. I wouldn't let my kids go out alone

2. Isn't it some kind of invasion...of something...to round these people up and hold on to them for a few hours?

Lisa Renee said...

Colleen, you'd think so but this is Ohio where sometimes you wonder if anyone thinks things thru.

I guess what bothers me most of all is trying to give parents the impression that merely locking these few people up means that there are not others out there who have not yet ever been caught. It's a false sense of safety and as it seems we all agree who would let their children trick or treat alone in the first place...

Stephanie said...

While I have absolutely no sympathy for the "rights" of convicted child sex offenders -- if that's a concern you do not want to know what I'd do with them were I queen of the world for a day -- I do have to agree in the false-sense-of-security thing. The scariest part of it all is that most child sex offenders are people both the parents and the children trust, their own immediate or extended family members. Sex offenders usually, though not always, target members of their own families, because they make for easier prey.

Keep children safe from sex offenders is something that requires constant vigilance, not a once-a-year round-up.

Stephanie said...

Oh, and I'm glad my thoughts are worth more than a penny. Maybe the pay-per-post people will come to agree with you on that!
;-)

Lisa Renee said...

It will be cool when you can join up Stephanie, I think you'll have as much fun with this as I have.

:-)

commonsense said...

You are right. Parents take no responsibility for their children.The family is organized around our careers instead of each other. What ever happend to child abandonment?

As for the sex offenders .... they chould be locked up or castrated.No exceptions!

Anonymous said...

Yes, parents SHOULD be going with their kids, but I grew up in Lima and let me tell you, a majority of parents there do NOT go trick or treating with their children. And it isn't the fault of the kids--they didn't get to pick the parents who neglect them and their safety--so if even one of them was prevented from being molested, its a good thing. Its sad that the government has to step in because the parents don't care, but it happens everyday, this is just a new example. I have no pity for any inconveinence the sex offenders had to 'suffer'--not to mention the ones they rounded up are still on probation so they haven't completely paid their debt to society yet, not that they ever really could.
Just what I think--Melissa

Hooda Thunkit said...

”Bill Kluge, a Lima defense attorney called the plan "ludicrous," noting that the sex offenders wear ankle monitors, so authorities already know where they are.”

As I understand the technology, everything remains “normal” until the monitor (actually a transmitter) is out of range of the base (which is the actual monitor) unit at which time the base unit reports the ankle monitor as out of range, but not where.

It is also typical to wait for a pretty long time before any action is taken, if ever. . .


”First off, if they really think these sexual offenders who are being monitored are that much of a danger to children than why are they not in jail?”

Because it is no longer politically correct to jail pedophiles.


” Secondly, whatever happened to parents actually going with their children when they went Trick or Treating to make sure they were safe?”

Because, thanks to today’s irresponsible parents, it now takes a village…


”We never let our kids go out by themselves when they were young, even last year when Aubrey was 11 she went with her older sister and a friend who were 18.”

Which proves my last point ;-)