Sex offenders want the right to have kids visit on Halloween

Rate this post

There is nothing more sacred than the innocence of children.  I have not one nice word to say about anyone who would harm a child.  This article boils my blood…

Sex Offenders Sue to Overturn Simi Valley Halloween Restrictions

NBC Los Angeles: An attorney representing five Simi Valley sex offenders who sued the city over limits to their Halloween activities said the lawsuit will be the first of several she expects to file over such restrictions.

Lawyer Janice Bellucci heads the 18-month-old advocacy group California Reform Sex Offender Laws. On Friday, she filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that Simi Valley’s ordinance violates her clients’ First Amendment rights.

The suit seeks a judge’s order prohibiting enforcement of the ordinance in Simi Valley, which has 119 registered sex offenders, according to a city report. Bellucci is representing five unnamed sex offenders, three of their spouses and two minor children, she said.

The ordinance, adopted Sept. 10, prohibits registered sex offenders in the Ventura County city of about 125,000 from displaying Halloween decorations, answering the door to trick-or-treaters or having outside lighting after dark on Oct. 31.

Simi Valley councilman and LAPD officer Mike Judge said the law is modeled after similar Halloween laws enforced in other California cities, and is meant to protect children. “This law was generated by citizens asking the City Council to do something,” Judge said. “And it didn’t seem unreasonable for the City Council to take it up. As far as I’m concerned, our law doesn’t go as far as other laws in the state of California and it still, in our opinion, protects our children a little bit better than not having it.”

Registered sex offenders are also required to post signs with on their front doors reading, in 1-inch letters, “No candy or treats at this residence.” Those offenders visible to the public on the state’s Megan’s Law website and convicted of a crime against a child are required to post the sign.

Bellucci said the sign-posting requirement was “particularly egregious.”We consider that to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution,” Bellucci said Tuesday. The ordinance both imposes “forced speech” – the sign – and restricts speech by prohibiting Halloween celebrations, she said. “It’s similar to Jews in Nazi Germany who had to wear the yellow star on their clothing,” Bellucci said.

The Simi Valley measure is part of a trend of increasing strict restrictions on the activities of convicted sex offenders who have “paid their debt to society,” Bellucci said. Her organization intends to begin filing lawsuits to challenge other statutes, she said.

The office of Simi Valley City Attorney Marjorie Baxter said the city had not been served with Bellucci’s complaint, so it had no comment as of Tuesday afternoon. Baxter was quoted in the Ventura County Star, which first reported on the lawsuit, as saying: “We thoroughly researched the ordinance and I don’t feel the lawsuit has any merit, and we will defend it vigorously.”

At an Aug. 20 initial City Council hearing on the ordinance, a deputy city attorney told council members that “traditional trick or treat activities associated with Halloween provide have the potential to provide significant opportunities for sex offenders to victimize minors.”

Just trying to keep kids safe…

Council members at that time expressed some concern about legal repercussions, as well as worries that residents who decide not to decorate will be thought by neighbors to be sex offenders.

The police chief told the council that he could find no records of a sex crime against a child on Halloween in Simi Valley. Those who are convicted of violating the ordinance would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to six months in county jail, according to a city staff report.


Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Sex offenders want the right to have kids visit on Halloween

  1. Sex offenders should never be let out of jail……

  2. Homeschool Mama

    So, in this country, we ID for ciggarettes in order to protect children, but will allow them to walk in the dark, disguised in costume, to the front door of a known molester that is holding out candy. Things that make you go “hmmm”.

  3. Sure lunacy. Janice Belluci should be disbarred, and any judge who would issue the order requested by Belluci’s convicted sex-molester clients should have his/her name plastered all over the Internet.

  4. Fortunately, most parents can access lists and locations of sex offenders and steer clear of their homes, regardless of what a headline grabbing lawyer does and says. The thing that puts my tail in a twist is the complete waste of money and time for something that should be a non-issue. A person convicted as a sex offender should accept their fate and shut up, seeing as how it’s just about the very worst crime on the books.

  5. these people are no good to society or themselves. I am not a bleeding heart. They should be done away with. With dna now,if convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, they should die for this crime. Slowly. You cannot tell me it there were a definite consequence for this, that they would not think twice before committing such a terrible crime. As for all of these sick twisted judges,they need to go too. I believe this crime goes right straight to many politicians and judges. They will soon find out they are not above the law.

  6. Thank you DCG for this informative post. However, I am sure that City Attorney Baxter will immediately file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, once she is properly served, and indeed prevail. This lawsuit is ludicrous!

  7. “…“It’s similar to Jews in Nazi Germany who had to wear the yellow star on their clothing,” Bellucci said.”

    Her quote is a “straw man” logical fallacy. The Jews in Nazi Germany were forced to wear a sign of their cultural and religious identity–not as a result of a crime they had committed. The difference here is that Jews were innocent and pedophiles are felons. Drawing a moral equivalency between the two scenarios illustrates another liberal mindset–the individual is not responsible for his behavior because they he has been victimized by: (select one or more):
    1. Their past
    2. Racism
    3. Sexism
    4. A “hate” crime
    5. The banking and financial system
    6. Intolerance by religious organizations
    7. Corporations
    8. Exposure to toxic chemicals
    9. Climate change
    10. Impure foods
    11. Second hand smoke
    12. Unfair immigration policy
    13. Imperialistic foreign policy
    14. Poor self esteem
    15. Homophobia
    16. Hurtful speech
    17. A vast right wing conspiracy
    18. The educational system
    20. The police
    21. The military
    23. Sexual repression
    24. Sexual exploitation
    25. Pharmaceutical companies
    Not being able to use pharmaceutical company products for recreational use
    26. Smoking tobacco
    27. Not being able to smoke marijuana
    28. Fascists or neo-Fascists
    29. Colonialism
    30. Zionism or anything remotely having to do with traditional Judaism
    31. Free markets
    32. Capitalism
    33. Someone else not paying their ” fair share” of taxes
    34. Insufficient government regulation of [ insert any noun here]
    35. Being deprived of one’s aboriginal or native culture

  8. I have read multiple versions of the same story, and I have to say, this sight has truly saddened me, this is also my first comment on this story. Why? Because I am a staunch, die-hard conservative, a husband, a father and a patriot. I am also a registered, NOT COVICTED sex offender. I could go into long detail on the subject, but for the sake of simplicity, I will put it this way: I was NOT convicticted of a crime that I believe upwards of 80% of male America is guilty of; at 18, I had consensual sex with a girl who lied about her age (she was 15). Truth be told, had she been 3 months older, or I, 3 months younger, under my states laws, the relationship would have been perfectly legal. If I receive a response to my post, I will gladly go into further dialogue (as long as we can dialogue as adults), but for now, enough about me.

    I believe that while Mrs. bellucci’s comparison of the Holocaust to the modern day Scarlett Letter is in accurate, the HEART of her argument is actually, ASTOUNDLY (and Horrifingly) on point: in 1926, when Hitler first came into power, one of his first orders of change dealt with sex crimes. At the time, under the German Penal Code, there were two acts that could classify one as sex criminal; homosexuality and beastiality. Under certain, extreme circumstances, sex with a minor COULD be considered a MISDEMEANOR sexual offense, but largely, they were ignored. As Hitler ascended, he had the German Penal Code modified to include 20-something (forgive me, I don’t recollect the exact number) offenses. Now, I don’t necessarily disagree with this, I’m simply pointing out a similarity. Prior to 1994, in the USA, there WERE 20- something offenses that were considered sex crimes. Since the passing of the Patty Wetterling Act to thour current legislation, the Adam Walsh Act, the list has been extended to 189 criminal acts (it is noteworthy to mention that is actually more than the number of sexual positions in the Kama Sutra). And there is similarity number 1.

    On to similarity number 2: Just about anyone that has ANY knowledge of Hitler’s Germany knows of the Jews being forced to wear the yellow Star of David on their sleeve. What most people are completely UNaware of is that prior to and during the wearing of that mark, there were others. One such mark was the inverted pink triangle, which let everyone know you we’re a sex criminal (this is where Belluci should have made her point, because it would be historically accurate, and would prove a valid point). The point of MY argument, and in defense of Belluci (who, by the way, votes Republican) is this:

    Hitler started with a group of people who were universally dispised, and extended his unfettered reach onto a group of innocent people simply because he could.

    Our US Constitution protects ALL of us FROM our government USURPING the power of The People for itself. With the sex offender legislation written in the last 20 years, our government has done JUST THAT. I will use myself as an example. When I accepted my sentence, it was agreed upon by myself and the court, that I would have to register for 10 years. 6 years later, in comes the AWA, which extended it to 25 years, (breach of contract), which is a blatant violation of EX-post-facto clause of our constitution. To illustrate how this could be furthered into a police-state, imagine you were caught speeding. You are issued a citation, you pay the citation, and the case is closed. Now, 6 years later, you recie be a letter in the mail telling you your license is suspended be cause you are speeder (even though you haven’t had an infraction since) and it is suspended for the next 10 years, and there’s NOTHING you can do about it. Under the law, there is no due-process. You MUST accept your NEW sentence without question. During that 10 year period, countless studies are conducted, all of which are ignored, but because politicians want to appear tough on “speeders”, the suspension is now extended to 20 years, and you MUST go and REAPPLY to have your license plate exchanged for a “red plate”, which lets drivers around you know that you are a speeder. Do you see where I’m going with this? Now if you’re saying to yourself, “this is absurd, you can’t compare a sexual deviant to a traffic infraction”, ask yourself, “why not?” Once our leglislature decides to abandon the constitution for ONE group of people, what’s to stopping them from extending it to all? I am saddened to see my fellow conservatives be DUPED into believing this is “for the children”. This is about POPULATION CONTROL, and it starts with the sex offenders.

    Hitler felt this way, and for the most part, the people agreed with him. The constitution is a whole and sacred document, and once OUR government decides it can trample on PART of it, and the people allow it, then what’s to stop the runaway train?

    Again, I was not convicted. Because of this, I retained ALL my rights, which is to say, while I am SOOO dangerous, that my photo, my address, my vehicles are posted online, for all to see, I am STILL a registered gun owner (I renew my CCW every year), a voter, and eligible for jury duty. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of being in my situation?

    As a father and husband, I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY understand and AGREE with the need to protect our women and children, I simply believe we are going about it all wrong. I disagree with trampling on our constitution, writing laws that simply can’t be enforced (including this one, and I’ll explain further if asked) and laws that provide society a placebo, a false sense of security as opposed to a REAL answer, and laws that, to put it frankly, actually make it easier for the REAL predators to harm our children (and yes, our current laws can ACTUALLY make it easier to abduct and and harm children, see the statement made by Patty Wetterling and John Walsh regarding the AWA; in short, they find it over reaching and overly broad, and these are the very people the laws are named after!

    We need to get SMART on crime and away from “tough on crime”.

    Thank you for you consideration,
    Damian, proud Republican
    Romney/Ryan 2012!!
    We CAN take America back!

    • Damian,

      The difference between your case (as you tell us) and the sex offenders whom Belluci champion is one word: CONVICTED. You were accused; they had been CONVICTED.

      I also propose another distinction should be made — that between “sex offenders against adults” and “convicted pedophiles.” No one cares if ACCUSED sex offenders who committed consensual or nonconsensual sex with adults live near kindergartens and grade schools or have kids “trick or treat” at their homes on Halloween. Given the shockingly high rate of recidivism of CONVICTED PEDOPHILES, I will have to choose the prophylactic protection of children over the CONVICTED PEDOPHILES’ “civil rights.”

      • Dr. Eowyn,

        The only reason I was not convicted is because the court chose to show me leniency. It had everything needed to find me guilty, and was indeed guilty. In fact, I plead guilty at the plea hearing.

        There were mitigating factors involved (close in age, isolated incidence, the act was consensual), that is why I never went to prison, however I am listed on the registry right next to the worst of the worst. I spent 10 months in jail, and had to go through and still am going through most of the hurdles convicted offenders have to go through.

        As for your proposal, it is already “kinda” in affect. At least in my state it is. We don’t use the “traditional” Tier system (level 1,2,3), instead one is listed as either sex offender or sexual predator. The latter being the worst of the worst and basically EITHER molested or raped a child under 13 (capital offenses), or has been convicted of multiple sex offenses. So for the most part, in my state, it’s fairly easy to tell who the real dangers are. We’re I take issue and offense are that most people (yourself included based on your last post), see the term Sex Offender as being synonymous with a pedophile, which not always true.

        As for your last statement, if your referring to actual pedophiles, then I mostly agree with you, however I believe could accomplish the same without violating their rights: incarcerate indefinitely, then we wouldn’t need a registry. As it stands, they (or even we as I have to include myself as a S.O.) are given limited freedom, which is an oxymoron. I believe if a person is THAT dangerous, hold them. Otherwise, do the crime, pay the fine, do the time, then move on.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.