This one is hard for me. If someone has went to jail and served their time, like any other crime, then I would say it would be to overreaching to enforce a law that says they have to stay at home and must alert everyone to what they have done.

Unfortunately this is not just another crime. The act of committing sex acts against children, especially prepubescent children, is particularly disgusting to our culture. I think most people see Child-sex offenders as having a sickness or illness that no amount of rehabilitation will curb and want to keep their children away from them. I know I would. Please don't jump down my throat, but the sickness aspect almost makes me feel a little sorry for them. If it is a part of who they are and not just a deviant act, it makes me a feel a little sad that we have no or don't provide in most cases psychiatric treatment for pedophilia. We, in order to protect our children, will always feel the need to draw a definite line in the sand between them and us. Its no wonder there are such high rates of co morbidity with depression and substance abuse in people with pedophilia regardless of whether they've committed sex offenses or not.

I'm writing a research paper on pedophilia for my psychopathology class and am a ex victim of child-sex abuse. I guess my perspective is strange.

Jess, it's a bit different b/c rehabilitation has been very little effective when it comes to sex crimes, it's more of an addiction or a habit/preference. Just think of a serial murderer. They can go to prison for 1 murder, get out after serving their crime, and can or will very probably resume the craving for murder shortly thereafter. That's why prison and confinement after release is the only option for sex offenders b/c they simply won't stop. Unlike murderers, they don't feel that their preference for children is a crime or real deviance. They aren't physically taking a life and in their minds, the child is enjoying it or is there simply for their (the offender's) pleasure. Which is why when they do get out of prison and fall out of the radar of the local sex offender's records, they are all too often seen in jobs that deal with children (like movie theaters, school janitors, carnivals or after school clubs).

However I DO think that when parents take 17-18 year old boyfriends of their kid to court and prosecute them for sleeping with their 16-17 yr old daughter, they should go through serious counseling first because while they are mad now, they are truly ruining the boy's life for good b/c it never comes off and there is no distinction among sex offenders of this nature. My mom always threatened me with doing this whenever she was upset with me or my boyfriend for sneaking out or staying out past curfew (and we were good kids!!)...b/c in FL at the time, as long as the girl was under 18, it didn't matter how old the guy was, he was still able to be taken to court (we were both 16). That kind of situation is scary!

But for serious sex offenders and pedophiles, please broadcast these pumpkins! As sad as it is, it doesn't ever stop with them. From adolescence to elderly, they'll still be drawn to sex with kids.

Every little bit counts when it comes to warning children and parents on any given day. And I don't think these pedophiles should ever complain about it. I don't care if they've served they're time out in prison or not.

Protect the children is first and formost for all caring/loving parents...forget the pedophiles feelings.

I think they gave up their rights for things like this.

I have mixed feelings about this. For one thing, I think 'sex-offenders' is too broad. A person could be on that list for being 18 while their sexual partner was 16, but I don't think we need pumpkins to warn trick or treaters about them.

Now if the pumpkins are just for people who offend against pre-pubescent children, I might feel differently. However, it still seems like they shouldn't have different rules than other criminals. Once you pay your dues to society, and once you're done with probation, I think you ought to be done with it. If they're still a danger, they shouldn't be out of prison.

The easiest way to deal with this is for parents to be responsible and not let their kids go trick or treating alone!

Mich, I have never understood the parents that let young groups of kids wander from house to house alone.

i also think they gave up their rights for what they did. But Mich. i agree that you could be on that list for being 18 and partner 16. Its tough but as a parent i would like to know if im going to any sex offender houses.

There is a certain age that kids want to go alone and it would be scary to think that they could get tricked by some of these sickos.

I think its a good thing, and i know there are probably people who will get these pumpkins who dont deserve it but I would rather someones feelings get hurt than risk any child getting hurt.

I think, for me, the right age to go alone around the neighborhood is 13. Thats when my mom let me go and i already had a good head on my shoulders. younger than that i wouldnt let them go out by themselves.

Stay away from the houses with pumpkins? Sounds tough. Maybe they should've picked something slightly less adorable to signify child rapist's home.

However, I think that if we're that afraid of these folks committing the same crime, we should extend the penalty or implement the death penalty for repeat offenders.

We know who these people are. Why don't we just round them all up and throw them in prison for the night? That way no one is confused about the pumpkins, and our children are safe.

(sarcasm)

This is a complicated issue. I don't like the idea of singling them out, but I also know I'd probably go Rambo on anyone who touches my children in an inapropriate way.

As for an 18yr old who isn't thinking, I say tough. That's the price you pay for being stupid. If you want to be considered an adult at 18, that means you have to follow the laws, and one of those laws is no sex with minors (here in WI, it's 18. I know it's 16 in other states). Being an adult means there are consequences for your actions.

UnDave, it's not that I think those 18 year olds shouldn't face consequences, I just think that making them put these pumpkins in their yard doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They aren't really a danger to children.

I think this is necessary. Sex crimes against a child is an offense that I could never forgive anyone for.

Aside from my own personal feelings about this situation, crimes against a child are different from crimes against an adult. An adult is usually in the right mindset to know what is right from wrong and is able to perceive "danger". A child is too young and naive to understand this, including a 13 year old, and let's face it there are alot of 13 year olds running around trick-or-treating by themselves.

I do however wonder if sex offenders must do this for every year for the rest of their lives or just for a period of years after they have been released from prison? I think it's particularly necessary to have this done for at least a decade out of prison.

My sister at the age of 16 was getting stalked when she was was trick-or-treating one year. They ran into somebody's home and immediately called the police and apparently the police had gotten several calls similiar to hers from other parents/kids in that area. creeepyyy.

They may not be, but if this is the price that they have to pay for their actions, they need to accept that.

That doesn't really make sense, Dave. I'm not even sure I like the measures, but certainly the only justification for it is to protect children. If children aren't in any danger, why would you waste everybody's time and energy to enforce the law? Perhaps this law should be narrowed so that only a certain class of sex offenders has to comply.

Ditto to Mich. Does anyone know if there are "levels" of sex offenders, or if the pumpkin rule applies to everyone?

Mich - What don't you understand? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

There aren't levels. I don't think there should be. If you harm even one kid, that's too many. Also, how do you decide what the levels are? You hurt a teenager, so, that's ok. You hurt a preteen, so you get the max. It doesn't matter that both kids are now scarred for life? Where and who draws the lines as to what is less of a crime? That's a very slippery slope, and I personally don't like to have the legal system on any kind of slope.

Undave and Mich-Your arguments are the problem with this law. Who do we mark with a pumpkin? Those who molested tots of trick or treating age, or everyone who falls under the sex offender category? It seems to me to be more trouble than it is worth. I also have a problem with marking peoples homes who have already served their time for a crime. Regardless of the disgusting nature of that crime.

I will be taking my two children trick or treating, walking to the door with them as they go house to house. If I want to, I can go to the sex offender registry in my state and find out if any sex offenders live in the neighborhood where we will be trick or treating. I know it isn't always accurate, but it is an option. Children who may be at an age where they are susceptible to being abducted by a sex offender should be trick or treating with their parents. Not out wandering the streets past dark alone.

An 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex they consent to but their parents might not should not be considered a crime. The laws are unrealistic in that case.

I meant unreasonable not unrealistic.

The laws around sex offences are to broad and they should have "romeo/juliet" laws in every state when kids are in the same high school and they have sex with each other that should not be a crime regardless of age..teens having sex with teens is not a legal issue it's a parental issue and should be handled as such. However since the law is what is is if the terms of your parole are not to be in xyz amount of feet from children then it makes sense for an offender to have the sign up,because not to do so and open the door for children would be a violation of their parole so in some ways its protecting the offender ( I know weird). My issue with this is that the "offender" is not allowed outside on Halloween you cannot jail a person for a second time in this way, I mean doesn't the offender venture out everyday into the world isn't' there always a possibility of them coming in to some sort of contact with children?

People turn 18 in high school and I find it hard to believe that anyone who attends high school is an adult regardless of their age. I think a 15 year old in a relationship with and 18 year old high school student is in a relationship with an intellectual equal in most cases unless this person actually commits rape and not statutory rape this person will never be a real "sex offender" in my book regardless of that the law says.

Actually there are levels of sex offenders dependant on the state, however most of the rules are the same. The levels just denote if you are a statutory rapist, full fledged predator, or repeat offender.

I might agree basty, but then do we change the age to 19? I understand that most of the people charged with "statutory" may not be real sex offenders, but some are. I just think we need to have more accountability in this great country. If you want to be considered an adult, act like one. If that means you can't have sex with your girlfriend if she isn't old enough, then don't. It's not that difficult.

I think some 18 year olds in high school who live at home with mommy and daddy do think they are adults but in a lot of cases they are wrong I mean they can vote and go to war, but they can't rent a car among other things and no I don't think most 19 year olds are adults either for the most part. For the most part this is a parenting issue not a sex crime issue. I think that each state needs to reassess the ages and in most cases raise them. And of course some 18 year olds are rapist but they are usually rapist in the real sense of the word.

This is a perfect case of someone being railroaded by bad laws ( race played a part in this too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia

When I was 18, I could rent a car. Then they changed the age to 21, the month after I turne 21. I almost expected them to change the age to 25 when I turned 25, I lobbied hard for that, but alas, they didn't listen to me on that one....

Cant wait till the ACLU gets rid of crap like this.

A necessary (albeit imperfect) evil.
Better to err to the side of caution than risk the well beings of innocent children.

It doesn't matter if they served their time...if they have a history of committing criminal acts against children then they should mark their door.

The only real arguement here is weather or not the rule applies to all sex offenders or only sex offenders who assulted a child with out consent.

Agreed. Allegedly it only applies to "violent and child-sex offenders"

It depends on the offense. I do think that, for the safety of children who might be wandering about unsupervised (or lightly supervised) that night, a warning could be useful on the homes of violent offenders and pedophiles. I think that as far as a class of crimes go, sex crimes aren't just one-time offenses like vandalism or punching some guy at a bar--they indicate a deeper problem that may (probably does, considering recidivism rates) not have been solved during incarceration, and children's safety comes first.

With that being said, parents themselves have to make sure their children understand what the signs mean, and take them seriously.

Undave- would you prosecute two minors who had sex with each other, below the age of consent? It sounds silly, but in Arizona two minors cannot legally have sex with each other, and though it is rare, people have been prosecuted for this as sex offenders. You can still be guilty of having sex with a minor, even if you are a minor.

And the point is, these people HAVE done their time! Even murderers are completely free after they have done their time. With sexual predators who target young children, rehabilitation is not very successful, and children are especially vulnerable victims, for obvious reasons. The pumpkins, and similar post-"time served" restrictions are really supposed to protect the kids, not serve as a further punishment for the offenders (as vile as they may be). In my opinion, if they do incidentally punish the offenders, it is worth it as long as the restrictions are reasonable and do protect children.

Since these restrictions aren't supposed to be punishment- they are aimed at warning about dangerous people who cannot be rehabilitated- a pragmatic concern. This concern certainly does not apply to some idiot frat boy who was caught streaking during a rush event, and is now considered a "sex offender," so that is why I was interested in knowing if there is an official way to distinguish between people with a known history of sex abuse against kids and people who don't have that history.

haven't ever really thought about it before but I think that its a good idea and an extra safty measure for both the kids and offenders whos problem is an inablilty to control themselves and this helps to eliminate the temptation and there are different levels of sex offenders, at least here, you can be considered a sex offender for peeing in a park if there are kids around and ya there are flaws with the idea- its not like you can't just take the pumpkin down- but i think that if the program keeps just one kid from being harmed then its totally worth, tough sh*t for the sex offender

I agree with Berlin. "it's more of an addiction or a habit/preference. Just think of a serial murderer. They can go to prison for 1 murder, get out after serving their crime, and can or will very probably resume the craving for murder shortly thereafter. "

Depends on the sex offender but for many rapists and child molesters that is the sad reality for them. Their attraction to children or urge to rape is what a 25 year old man would feel for a 25 year old female. So how can you supress that forever except take their temptations away? I think its a good idea.

they gave up their rights

they gave up their rights

snowbunny are you serious? wow so both the boy and the girl would be accused of mutually raping each other?!?

And I do agree with this measure. It has been shown that sex offenders have the lowest re-habilitation rate, basically that no matter how much you punish, counsel, or even chemically castrate them they will go back to their crimes because it is a compulsion for them. It is a sickness, basically, a mental illness with very grave consequences. And while we can feel sorry for them we do have to protect our children.