How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters?: An Analysis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween

Halloween has never proved one of my favorite holidays.

Certainly as a kid, yes. But I must be one of the few adults who prefers a movie over the macabre because over the years, the true October surprise (IMHO) is the morphing of this larger than life holiday into a favorite second only to Christmas.

For those who love Halloween, yet prove restricted to participation, take heart with the latest research. As taxpayers living in a skeletal economy, this study also raises discussion of how police could be better utilized on this holiday, since RSO family or not, we and our neighbors continue to foot the law enforcement bill.

As reported by TODAY, 10/30/2009:

Sex offenders not a Halloween scare for kids...
Study shows that children are not in extra danger while trick-or-treating

(...)

A new study shows that the public has little to fear from sex offenders on Halloween. The research, published in the September issue of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, examined 67,307 non-family sex offenses reported to law enforcement in 30 states over nine years.

The researchers wanted to determine whether or not children are in fact at any greater risk for sexual assault around Halloween. The answer was a conclusive no:

"There does not appear to be a need for alarm concerning sexual abuse on these particular days," the researchers state. "Halloween appears to be just another autumn day where rates of sex crimes against children are concerned."

Not only is the hype and fear unwarranted, but the study also suggests extra taxpayer dollars spent monitoring sex offenders on Halloween are wasted. All the mandatory counseling sessions, increased police presence, and so on had no effect at all on the incidence of sexual abuse on Halloween.

---TODAY, 10/30/2009

Listen to the podcast

(SEX ABUSE Chaffin et al. 21: 363)
here.

Dr. Jill Levenson, Lynn University and Detective Robert Schilling, Seattle Police Department are interviewed.

• States, municipalities, and parole departments have adopted policies banning known sex offenders from Halloween activities, based on the worry that there is unusual risk on these days. The existence of this risk has not been empirically established. National Incident-Base Reporting System crime report data from 1997 through 2005 were used to examine daily population adjusted rates from 67,045 nonfamilial sex crimes against children aged 12 years and less. Halloween rates were compared with expectations based on time, seasonality, and weekday periodicity. Rates did not differ from expectation, no increased rate on or just before Halloween was found, and Halloween incidents did not evidence unusual case characteristics. Findings were invariant across years, both prior to and after these policies became popular. These findings raise questions about the wisdom of diverting law enforcement resources to attend to a problem that does not appear to exist.

SEX ABUSE, Vol. 21, No. 3, 363-374 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1079063209340143

Read

How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters?:An Anaylsis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween in its entirety here.

Mark Chaffin
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK

Jill Levenson
Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida

Elizabeth Letourneau
Medical University of South Carolina Family Services Research Center,
Charleston, SC

Paul Stern
Snohomish County Prosecutors Office, Everett, WA

(...)

It might be argued that Halloween sex offender policies are worthwhile even if
they prevent only a single child from being victimized. However, this line of reasoning
fails to consider the cost side of the cost–benefit equation. The wide net cast by Halloween laws places some degree of burden on law enforcement officers whose time would otherwise be allocated to addressing more probable dangerous events. For example, a particularly salient threat to children on Halloween comes from motor vehicle accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 years are four times more likely to be killed in a pedestrian–motor vehicle accident on Halloween than on any other day of the year (Centers for Disease Control, 1997). Regarding criminal activity on Halloween, alcohol-related offenses and vandalism are particularly common (Siverts, 2002). Although we do not know the precise amount of law enforcement resources
consumed by Halloween sex offender policies, it will be important for policy makers
to estimate and consider allocation of resources in light of the actual increased risks that exist in other areas, such as pedestrian–vehicle fatalities. Our findings indicated
that sex crimes against children by nonfamily members account for 2 out of every
1,000 Halloween crimes, calling into question the justification for diverting law
enforcement resources away from more prevalent public safety concerns.

(...)

As the Crow Flies

Don't be surprised if the next law pitched targets public school transportation.

Somer Thompson had some walk to and from school. Many have been surprised at the distance and questioned why the young girl didn't ride a bus.

Most school systems do not provide transportation to those who live within two miles of the school...and that's how the crow flies. Whatever straight line the school system chooses to use--through woods, wetlands or farmlands--that flying crow is the decider.

That being said, parents of children living within the no-bus zone--who heavily pursue transport for their kids--can sometimes pay to have their kids picked up and delivered home.

As those dollars add up quickly, many parents choose a more common sense approach.

They walk with the kids to and from school.

If parents are employed, those children are often transported via a day care facility.

For those with kids walking to and from school--even a short distance--what might best honor the memory of Somer Thompson is to sit down with your children and review safety rules. Think about including possible safe places located along the route home where a child could seek help, for whatever reason. (Years ago, I remember Florida 7/11 convenience stores sported a huge yellow Safe Place sign in the front window).

It just makes sense.

Can We Better Search for Missing Children?

Procedures kicked in for persons registered as sex offenders after 7-year-old Somer Thomspon went missing earlier this week.

At this time, investigators indicate that questioning of the 161 offenders living in the 5-mile radius of where the child lived has led to the conclusion that none were involved in what is now considered a homicide. (Read more here).

I remember another sad situation where police immediately used the registry as a source to plot a dragnet, only to tragically learn during the search that the two missing boys had hidden in the trunk of a car during some sort of game. Both were discovered dead.

My hopes are that police involved in the search knocked on every single door in this child's neighborhood, not just those that the press prays may be involved. To assume 161 people out of who knows how many living in that five-mile radius rate as the prime possible suspects would prove a travesty.

For the child to disappear so quickly on a walk home from school, my guess is the poor thing knew the person(s) who may be involved, which--sad to relate at such a difficult time for those who loved Somer so--is research-proven.

Police are not releasing details of the autopsy. Also disturbing.

Something just isn't ringing true.....

Our thoughts are with the family.

Pawlenty Flat Screens MSOP TVs

I can see why Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is busy figuratively pulling the plug on the "...two dozen 50-inch flat-screen TVs from a Moose Lake sex offender treatment program...", 25 TVs for $1,500 apiece, $700 for each individual mounting bracket.

This program is costing Minnesota taxpayers 67 million dollars annually.

I'm certain the resale of the televisions in question will recoup some of the costs accrued back in 2008.

• Taxpayers have spent at least a half-billion dollars on the MSOP and the commitment system feeding it, but the program can't point to the successful treatment of a single offender.

• Each "patient" costs taxpayers $134,000 a year -- three times the amount state prisons spend to treat sex offenders. Yet the state has only about 300 adult treatment beds in prison, while the MSOP has plans to double its 400-bed capacity.

• The MSOP deals with less than 3 percent of Minnesota's 20,000 predatory offenders but consumes more than half of what the state spends yearly to control and track them.

• The MSOP's budget, which has tripled since 2004, is more than seven times the amount the state spends to monitor the 3,500 sex offenders on probation. The state spends less to keep 31 offenders on electronic home monitoring each year than it does to keep just one offender in the MSOP.

"It's just an awful lot of taxpayer money for what we're getting,'' said Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, chair of the budget division of the Health and Human Services Committee, which oversees the program's funding. "We've cut everything else in God's green Earth, but we've spent a lot of new resources on this group. They go in but they don't come out."

Ratcheting up

The MSOP was created to treat small numbers of the state's worst sex criminals. But the killing of Sjodin prompted officials to begin committing soon-to-be-released prisoners at a much higher rate, from an average of 15 per year before 2003 to 50 per year since.

That same year, Gov. Tim Pawlenty prohibited releases not required by law or court order. His order came after then-Attorney General and eventual gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch accused the administration of planning releases to save money.

(...)

Pawlenty declined to discuss the program with the Star Tribune. The governor's order barring releases remains in effect, Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said late last month.

(...)

Locked in Limbo, The Star-Tribune (9/16/2008)

The ban is still in effect and the costs continue to rise. Read more about Difficult Decisions over at Change Happens: the SAFER Blog.

The Law Visits the Frog

While watching the silver mushroom of a mylar balloon scream across the sky like some sort of flimsy space capsule, I thought to myself, if we all find out that kid is safe at home with his grandmother, I'll freakin' scream.

Just the lilt of the trajectory caused even the most novice of space geeks to figure the craft was nothing more than a kite pulled free.

Well, as the story played out, I got the home part right. And the boy was safe, that's what really mattered. My aggravation stems from a couple of kids who went missing recently in my neck of the woods, both on the very same day.

Guess where both turned up?

You got it. Each had been picked up by a grandparent who--for God knows what reason--didn't bother to communicate such with the parents.

And guess what kicks in when a kid goes missing and your family member's name is listed on a very special dance card?

Procedures.

Two very efficient police officers show up on your front doorstep. The pounding on the door is followed by a flashlight beaming through the front window.

After opening the door, both inquire after your loved one and ask they step outside.

When did you arrive home from work? Been driving around since? Who's that who answered the door? Can she verify the time you arrived home? Mind asking her to step outside?

Is there a problem, officer?

No ma'am, just like to ask what time your family member arrived home?

(We don't punch a time clock here flashed through my brain, but these guys, well, they appeared two moves from cuffing somebody and dragging them off to jail, thus ensuring that your mug shot will hit the online local and any semblance of life managed to be salvaged after the first (and only) tango with the law is totally--and quite possibly--forever screwed).

I gave my answer and got the look. You know, the we-are-sizing-up-if-you-are-telling-a-bald-face-lie look. Or could've been both were checking out my Martin Kiar red campaign tee-shirt, which in retrospect, was sort of like waving a crimson cape in front of two extremely testy bulls.

My answer proved acceptable. With a nod, they head off.

I couldn't resist. Sure there isn't a problem?

No ma'am. Have a nice evening.

Maybe one night, I'll do just that.

Until then, back into the shadows, waiting for the next knock on the front door because some family somewhere didn't bother to pick up a cell phone to confirm child care arrangements.

Democratic AG Hopefuls Play the Julia Tuttle Fear Card

Over the weekend, Dem vs Dem squared off over issues facing Florida and when the focus turned to crime, I'm uncertain as to which Attorney General hopeful threw human rights under the bridge best...state Senator Dave Aronberg or state Senator Dan Gelber.

As reported by The Daily Loaf: (10/12/2009)

(...)

Being Attorney General means being the state’s top law enforcement officer, which means these Democrats certainly want to prove their toughness. They did that when discussing child predators. Both referenced the situation that exists in Miami at the Julia Tuttle Causeway, which over the past two years has become a colony for homeless sexual predators.

Aronberg said he couldn’t imagine a “less safe situation than having an army of homeless, angry sex offenders roaming the streets. This is dangerous. This is putting everybody at risk,” he said.

Gelber was equally uncharitable, saying he recently checked out the camp, “because they all claim to be ‘Romeo-and- Juliet’ cases”(that is a teenager over 18 having sex with somebody under 18). “Almost every single one of them was a 40 or 50 year old guy who has done something absolutely unspeakable to a child under the age of 11. That’s who they are.”

Funny. That's not what Gelber said this past summer.

Let's take a look back, shall we?

LiveLeak (July 2009)

(...)

Even some staunch supporters of residency restrictions have expressed misgivings after witnessing the chaos the ordinances sow. Florida state Sen. Dan Gelber, whose district is home to the Julia Tuttle camp, is adamant about the 2,500-foot rule. A father of three, he recently learned, to his dismay, that a registered sex offender who lived six doors down from him was arrested for masturbating in front of some children. Despite his hardline stance, however, Gelber was aghast at what he observed in his first visit to the bridge in early July--the density of the encampment, the sordid conditions. "There has to be another way," he says...

On second thought, I'd say Gelber did a better job dissing human rights. My guess is neighbor Ron Book keeps him fairly well-versed on Bookville, the unofficial name of the colony which bears the lobbyist's name.

FYI, Senator Gelber. Not everyone under the JT is designated a "predator" by the state of Florida. Next debate, try fact-checking the state registry.

Sir.

Social Epidemics

The recent closing of the Georgia offender camp may be much more than an official act by local law enforcement.

Malcolm Gladwell--author of The Tipping Point--offers the following on social epidemics:

"...epidemics behave in a very unusual and counterintuitive way. Think, for a moment, about an epidemic of measles in a kindergarten class. One child brings in the virus. It spreads to every other child in the class in a matter of days. And then, within a week or so, it completely dies out and none of the children will ever get measles again. That's typical behavior for epidemics: they can blow up and then die out really quickly, and even the smallest change -- like one child with a virus -- can get them started. My argument is that it is also the way that change often happens in the rest of the world. Things can happen all at once, and little changes can make a huge difference. That's a little bit counterintuitive. As human beings, we always expect everyday change to happen slowly and steadily, and for there to be some relationship between cause and effect. And when there isn't -- when crime drops dramatically in New York for no apparent reason, or when a movie made on a shoestring budget ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars -- we're surprised. I'm saying, don't be surprised. This is the way social epidemics work."

(...)

"...I'm convinced that ideas and behaviors and new products move through a population very much like a disease does. This isn't just a metaphor, in other words. I'm talking about a very literal analogy...ideas can be contagious in exactly the same way that a virus is."

(...)

"...The virtue of an epidemic, after all, is that just a little input is enough to get it started, and it can spread very, very quickly. That makes it something of obvious and enormous interest to everyone from educators trying to reach students, to businesses trying to spread the word about their product, or for that matter to anyone who's trying to create a change with limited resources."

Read how to start your own social epidemic via The Tipping Point here.

Sex Offenders Losing Their Religion?

Heard an interesting local reaction to the lawsuit filed in North Carolina which disallows those persons forced to register as sex offenders from attending church.

Or as Sara Totonchi, policy director for the Southern Center for Human Rights, calls such practice, "...criminalizing religion."

As the podcast plays, notice how the tune of the conservative radio commentator morphs under the education provided by the online guest.

Lots of work yet to do--especially as the "high recidivism rate" continues to be cited as the talking point of choice anytime education regarding the truth begins to fill the void, but the following commentary is light years from where the general public was on the issue just one year ago here in my neck of the Florida scrub.

Listen pre-guest here and on-air guest here.

Contact information for those wishing to provide the latest research to this chameleon of commentator can be found here.

Out-age on HBO

Outrage debuts wide scale on HBO this week, asking us to consider whether gay politicians who work against gay rights should be outed.

They fight against same-sex marriage. They fight against funding for AIDS research. They fight against adoption by gay parents. Are they fighting against themselves? Award-winning filmmaker Kirby Dick (HBO's Oscar®-nominated "Twist of Faith") takes a look at the hypocrisy of closeted politicians who continually vote against gay rights and actively campaign against the LGBT community they covertly belong to. (HBO, 10/6/2009)

I'm uncertain as to how I feel about the premise of the film.

Although this Frog is the first to publicly skewer a politician living the life of do as I say, not as I do, it's more about the Mark Foley-ization of those elected officials who go after the easy vote from their seat high upon their moral laurels, only to jump off after hours in drop of the facade.

With Foley--as the former co-Chair on the Committee for Missing and Exploited Children--his influence and impact to develop and pass child protection legislation eventually applied to everyone but Mr. Foley, once the congressman found himself highlighted in very public disgrace.

Additionally, everyone knew Foley was gay. And out.

But for those who are not and work the rope line of a double life, should they be outed when working against gay rights?

Or outed--much like their straight brethren, aka Ensign, Edwards, Sanford--for the straight-up character flaw of not coming clean with their constituency?

In my situation--after what has been inflicted upon my family--I'd use anything I had to underscore the hypocrisy of this country's sex offender laws.

Meaning, I guess I do know how I feel. You just can't have it both ways. Yet, I remain uncomfortable with my insight as I am not a member of the gay community.

Newsweek, The Case about Outing Politicians (October 5, 2009)

(...)

"...the film’s core argument—that closeted gay politicians should be outed—is still at issue. The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him. We live in a democracy, and everyone gets a vote, including bigots and homophobes, and they get to be represented as well. Now, it’s fair to suggest that the voting public has the right to know everything about their elected officials, including their personal lives. But if we knew the details of what everyone was doing and voted accordingly, who would we have to vote for? Political scandals over the years, ones that have nothing to do with homosexuality, have proven that most politicians have skeletons they keep. If a gay man wants to run for governor of a socially conservative state, because he has terrific ideas on how to reduce crime, balance the budget, or bring new jobs to his state, should he put his sexuality front and center and risk going down to defeat? There’s a valid argument for both sides of that question, but Outrage pretends there isn’t. If you’re gay, the film suggests, then fighting for gay rights must always be job one, and anything less is an unforgivable betrayal.

Outrageous? Or right on the Mark? :)

The Books on the Julia Tuttle Causeway

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the following spin by the Book Ends is the new soft sell to Florida lawmakers in their continued joint push for an increase in statewide residency restrictions from the present 1000 to 1750 feet from where children congregate.

Read on.

(...)

Lauren Book walks among grimy tents, wooden shanties, cardboard boxes, rusty cars and piles of garbage. On this day, it's quiet under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, except for the deafening drone of cars and trucks barreling over the bridge above.

(...)

What is remarkable about Book's visits to this world of outcasts is that for six years, starting when she was 11, she was a victim of sexual abuse. She later embarked on a legislative crusade against sex offenders, lobbying the state Legislature with her father, Ron Book, one of Florida's most powerful lobbyists, to enact stricter laws against convicted molesters.

The legal frenzy prompted local communities to enact more restrictive laws, creating an international public embarrassment over the bridge's rodent-infested squalor in the shadow of Miami Beach. At one point it was home to almost 100 sex offenders.

Lauren Book, 24, now realizes that forcing predators to live in inhumane conditions will not protect children; in fact, she fears it may do the opposite.

"It's a terrible situation under there, it is awful," she admits. "I don't think them living under a bridge or absconding keeps children safe. I don't want them so desperate that they go out and find a child."

(...)

The traumatic experience left the Book family frustrated with the state's failure to protect children by better monitoring sex offenders.

The state already had banned sex offenders and predators from living within 1,000 feet of areas where children congregate, like schools and playgrounds. But the dynamic duo -- a heavyweight lobbyist and his petite young daughter with a harrowing story of abuse -- helped persuade politicians across South Florida to set stricter perimeters of 2,500 feet.

The Books now admit that the restrictive boundaries had unintended consequences: it banished many predators from living in almost every city and town.

'There are places'

Ron Book, however, is unapologetic, and still believes molesters should be prohibited from living 1,750 to 2,500 feet of where children play.
"Residency restrictions do work," says Ron Book, who, as executive director of the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust, has helped find homes for about half the people under the bridge. "If you look, there are places for them to live."

The first time Lauren Book visited the encampment under the bridge it was in a torrential downpour. She remembers driving away with her windows down and the rain falling.
"You can't really understand what it's like unless you go there. You can't capture it in words or pictures. Being there, hearing it, seeing it, smelling it -- it's all part of understanding the situation under the Julia Tuttle Causeway."

At the time, she was a member of a Broward County task force examining residency restrictions for sex offenders and she believed she needed to see the conditions to be more knowledgeable about the issue.

She concedes that the visit was difficult.

"I can tell them, 'I really don't condone anything you've done . . . but I don't think you should be living under a bridge.' ''

(...)

But make no mistake: Lauren Book has no sympathy for sexual predators and offenders, especially those who argue that they served their time, and therefore, they should not have to live a life sentence in exile.

"I say to them, 'Well, you're damn right you're serving a life sentence -- and so am I,' '' she said, her eyes blazing.

Read the entire story over at the Sun Sentinel (10/2/09).

Pitching a Tent

SNL has historically proved way slow on the uptake regarding the poke of the finger at residency restriction laws.

Yet, it took less than a week for baby bro--Thursday's SNL: Weekend Update to zap Julia Tuttle's cousin, Atlanta's Tent City.

Pick it up towards the end of the segment, around 17:30.



For those persons deemed sex offenders who are unable to locate housing due to residency restrictions, state probation officers have directed these now homeless offenders into the woods outside Atlanta.

And although SNL and this nation's citizens appear to finally have caught the satirical ha ha regarding residency restrictions, the not so funny punch line is that human beings are being directed to live beneath bridges and in tents by state officials as we speak due to residency restrictions forcing persons deemed sex offenders from housing available in their community of choice.

As long as this continues, the joke is really on us all.

Read more over at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (9/28/2009).

On another note.

John Couey--a man responsible for so much misery for so many people--died from cancer earlier this week. Convicted and imprisoned on Florida's Death Row for the murder of Jessica Lunsford, this horrific crime was used by politicians here in this state and throughout this nation as a catalyst for the passage of Draconian sex offender lawmaking.

Time to move forward.