The first year of enforcement of a law aiming to keep sex offenders away from children during Halloween appeared to go smoothly.
A combination of the Buchanan County Sheriff's Department, St. Joseph Police Department, and Drug Strike Force spent more than five hours checking houses of sex offenders who were convicted after 1995.
"It's a great thing because everybody is riding together," said Jim Hitchcock, a reserve officer for the sheriff's department.
Buchanan County Sheriff's Department Sgt. Shawn Collie said of the 113 sex offenders' residences, only eight were arrested on investigation for violating the Halloween rules. Sixteen were not at home.
Barring special circumstances such as an emergency or work, the law required sex offenders to be inside their home from 5 to 10:30 p.m. Mr. Collie said those who weren't home will be dealt with.
"At least we'll be able to submit those cases to a prosecutor," he said.
On Thursday, a federal appeals court allowed for the order to be enforced in its entirety. It ordered that sex offenders keep the lights off at their home and put up a sign stating that there was no candy or treats to be given out at their residence. They also were ordered not to have Halloween-related contact with children. A lawsuit previously had been filed saying the law was too vague.
As Mr. Hitchcock traveled around talking to offenders and making sure they were at their homes, he prided the department on enforcing the law.
"We'd much rather be out here preventing something from happening than to have a victim," he said. "That's our purpose."
For being the first time doing this, Mr. Collie said there were only a few small conflicts.
"There was an issue with (a sex offender) who thought the police knocking on his door were trick-or-treaters or people committing vandalism, so he grabbed a shotgun," he said.
Mr. Collie said they calmed the man down and alleviated the situation.
"Other than that, everything went pretty smoothly," he said.
The department looks to working toward perfection next year.
"Our goal is to work toward complete compliancy," he said.
Andrew Gaug can be reached at andrewgaug@npgco.com
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
mopar says...
Having worked in prisons for a majority of my life I can say this. We are told that we are not the inmates judges or juries. Once their sentences are served they are even steven. I personally dislike sex offenders however I also dislike murderers, theives, and drunks. Lets register these people too and force them into there homes during halloween with pitchforks like an angry mob. While we are at it I think we need to have some old fashioned witch trials again.
November 1, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
since you are so very opposed to this law, it must affect you, sorry you couldn't pass out candy.
November 1, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
It almost sounds like someone is a closet pedophile.(?)
November 1, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
I'm glad they went out and did that -
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
November 1, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
michael, especially when some of the critics just let the monster walk in the front door???? yeah, i had you pegged for a child molester from the very beginning, pffffffttt........ what a bunch of .
November 1, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rockchalk says...
MichaelH--You are absolutely right! This law, much like the drug laws, makes politicians look like they are doing something. It's easy to pass these kinds of laws because no one wants to appear like they support "sex offenders" or "drug offenders". However they accomplish nothing because there is no problem to begin with. As you point out, there has never been a documented case of molestation or abduction while trick-or-treating.
The only thing this law and others like it does is make these people easy targets for vigilantes. While there have been no incidents of molestation or abduction while trick-or-treating, there are numerous cases where persons listed on "Megan's Law" databases have been targeted--even so far as being killed.
I find it sad that so many people posting here appear to live in constant fear. I note many of those supporting this law have posted in support of McCain because of his fearmongering.
November 2, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
michael, for the record, i am NOT calling you a child molester!!!!!!!!! sorry, i forgot how forums lose in translation ............ i think this is a stooooooopid use of this city's limited funding and wonder why it would be even remotely necessary if parents are properly accompanying their children as they trick or treat.
November 2, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joetowner says...
it's not ironic the BCSD did nothing in the last 3 years with any of this folks, but once the election year rolled around they went out in full force to get their name in the news as much as possible to make it look like they were tough on sex offenders. Big whoop.
November 2, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
michael, you are a brave guy. many here would never admit to agreeing with me!!!!! check your email........
November 2, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
MichaelH:
From your 7:01 post:
"Typically name-calling is a last resort for someone when their argument is a bust."
You then go on to say: "those cowards", "the keyboard-ninjas above", "you low-life's above".
You, Rockchalk & Heritage all appear to have the philosophy of "leave me alone and let me do anything I want to do". This is a typical liberal philosophy.
If the three of you can't grasp the reason for isolating known child predators on a day when there are millions of their targets out in public then you obviously wouldn't understand it if someone explained it to you.
Michael: your challenge of "Unless some of you low-life's above would like to meet in person to continue the name-calling." stays true to form of your childish rants we always see on here.
November 2, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
dale, can you say, PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY?
November 2, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
I explained it to you in the sentence "If the three of you can't grasp the reason for isolating known child predators on a day when there are millions of their targets out in public then you obviously wouldn't understand it if someone explained it to you." and you still can't seem to grasp it.
What do the words "isolating known child predators on a day when there are millions of their targets out in public" mean to you? Do I really need to explain it further to you?
And, yes, I do tell people what I think whether in person or not.
November 2, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
heritage:
Yes, I can say parental responsibility, and have practiced it for 31 years. In doing so I know that even the most hawkish parents can't protect their children from everything. The Christgen family there in St. Joe were some of the most devoted parents you could ask for, yet they lost a son to a pervert. Assistance from law enforcement is more than welcome.
MichaelH:
No, Halloween is not the only day millions of children are on our streets, in our neighborhoods or walking through someone's yard. It is, however, the only day where millions of children are knocking on doors or ringing doorbells and intentionally coming in contact with strangers, not to mention the dark of night factor where someone could snatch a child and disappear in seconds.
Child molesters and/or pedophiles are in fact opportunistic deviants. What better opportunity would they have than this?
As far as your argument "There has never been a documented case in the United States of a child being abducted or molested while trick-or-treating." I don't give a fat frogs a** whether it has happened before or not. I don't want it to happen ever.
As to your question "Why wasn't this law enacted sooner?" - I don't know, but I think it should have been.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you two seem to think that these animals should have the same rights as every one else. (?)
November 2, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rockchalk says...
Dale--you accuse those of us who disagree with this type of law of having a "typical liberal philosophy". I won't be so presumptive as to speak for anyone else, but I have a Libertarian philosophy (or what some consider a "classical liberal" philosophy--before the right corrupted the word "liberal"). I am a strong believer in civil rights and civil liberties; thus I am opposed to any law that interferes with those rights/liberties unless there is some compelling governmental interest. This law is a good example of one that infringes on an individual's rights without addressing a compelling government interest.
This law essentially placed a group of individuals under house arrest without due process. These laws and other similar statutes have imposed additional penalties on these individuals after they have completed their sentences--again a violation of due process.
Your idea of "isolating child predators" has been tried in some states. They have passed laws (again after these people have completed their sentences) limiting the distance where these people may reside in relation to schools, parks, churches, etc. What happens is that there is literally nowhere that these people can live.
If politicians want to increase penalties for these offenders, I have no problem with that. However, changing the rules after the fact is wrong; even if it is "for the children".
November 2, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
dale, i feel very sorry for that family, or any other family which has suffered that fate. i simply assert that to make halloween a target date for predators is not logical. it creates a false sense of security, and may very likely give lazy parents who are just looking for an excuse not to bother to supervise their children the perfect excuse. further addressing the false security issue, there are plenty of predators who have yet to be caught in their revolting actions, who aren't even a blip on the radar. i just don't believe in legislation for the sake of writing it. it has to have an effect. this doesn't pass the smell test.
November 2, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
Rockchalk & Heritage:
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I still subscribe to the theory that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (And then some)
One of the problems is bleeding-heart judges who sentence these animals to very light sentences that don't match the crime. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who molests a child should never again be free in society.
As far as this legislation having an effect I hope we never find out for sure.
November 2, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalearch says...
We're in agreement about some of the "sex offender" cases being "iffy", unless it involves little children.
November 2, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
heritage, not too long ago you were in agreement that pedophiles were vile people. now you don't want a law that would protect our children. doesn't make sense. you act like parents are supposed to know who the pedophiles are. last year a friend of mine was worried that the person that killed her grandson would be passing out candy to little ones, with the support from one of the people at KQ2 made sure that didn't happen. every child that came to my house friday had parents with them, all my grandchildren's parents went with them. so i don't know where you are getting this parental responsibility thing.
Michael H - i don't understand why anyone would be opposed to keeping our children safe, just doesn't make sense. the pedophiles are the only people it affects, not you, nor i. and what better way to spend taxpayers money than to protect our children. in this county, child protection isn't alive and working believe me.
and as far as letting them in the door? a good friend's daughter was molested by her uncle, who was a trusted family member. he told her he would kill her aunt, her mom and her dad, she finally told and he went to prison. so who do you trust? or do you live your life in fear? no one walks around with monster written on their forehead.
November 3, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
i will go one step further, i think pedophiles should have to wear some type of location device on a daily basis. they have the highest rate of recidivism, there is no rehabilitation. do i like government knowing my business, nope. but then i haven't molested a child.
November 3, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
no but a friend does, and no they didn't know the uncle was a predator, although the family may "know" the person, how ridiculous are you michaelh? who else does this law affect, our tax dollars being spent? no more of a waste of money than buying durango's for our sheriff's dept. and no it's not my way or the highway, actually i listen to anyone with a good argument, haven't heard one yet. and where are these statistics? and geez, besides rape, molestation is one of the biggest unreported crimes. so how do we actually know?
November 3, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
and if you are insinuating you know who i am, then just say so, does it really matter?
November 3, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i have to ask you deb, if a child is accompanied by observant parents, how on earth do you think the offenders are going to commit their heinous acts? this law does nothing to protect the children in this municipality. it took law enforcement off the streets where the unidentified offenders are. furthermore the sex offenders list is loaded with people who are not pedophiles. your "friend" lost her loved one to a man who the family left the child with. he was not a pedophile, he was a murderer. kerns would not have been on this list. this law would have done NOTHING to keep kerns away from that baby, but following the guidelines set forth by the children's services might have.
November 3, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
well heritage here we go again, you know maybe you should ask roxy to show you the paper that the children's services gave to them, and the statement the police took from mr. kerns which consisted of is heather a good mom, have you ever seen her abuse caden. does that sound to you like he was a suspect? and let's see the depo of that detective that said since heather and her mother lawyered up, i figured they did it. hmm. yep sounds like he suspected chris. and it's really funny that not one of the people that were on that original case work at dfs any longer. so unless you know the whole truth, why don't you let it be. and as far as kerns, he should have been on that list, in the year 2000. but dfs screwed up, want to read those reports too. or maybe you would like to speak with the mom of that little boy.
and michael, i can read quite well.
November 3, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
the sex offenders list would not have included that man. he was never designated as a Sex Offender. Kerns Physically Abused. you are making our case for us. look , i am glad the guy is in jail, but he would never have been on the watch list on halloween. the law is , as michael states, redundant and ineffective. its last minute application days before Nov 4 was electioneering at its finest.
November 3, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
really, and how do you know that. no kerns may not have been on the list, but he would have been in violation of his bond by being around children. the law should have included those as well. and as far as political motives, this bill was first filed in 2007. any bill that is passed to protect our children, is neither redundant or unecessary.
November 3, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rockchalk says...
According to the CDC, automobile/pedestrian accidents "accounted for approximately 15% of all motor-vehicle-related deaths sustained by children aged 0-19 years in the United States. Because of the levels of participation in Halloween-related activities by elementary and middle school-aged children, these children might be more likely to sustain pedestrian injuries on that evening than on other evenings..."
Given these statistics, maybe there needs to be a law that anyone convicted of, or pleading guilty/no contest to, a traffic violation should be prohibited from driving on Halloween.
Come on lawmakers, jump on the bandwagon. After all, it's for the children.
November 3, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
case in point, shannon s. bonar aka burgess is charged with statutory rape of a minor. that "minor" is now of legal age, and they have two children together. he lives in the home. should she be on the registry..... ???? does she present any possible danger to a child out trick or treating? they picked her up last night.
November 3, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
there should be a distinction, you are right. however read the newest article, 9 pedophiles including one dressed up in a costume. glad it was passed.
November 3, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
two of the names listed in the breaking news article are not on the registry. three are charged with statutory rape, including the woman i just mentioned. the law has to target pedophiles, and predators. for instance steven hood was charged in 1995 for statutory rape.........no repeat offenses. i think we are in agreement that while this law may be well intentioned it is poorly crafted and inefficient.
November 3, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
you are right about one thing, the description of a pedophile or sex offender needs to be changed. do i believe that an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old should be charged with a sex crime. nope. but it is at the discretion of the prosecutor whether to file charges or not. and we all know our prosecutor will charge anything that makes a headline. he will prosecute it too, unless he thinks it's a loser.
November 3, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
"any bill that is passed to protect our children, is neither redundant or unecessary." so, deb by your latest comments you clearly must agree that a badly written law is a badly written law?
November 3, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deb2007 says...
Not this one, the original offender law that describes what a pedophile or sex offender is, there should definitely be changes made, i don't believe it was the legislature's intent to punish a boyfriend and girlfriend who happen to be two years apart. if that were the case, half this town would have to register. however, a law that makes it a violation if a sex offender passes out candy on halloween, or dresses up and walks the streets, sorry can't say that is bad. the previous bill which has the description in it needs to be changed.
November 3, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amother says...
just to be clear the law is the law and for those who think that this is not right to bad..how many of you go door to door with your teenagers maybe they shouldnt be trick treating but they do get real if any of you have gone through the list of registered offenders you would be very suprised to find that 90 percent if not more are actual child preditors they are not harmless and all it takes on a night like halloween is to be distracted for one second by another child and your children can become victims we are talking about victims from as young as 1 to as old as 16. so if you feel safe letting your children visit these houses then more power to you but dont expect to be praised for open mindedness when a child is hurt due to you wanting them to have rights they gave those up when they abused children..honestly i know where every registerd person lives around my family in st. joe i have one that moved 2 blocks from my house in a very small town and you bet i showed my kids and there friends his picture and told them to stay away from him if you have a problem with that to bad because my kids will always come before yours or there feelings.
November 3, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
the simple solution to the teenager issue ( no, i don't think they should be out trick or treating) is to make sure they are traveling in packs. what teen would be out by themselves? those of us who are saying the law is redundant and moronic are not "open minded", but rather we understand that there are already laws on the books which cover this bell book and candle. michaelh comments, "It's the equivalent of passing a new law that says,
"If you fail to stop at a stop sign, in a car, after 6pm, you are guilty of running a stop sign.".....
this about covers it.
November 4, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )