AR: What Do You Think People Are Going to Do With This List?
It’s that time of year again. Halloween is approaching, and the Izard County Sheriff’s Office in Arkansas has done something very irresponsible. They published a list of addresses where registered citizens live.
They say it’s to warn parents not to trick or treat at those addresses, but realistically, what exactly do they think people are going to do with this list? And what do you think is going to happen to the people or property at those addresses?
We all know what happens when you publish a list of people’s homes and tell the public there’s a registrant living there. Maybe some people will take a different route. But others will decide to harass the residents, threaten their families, vandalize their property, or make sure the neighbors know exactly who lives there. The people living at those addresses may have children and grandchildren of their own who will now bear the consequences.
If someone is subject to a legal restriction prohibiting Halloween activities involving children, that restriction should be enforced. But publishing a list of addresses is inviting vigilantism.
We all want children to have a safe Halloween. That’s not in dispute. The question is whether these public shaming campaigns accomplish that goal, or whether they simply create another opportunity to stigmatize, intimidate, and punish entire families without demonstrating that doing so prevents a single offense.
Before publishing an article containing a hit list like this one: https://ozarkradionews.com/arkansas-news/izard-county-sheriffs-office-issues-do-not-trick-or-treat-list, perhaps law enforcement and the media should consider the reality of what the public will likely do with this information. How does that make anyone safer?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So they lost the Halloween sign challenge and this is how they’re circumventing it.
They’re not supposed to SHOVE THIS INFORMATION DOWN PEOPLE’S THROATS. But now it’s used by LEOs for boogeyman scare tactics and muddying the waters of myth vs reality. The original “intent” was the registry is “in place” (or established) for those that wish to vet the occassional babysitter. That’s it! Never was it about who’s house, yard or block to avoid! The lawmaker’s “informed decision” argument falls apart when it’s actually shaming and isolating people on the registry from social contact. It’s a FORCED governement message rooted in fear and bias, NOT an “informed” decision based in reality.
“An arrest and conviction is public record” While true, the registry – in an opportunistic fashion- exploits and weaponizes this information as an ill-conceived “public safety” (PSA) that over-sells the seriousness and perceived danger of someone with a prior sex conviction.
SORNA is the most intellectually-dishonest law ever devised.
That’s the intent. Use a Boogeyman to sow chaos and misinformation in order to get sheriff’s, lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors reelected.
Facts
What is funny, that ONE day we can’t have kids around us, but on the other 364 days, after school kids run up and down the street and play ball in front of my house. It is like that one day of the year we are the boogey man, but the rest of the year we are just the weirdo that we tolerate.
If we were going to kidnap or assault a child (or even an adult) that could happen any day of the year. If someone is Hell bent on committing another crime, that is on them. But law enforcement makes a huge hoopla situation about trick or treating. For God’s sake kids live right next to me 365 days a year.
I haven’t re-offended for 36 years now, so why would I just give up and go for it? Most who are going to re-offend are those who just got released from prison, probation or house arrest. And FAC and specialist admit the longer you stay out of trouble, the less chances you will re-offend. And yes, there are exceptions but very few.
I cannot remember where I saw it, but one report I viewed, suggested that the longer an offender is out the LIKELY he/she is to reoffend .. I don’t know where they came up with this conclusion .. I would believe the opposite .. I’ve been out 13½ years.
Within the last month my PO Supervisor visited my home and told me I don’t need to be trimming, mowing, and blowing (trimmings) around the front of my yard when the 5 children, across the street, are playing in their yard or in the street .. It’s a quiet subdivision ..
Also, I don’t need to sit under my covered patio (on the of the house) smoking my coffee or drinking my smokes while they are outside playing .. I don’t smoke in my house because it devalues the property by $25,000 ..
Anyway .. this upset me tremendously as I love to do my own yard work and sitting outside on my patio relaxing .. I don’t watch the kids while I’m doing yard work as I am concentrating on what I am doing .. And I dont oggle the kids when I’m enjoying the outdoors and just relaxing ..
For 13½ years I haven’t had any problems, but all of a sudden I’ve gotta worry about it .. 🙄
I don’t cate about those kids or what they’re doing .. I just want to live my life unhindered .. THAT’S ALL.
Luther
My deputy who checks on me is super cool. One time I was outside and there were kids playing ball in the street. The deputy asked if I wanted to play and me and him did a “Us verses the kids” in the street and the kids won. The kids loved it and they gathered around and asked the deputy to put on his siren for them and he did as he drove away and the kids thought that was “Super cool”.
And just to be clear, I was not outside for the kids, I just happened to be doing yard work when the deputy showed up and I cannot control what the kids do and most of them are used to me and do not see me as a threat. Now if I had still be on probation, my probation officer would not have been too keen on that.
I obey the rules but the registry is not going to control my life, because I did my damn time a LONG time ago. I was in my 20s when arrested and now in my 60s.
I have said for years….Ok, so I know who is registered, what exactly am I suppose to do with this information?
But what about Wooley V Maynard:
The Wooley v. Maynard Ruling
In 1976, Robert and Carol Maynard challenged New Hampshire’s law requiring them to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on their license plates. They argued that forcing them to display the motto violated their First Amendment rights because it compelled them to express a message, they did not believe in.
Wouldn’t that be the same in the sign case? The branded Driver License case and a list that displays their information which is a “Message they do not believe in”
Maybe a stretch but………….
Here is what we most recently wrote on this topic:
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/a-mixed-bag-challenge-to-floridas-sexual-predator-driver-license-branding-dismissed-but-not-on-the-merits/
Them publishing that list is a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment guards against being forced to speak and the right to speak. Printing a list is akin to forcing registrants to speak. I think.
Ehhh, not quite.
Possibly, if you are the one being forced to publish the list.
So the compelled speech would be the sheriffs office as the state law requires them to do so. Could the sheriff bring suit for compelled speech if he/she didn’t believe in the registration?
We don’t have to worry about that happening.