This article is completely unnecessary and will protect no child. Instead it will serve to harass law abiding citizens who have paid their debt to society and been rehabilitated. Why do I say that? Because there are NO reported cases in the entire state of Illinois of any child being assaulted while trick or treating! For more details go to a comprehensive study by expert Jill Levenson and others at http://sax.sagepub.com/content/21/3/363.abstract.

Oh really? Our "job" as parents is to keep our children safe, at all costs
I have ZERO tolerance for sex offenders, law abiding, rehabilitated or not. Just because there are "NO reported cases in the entire state of Illinois of any child being assaulted while trick or treating!" does not mean we as parents should take our children's safety for granted, EVER.

Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of all criminals except murderers, according to dozens of university, federal and state studies. Not all sex offenders have victimized children, and over 1/3 of sex crimes perpetrated against children are committed by other children. 95% of kids are abused by family or friends who aren't on the registry. Dr. Jill Levenson’s 2009 study, “How Safe are Trick-or-Treaters: Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween?” found that non-familial child sexual abuse accounted for less than .2% on Halloween. Why is law enforcement spreading such glaring myths, and why is the media latching on??

What an irresponsible article with an irresponsible, sensationalized headline. However, this is typical of Patch.com "news" stories. While it may be true that Halloween is one of the most dangerous nights of the year for children, it has nothing to do with sexual assaults or sex offenders. The dangers come from traffic accidents and juvenile mischief, and this is what the police should be monitoring. Instead, needless resources are wasted making sure that sex offenders have their porch lights out. Seriously, Patch.com. Grow up and report some real news. For your readers that would like a more thoughtful discussion of Halloween dangers and sex offenders, I recommend: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10035290.htm

I think this is a very helpful article. I want to keep my kids away from an offender that was convicted of molesting a 3 year old. The state labels him a sexual predator.

@vahall, Maybe you can gather' em up and let them watch you're kids back at the hippie commune. Liberals are sick in the head like that.

I'd rather know where the drug dealers, drunk drivers and burglars are.

Thank you, Karen.

Our Supreme Court has examined the laws enacting sex offender registries throughout the United States. It has dealt with the various issues that have been raised by some of the comments, as a legal matter.

In Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's registration of sex-offender statute. It ruled that sex offender registration deals with civil laws, not punishment. The majority of the Court ruled that such a registry is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law. That deals with the comment that sex offenders have paid the debt to society by serving a sentence.

Then in Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, the Court ruled that Connecticut's sex-offender registration statute did not violate the procedural due process of those to whom it applied, and made comment that society had good reason to protect children in such a fashion. That deals with the comment about maps and locators being published to alert neighbors about those that live among us.

I observe that the Elmhurst Patch is on solid legal ground to report the local registration of those among us that have preyed upon the weakest among us, whether by pornography, abuse, exposing themselves in public or the other categories that our law here covers.

Rachel, my thoughts exactly! The title of the article wasn't, "Grab your six-shooter and let's form a posse and head to these addresses." Unless I'm horribly naive (and no doubt someone will post in response to this telling me I am), it was to raise awareness. Assuming studies about low recidivism are dead on, do they apply to 100 percent of all registered sex offenders? If raising awareness protects just one child who might potentially get hurt by even one former sex offender, kudos to the Patch for doing its part. As for the addresses of suspects involved in other crimes, they are often listed in the police reports. Those people haven't even been proven guilty in every case, yet I don't see an outcry on their behalf. That said, I would find it ridiculous if there was one--and I find it even more ridiculous that I should feel pity for a former sex offender (whether the victim was a child or not) because the press releases an article that simply keeps people informed of what legislation actually states.

PS: I don't think any of the articles run by the Patch on this topic have ever implied that all former sex offenders are waiting in the bushes ready to spring out at Trick or Treaters on Halloween. But, let's consider the facts: A lot of kids are out en masses on Halloween. Some (even if not all) former offenders have been convicted of crimes involving kids. Some (even if not all)--and I can't speak for anyone in this town, as I don't know their individual cases--do enter into a recidivism rate, no matter how slight. So, if a risk can be reduced (even if only slightly), how is there any argument against reducing it? Especially where children are concerned? Liberal or conservative, parent or non-parent, I would think that's fairly common sense. Maybe we shouldn't let the media spread the word when there's a salmonella outbreak connected to peanut butter or a meningitis outbreak connected to certain anesthetics. So what if a few people get super sick? Chances are it won't happen to anyone you or I know. And besides, making people aware of stuff like that is REALLY unfair to the companies responsible for the problem in the first place! Jeez . . .

From the Study of Sex Offender Registration in Illinois. "The Department of Justice published a study in November 2003 entitled "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994." This study tracked 9,691 male sex offenders from 15 states, including Illinois, for 3 years following their release from prison in 1994. The study reported that "compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offender were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime." Approximately 40 percent of the time, this occurs within the first year of release."
Sounds like the recidivism rate for those that spend time in jail for a sex offense is actual high. If the one time sex offenders are looking to get a break for the one big mistake they made I would suggest that they should be the loudest voice for increased prison terms and monitoring of those that do recommit their crimes. Those that recommit their offenses are making the rest of you look bad and hence your lives a lot harder. I have to believe that even the sex offender advocates out there would think that an individual that continues to break the law multiple times after being arrested should no longer be giving a break. How many times does a sex offender get to come around our town portraying a sign that says he has sexually urges towards school age kids that he can't control before the courts take him seriously?

Heres the ages of the offenders and the victims of 10 of the map points listed
Offender Victim
30 14
47 under 7
39 14
38 13
27 16
25 21
45 3
30 15
33 14
30 8
All the offenders were adults. All but one of the victims was a minor. These aren't kids making youthful mistakes but adults taking advantage of kids. Almost ever adult was more than twice the age of the victim. Ten years on a sex registry if they don't recommit seems like a pretty small price to pay. Given the recidivism rate maybe tens years in jail or another institutional setting would be more appropriate!