"Trying To Deter Pedophiles With The Equivalent Of A Speeding Ticket"
Two women are ticketed for eating donuts on a bench on a Brooklyn playground while unaccompanied by children. Garth Johnson writes on Gothamist:
Yup, this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor.Tickets for being an adult in or around a playground have been popping up fairly frequently lately--see the Inwood chess players--but instead of giving the offending citizens a warning and urging them to leave, the NYPD's M.O. appears to be to hand out a ticket.
From one of the women's statement at the link:
This cop attempted to be sympathetic. He proceeded to tell us that he was trying to be a gentleman by just giving us summonses instead of taking us in for questioning, because that was what "they" wanted him to do. If he just gave us warnings and told us to leave, he would get in trouble for "doing nothing all day." He went on to say that all he did when he was growing up was "do Tae Kwon Do and go to school." "Are you trying to say that we are bad people for sitting on a bench in a park and eating doughnuts?" I asked him, just trying to figure out where he was going with this. "No, no, I'm just saying that I never got in trouble. Sometimes I play basketball," he said, pointing at the courts behind him. Not in that park, he doesn't. Not unless he has a kid strapped to his back at the time.Finally, we were given our summonses and were free to go. Because we hadn't been drinking alcohol or urinating in public, we do not have the option of pleading guilty by mail. Not that I am planning on pleading guilty. But either way, we have to show up in court or a warrant will be issued for our arrest. My friend does not live in New York and I am out of the country all summer, so this is going to be an ordeal in itself, given that the summons has no information on how to contact the court. Nor do we know how much we owe. Because the cops had no idea about that, either. They were just "doing their jobs," in the most mindless sense of that phrase.
I have three little nephews and I appreciate that keeping children safe is the thinking behind this rule. But this is basically trying to deter pedophiles with the equivalent of a speeding ticket. Meanwhile, in parts of the city with minimal amounts of public green spaces, people are taught that they are being "bad" citizens for sitting on a bench for a few minutes. The regulations are as they are and they were posted, but does the issuing of summonses to people who even the police do not actually believe are posing a danger, with no prior warning, accord with the law's protective intent?
Of course, the danger from pedophiles in a park is essentially zero. Leaving this aside: is it in fact legal to restrict the use of a public space to particular people?
If I can restrict it to adults with children, logically I can restrict it to adults without children. What about adults 65 and over? What about bald, white men only? Where does it stop?
For those who saw the story, what about silent midnight dancing in the Jefferson Memorial?
I submit that a public space is - and must be - open to all. In the case of inappropriate behavior of whatever kind, the police can make use of the general purpose "disorderly conduct". However, simply using a public space in a peaceful, non-disruptive way cannot and should not be illegal.
a_random_guy at June 8, 2011 3:05 AM
The orders to the police to issue a summons rather than a warning have nothing to do with child safety. A summons means money for the city. As always, "Follow the money."
a_random_guy is spot on. How can you restrict public space to a member of the public?
Jay at June 8, 2011 5:32 AM
Okay, restrict public spaces to only people with children, but let's start making taxes for schools and parks strictly for those with children. Let's also get rid of those income tax breaks for children.
I'm tired of paying for other people's offspring. I'm sick of other people expecting a break because they procreated. And this is just another example of the government making parents feel a little more entitled, which of course is being passed on to the next generation.
Cat at June 8, 2011 5:36 AM
Cat:
"Okay, restrict public spaces to only people with children, but let's start making taxes for schools and parks strictly for those with children. Let's also get rid of those income tax breaks for children."
How how about a tax break for not having kids? Because really if I'm going to be restricted from certain public spaces because I don't have children then I should be paying taxes for them(at least at the city, county, or state level).
Now I wonder how many men have been caught up in this so far?
Danny at June 8, 2011 5:51 AM
When a child is poked, it's usually poked by a member of the family or friend of the family. So wouldn't it make more sense to ticket every person at the playground who HAS a kid?
They can go about proving they're not kiddie-pokers later.
Kevin at June 8, 2011 6:11 AM
I've raised 8 kids. I love to see kids laugh and have fun. My neighbors have a very large family and every Saturday and Sunday morning I'm awakened by the sound of half a dozen kids screeching and laughing in their backyard. I wake up with a smile on my face- happy to know that kids are playing and having fun. Sometimes, when I'm out on a walk, I'll just sit down and enjoy the sights and sounds of kids at the playground. it reminds me of all the great times I enjoyed with my own kids when they were young. Better lock me up, I'm obviously a threat to society.
Al at June 8, 2011 6:44 AM
From the article: "Nobody is saying that these women were in the right by sitting and eating their doughnuts on a bench in a playground rather than a park, they weren't"
Wait, what? Is this a real thing or just a NY thing? I have never heard of this till now.
Snakeman99 at June 8, 2011 6:56 AM
"The orders to the police to issue a summons rather than a warning have nothing to do with child safety. A summons means money for the city. As always, 'Follow the money.'"
Jay, I was thinking exactly the same thing: We now see how the stranger-danger public panic is going to play out -- not as tragedy, but as farce. It will simply be used the way that traffic laws are commonly used, as a means to squeeze more government revenue out of the citizens. Expect the definition of "playground" to expand until it's impossible to step out of your front door without breaking the law. Then, fire up the ticket mills.
It will, of course, wind up discrediting the issue of child abuse, and real victims and advocates will find that no one takes them seriously any longer. The people who run our lives will say "that's a real shame, but it's for the greater good, you know."
Cousin Dave at June 8, 2011 7:27 AM
Iif I recall correctly, there are something like 100 stranger abductions of kids per year. Can anyone find the FBI stats on child abductions, and determine how many of those 100 occured at playgrounds? My guess is this happens less than once a year, in a nation of over 300 million people.
In short, it is a probability of occurrence so low as to not merit the attention of anyone.
Oh, I know, that one child a year stolen from a playground is beyond price, as are all human lives, but we do not limit people's freedom and expend resources on protecting children from meteorites either. That is probably the nearest statistical equivalent.
Spartee at June 8, 2011 7:32 AM
I saw this post yesterday, and wondered if it would end up here. What I find surprising is that women were ticketed at all. Usually, it's men who are considered potential molesters based solely on their proximity to children.
I agree with Dave and Jay that the approach to "enforcement" in this case makes it seem more like a revenue enhancement measure for the city than a child safety issue.
Christopher at June 8, 2011 8:52 AM
Snakeman pointed this out already, but to me the most disturbing part of this article is,
"Nobody is saying that these women were in the right by sitting and eating their doughnuts on a bench in a playground rather than a park, they weren't, but should the police have jumped to give them a summons so quickly? What do you think?"
The person who posted the article doesn't have a problem with the fact that members of the public aren't allowed to be in a public space.
Look, I have a toddler, and if I want her to play in a space where there are no unrelated adults, I'll keep her in the back yard. How in the hell is it legal for a city to keep people out of a public space? Is it illegal in NYC for adults to be within a certain proximity of unrelated children?
Shouldn't the rest of the park be 18-and-up, if that's the case?
ahw at June 8, 2011 9:15 AM
Talk about your "one offs". This story either isn't true, or it's a case of one idiot police officer -- of which there are many. I'm betting that there isn't a grain of truth to it.
whistleDick at June 8, 2011 9:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/08/trying_to_deter.html#comment-2233171">comment from ahwThe person who posted the article doesn't have a problem with the fact that members of the public aren't allowed to be in a public space.
Exactly. And I have a problem with this, too.
Amy Alkon at June 8, 2011 9:49 AM
How the fuck is anyone guilty of anything by just sitting in a public park and chatting with a friend or reading a book or whathaveyou?
When did public city parks become child only?
Now I'd have no problem with setting a part of a large park aside for families with young children, those of us who go to enjoy grownup time with other grownups are usually happy with that kind of an arrangement.
However to exclude adults who do not have children from a part of the city paid for by the public for the public strikes me as unconstitutional.
Robert at June 8, 2011 10:02 AM
It's for the children. You acquiesced to losing your rights for this reason when you allowed "Child Protective Services" to do what they do outside the law. This is simply more of the same.
It's your fault. You trusted us.
MarkD at June 8, 2011 10:05 AM
Yet another really good reason to stay out of the People's Republic of New York. As if I needed another one.
TX CHL Instructor at June 8, 2011 10:42 AM
Um, given the cps didnt have children with them, wouldnt it have been illegal and therefore citeworthy for them to have entered the park?
lujlp at June 8, 2011 11:09 AM
It's not about safety, it's about revenue.
In failing states, look for more petty things like this and jaywalking to be ticketed, while more serious crimes get de-prioritized.
lsomber at June 8, 2011 11:28 AM
I'm going to be a father for the first time this fall. Second only to having a healthy child, my fondest wish is that I don't become infected with today's overprotectionist paranoia. When I was six years old, I walked to my own bus-stop, jumped in and out of trees, and picked up dog-poop with a stick. Somehow, I managed to avoid kidnappers, major injury, and ecoli without intervention from the law. More importantly, I learned how to entertain myself and how to confidently handle unknown situations.
Today, that same freedom and self-reliance would get a child taken away from his parents. Even though, statistically, we've never been safer from crime.
Thankfully, we have people like Amy and Lenore Skenazy to keep people somewhat sane. But far too few of them.
snakeman99 at June 8, 2011 12:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/08/trying_to_deter.html#comment-2233462">comment from snakeman99Wow, snakeman...congrats. From reading your comments over the years, you're one of the people I can say I'm glad is reproducing.
Amy Alkon at June 8, 2011 12:44 PM
"...Brooklyn playground while unaccompanied by children."
The inmates are running the asylum. And yet, I'm a "paranoid wacko" for actively trying to avoid interacting with kids these days if they're unaccompanied by their parents...
Sio at June 8, 2011 1:35 PM
*****Okay, restrict public spaces to only people with children, but let's start making taxes for schools and parks strictly for those with children. Let's also get rid of those income tax breaks for children.
I'm tired of paying for other people's offspring. I'm sick of other people expecting a break because they procreated. And this is just another example of the government making parents feel a little more entitled, which of course is being passed on to the next generation.
*****
OMG THIS! And I'm with Sio. I go out of my way to stay away from kids, but their idiot parents keep forcing me to deal with them when they bring them to adult venues, like the local bar.
I'll stay out of your park when you stop letting your kid run around the local watering hole. You can't have it both ways.
Daghain at June 8, 2011 4:38 PM
Another pointless law and reason not to go to NYC.
Nef at June 8, 2011 4:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/08/trying_to_deter.html#comment-2234231">comment from DaghainI go out of my way to stay away from kids, but their idiot parents keep forcing me to deal with them when they bring them to adult venues, like the local bar.
I wrote about that in I See Rude People -- see "The Underparented Child" chapter.
Amy Alkon at June 8, 2011 5:48 PM
"*****Okay, restrict public spaces to only people with children, but let's start making taxes for schools and parks strictly for those with children. Let's also get rid of those income tax breaks for children.
I'm tired of paying for other people's offspring. I'm sick of other people expecting a break because they procreated. And this is just another example of the government making parents feel a little more entitled, which of course is being passed on to the next generation.
*****
OMG THIS! And I'm with Sio. "
Me too! We ALL pay for public spaces, tax only people with kids for parks and playgrounds!
crella at June 8, 2011 6:28 PM
Authoritarian cop spies two girls WITH DONUTS?
Any reasonable pornographer could write that script.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 8, 2011 8:33 PM
I like how right off the bat, the cop basically says "I have to cite you because if I just give you a warning, I'll get accused of doing nothing all day." Wouldn't informing people of the supposedly correct thing to do be 'doing something'? But nope, gotta have the bureaucratic paper trail. Gotta have the entries in the log book.
You know what else would prove that the cops are busy all day? Full time video records of them. Shoulder mounted cameras that record every second of their shift. If you think someone's not doing something, then check the video. Then you could see that Officer Friendly interacted with other people all through the day, and helped folks.
But that doesn't bring in the cash, does it.
Highway at June 8, 2011 8:53 PM
If we have cops with the time to do this, then we have public sector jobs we can cut to save money.
brian at June 8, 2011 9:33 PM
I have to disagree with the idea of specially taxing parents of children to pay for schools etc.
Such a statement always makes me think that the speaker/writer, does not know much about long term investing.
I say that because the cold hard truth of the matter is that the childless depend upon the child bearing of others.
When you get old, who is doing the things you can't anymore? Who is policing the streets or doing the heavy work, its a laundry list of things that have to continue.
And the people doing that are the kids you're upset about paying school taxes for.
Children are necessary for there to be a future for the country, I don't resent people who choose not to have them, not everybody has it in them to be a parent. But to blindly treat it as if the only beneficiaries are the parents themselves, is to close one's eyes to tomorrow.
Robert at June 9, 2011 2:18 AM
Congrats Snakeman!
I went to a "training" session for VBS volunteers at our (that we've pretty recently started attending, less than 9 months) church yesterday afternoon. It was an hour long video on how child molesters are everyone and you can't let down your guard a second! Then we learned the rules. You can't be alone with a kid, ever. One needs to potty and is young enough to need help? You have to find 2 OTHER adults to stay in your class while you and yet another adult take said kid and at least 2 others to the potty. It made me ill. I think I'll NOT be putting myself in that situation by simply not volunteering to help.
We stay after school most days and play on the playground with others kids with SAHM's. Sometimes we have to run in the building for the potty. One day a worker in the aftershocol daycare program told me I couldn't accompany my kids into the bathroom if any of the program kids were in there. I had choice words for her.
I have 4 kids and (I like to think) doing a good job of keeping them safe without insanity. I know some of you all think I am too far on the side of "protecting the chiiiiildren" but even I am scared with where we've gotten with this.
momof4 at June 9, 2011 5:44 AM
Such a statement always makes me think that the speaker/writer, does not know much about long term investing.
I think people who resent the idea of paying for schools, etc., out of their tax money resent the blind nature of the investment. I don't get a say in what kids are learning or how much is spent where, yet I am expected to fork over my hard-earned money all the same, whether that kid turns out to be a nurse or a drug dealer. And at the end of the day, I'm looked upon as a potential kiddie diddler if I look at a kid the wrong way.
In addition, if I have an opinion about child-rearing, I'm told, "You don't know what it's like to raise children, so your opinion doesn't count." My opinion may not count, but these parents and the city want my money all the same.
That said, we are an interdependent society, and I am OK with supporting the educations of the young and the continued welfare of people too sick and too old to care for themselves. We don't live in a vacuum. I just wish society would respect that the childless/childfree are making important contributions to the continued functioning and development of its children.
MonicaP at June 9, 2011 6:10 AM
Robert:
I have to disagree with the idea of specially taxing parents of children to pay for schools etc.
This may be a sign of short sightedness but I think this may be a knee jerk reaction to being treated like you're being expected to give to the cause but only have limited access to things the cause produce.
In this example we have people talking about having their tax dollars going into parks but are then not allowed to use those parks solely on a count of not having kids. I think the anger in such a hypothetical would be justified. We're expected to help them but then can't get in on the benefits? That's not right.
Robert you make good points but going back to (what I think is) the beginning of this line of thought what's the point in restricting childless people from using public spaces simply because they are childless while still expecting them to help fund those places?
Danny at June 9, 2011 8:33 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/08/trying_to_deter.html#comment-2237167">comment from DannyI'm of the mind that those who have children should be the ones paying for their schooling, and that the rest of us should only pay for the children of the very poor. You want kids? You fund them. Can't afford to school five? Have one.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2011 9:04 AM
The article is irritating for lack of information about the law that was broken. Here is the interesting part. NY Parks regulations have certain "Exclusive Areas"--"Exclusive Childrens Playgrounds: Adults allowed in playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of twelve" and "Exclusive Senior Citizens Areas" and "Dog Runs" http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules_and_regulations/rr_1-05.html
Josh at June 9, 2011 10:13 AM
Lots of good points I won't repeat.
I think easy money is a big part of it. Where I used to live it was pretty darn difficult to get a ticket other than parking (meter monitors don't have to be full police offer so they are cheap & lots of them). Occasionally someone would get unlucky or if you totally ignore it on the highways - still it was rare. Budget crisis and suddenly they are every where and constantly ticketing people.
This is more easy money. Would they rather be chasing gang members with guns who shoot or donut eating people in the park.
The Former Banker at June 9, 2011 8:54 PM
Well, since decent men have been totally driven off any public spaces frequented by women and children by feminists and the law, and the law still has to show that it is doing something for safety, they are now picking after the remaining targets who are in public spaces frequented by kids(ie) unaccompanied women. Sweet....the feminists are finally getting a taste of the monster they created and nurtured.
Redrajesh at June 10, 2011 3:11 AM
I strenuously object to the limitations of public parks to child only persons. It is hard for any rational person to disagree.
The notion that it is for "Safety" is ludicrous.
Robert at June 10, 2011 5:55 AM
"Occasionally someone would get unlucky or if you totally ignore it on the highways - still it was rare. Budget crisis and suddenly they are every where and constantly ticketing people."
Yeah, it's long been a problem in traffic law that enforcement concentrates not on the violations that are most hazardous, but on the ones that are easiest to prosecute and therefore generate the most revenue. Thus the bulk of tickets are written for speed (easy to prove with radar), paperwork violations (expired tags, etc.) and for overstaying in a metered parking spot. Speed is not necessarily the most hazardous moving violation; following too closely and improper lane changing are far more often the cause of multi-car accidents, but they are hardly ever written up or prosecuted unless an accident actually occurs. As for parking, have you ever seen anyone get a ticket for taking two spaces in a public parking lot, or for going over the line in parallel parking? Me neither.
The sad tale of red-light cameras is instructive here. Running red lights is a significant traffic hazard and it causes a disproportionate number of serious accidents. Yet very few red-light runners get caught unless an accident actually occurs. The red-light camera was originally created to make it easier to catch and prosecute red-light runners. Unfortunately, traffic enforcement agencies almost immediately began to regard it not as a traffic safety enhancement but as a revenue device. Gaming immediately followed (e.g., reducing yellow-light times); the cameras began creating their own hazards as drivers did drastic things to try to avoid being caught by unfair devices, and pretty soon, the credibility of the red-light cameras was shot. States are now passing laws banning them.
Thus, governments took what should have been a good thing, and destroyed it in their pursuit of the almighty tax dollar.
Cousin Dave at June 10, 2011 9:02 AM
Leave a comment