New York woman ticketed for sitting on bench alone

[CyberGuy]

STORY

MSNBC

Monica Novotny

MSNBC Correspondent

If you?ve ever thought about taking a moment to relax on a park bench, you may want to think again. As one woman recently found out, if you?re alone, you could be breaking the law. And you might even spend a few months in jail.

Sandra Catena recently sat down on a New York City park bench. The 47-year-old was then greeted by two police officers on both sides. The cops told her she was breaking the law.

Many public parks now require a special pass. You?re welcome if you bring a child, a detail Catena and many others miss. She was ticketed for being here alone and now faces a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9590549/

What do you think of this. I saw the news clip on MSNBC. The writing was very small on a sign in the park. Who reads all the do's and do not do in a park anyway if one just wants to sit and rest on a bench anyway.

I expect this law to be thrown out if it goes very high up in the court system.

[Paul Beach]

Margaret Gray responds:

This happens to be a story of an innocent-looking woman. The real culprits are the "dirty old men" who sit around and pervertedly exercise their perversions. It is hard to write a law that will properly apply to just that class.

Yes, the law was over-reaching, and it is unfortunate, but it does serve a legitimate purpose in some regard. The idea is to keep it safe for children, much like adults are not welcome to hang out in public school classrooms if they are not working there.

[CyberGuy]

A bad law nets a lot of innocent people like this woman. This is nothing more than an ill thought out knew jerk overreaction law.

It would be better if the first ticket produced just a warning. Second ticket a fine and third ticket a even bigger fine.

But a $1000 AND 90 days in jail on the first offense. I doubt this law will stand up on appeal.

[Paul Beach]

Margaret Gray responds:

This is not a well-prepared law, and the punishment is draconian. If there is a problem, the answer is in better security, not simply keeping people out.

[CyberGuy]

One solution is that the park has a high security fence around it and entrance is only made via a magnetic key card which is issued to parents with children under a specific age. One would have to go to a police station with proof of children under a certain age to get the free key card.

The Key card would open the gate to the park and it would swing shut behind them.

Any counterfeiting of the cards would face a stiff penalty fine and jail time etc.

Of course this assumes that the parents of children are not themselves sexual predators of other parents kids. But it should make the parks safer and innocent people would not be caught sitting on park benches and face jail time.

[Paul Beach]

Margaret Gray responds:

One of the overarching concerns Mrs. Gray has is that more and more parents are delegating the responsibility of child raising to the government. If parents are watching their kids, then the problems should be greatly diminished. If they're letting their children go to the park without any supervision, that is an issue in itself.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

---

If parents are watching their kids, then the problems should be greatly diminished. If they're letting their children go to the park without any supervision, that is an issue in itself.

---

Agreed. It is also true that parents go to the park and read a book while their kids play not paying attention to what their kids are doing or whom they are talking to. That also is a big problem.

[Bravus]

The incidence of child abuse in public by strangers is very low: the vast majority is by people known to the child. It's paranoia to run our whole society based on such a rare - but much publicised - event. I agree with all the stuff about parents watching their kids closely, and ideally playing with them, but I begin to wonder whether there's currently more damage being done by paranoia and over-surveillance and not letting kids be kids...

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

The incidence of child abuse in public by strangers is very low: the vast majority is by people known to the child. It's paranoia to run our whole society based on such a rare - but much publicised - event. I agree with all the stuff about parents watching their kids closely, and ideally playing with them, but I begin to wonder whether there's currently more damage being done by paranoia and over-surveillance and not letting kids be kids...

---

Child abuse by those the child knows generally does not lead to the murder of the child. The abduction, molestation and rape of the child by a stranger usually means they are not seen alive again. Big, very important difference

First line of defense for children is the parents, of that there isn't any dispute. Can you and have you supervised your children 24/7 at all times so that no stranger could have taken them? As for over-surveillance damaging the children more maybe the parents of the little girl playing in her yard last week and snatched, raped and let go would have some input. Jacob Wetterling's parents from Mn, a few years ago, never seen again, the father of the little girl buried alive with her stuffed dolphin, the father of the little girl rescued after being taken with her brother, watching him killed after seeing the rest of her family murdered,Dru Shudin's parents,hardly a young child, yet abducted, raped and murdered by a monster that still should have been in prison and many, many others. The many level 3 sex offender's that are let go and are out there in the parks, school yards, shopping malls etc. Do we just dismiss them as rare and say it is the parent's responsibility? What about the children that do not have responsible parents, those that think it is so rare it will not happen to theirs?

The law is extreme and probably will not hold up and shouldn't, but if they don't do something and at least try, how many are the first to scream the legal authorities don't care? When they pass a law it rarely meets with the approval of those screaming for a law. How many here have been four square against the sexual offender registry? It is unfair. We need to forgive and all the rest.

Have you the answer? This law obviously shouldn't be it, but have you one? One that curtails a predator's presence in a park? One that can have your child if you so much as turn your back. And if you don't think it can happen just that quick you do not listen to the news. It is not all careless parents that do not supervise. Do you mind the presence of a pedophile/predator hanging around your child's school? What would you suggest? Do you want to know who he is? Do you want to know he is in the vicinity? Are you there to supervise? Do you trust all that care for your child never to take their eyes off your child? Extreme? Happens and all to frequently.

Have you listened to the news where the parents have woke in the morning to find their child gone?

What is your suggestion to strike a balance between the over protective paranoid parent and the one that desires children to be children? Do we have a need to protect them as much as possible thru laws passed or leave it to the parents to supervise 24/7.

Bonnie