Not loitering

July 23, 2008 05:51 am

— I have followed the saga of the Sunbury sex offender law, in regards to the "incident" at the Oppenheimer Pleasure Grounds. According to the ordinance, Ms Hunt was supposedly "loitering."
Ms. Hunt had a purpose to be at the playground. She had taken her children to participate in the activities at that place. She is apparently a mother who cares enough to stay with her children instead of just dropping them off -- something that happens all too often in playground settings. She was not lurking, dallying, spending time idly, lounging, lingering or doing anything else that would indicate that she was, in fact, loitering.
Megan's law was enacted for a good reason, the state has laws that are passed on to those on the list, and they can then choose to abide by the law or to break the law. City codes are sometimes enacted due to some kind of hysteria concerning some kind of action. Those who would be affected by those laws should be informed of them in a way that can be tracked. A municipality has a responsibility to ensure that those who would be affected be notified. Apparently Sunbury, in its haste and hysteria, created a law without notifying those who are affected by that law.
If a municipality has any person, whether a registered sex offender or not, who is actually hanging around places where children congregate, that person should be watched; but a mother who takes her children to a playground so they can play should be allowed to do so without harassment by the police or anyone else.
I hope that Ms Hunt is cleared of the "loitering" charge, and that this law might be put to rest. I also hope that she might be given some grace by the community. She paid for the "crime," and has been a law-abiding citizen for six years. Let's all cut her a break.
Rita Helwig,
Northumberland