[Hodar]

The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child.

So, one would ask 'why' such a law exists. Consider, how else can one prevent a 'pervert' from sitting in the park and stalking a child while the parent is distracted? Perhaps the park itself is set aside as a refuge for children, a small section of land in a very large section of town; designed for children. How do you prevent thugs, bullies and muggers from preying on women and children?

These are two reasons why (perhaps) such a law and fine are imposed. Either the law is enforced, or it is not. If it is disregarded for women, then it can not be enforced for men; at which time the entire purpose of the law is removed.

[Puppage]

Consider, how else can one prevent a 'pervert' from sitting in the park and stalking a child while the parent is distracted?

Perverts only stalk in parks? If anything, this is a "feeeeeel good" ordinance.

[An.American.Expatriate]

And what if the "pervert" is laying on a blanket just outside the "playground" - this is just plain stupid - it is outrageous to punish innocent behavior (sitting on a bench at a playground) because "someone" might one day sit on that bench and intend to perform an illegal act.

What's next?? A rule stating that you may not be within eyesight of a children's playground unless accompanied by a child? A rule stating that you can't use a path which leads to a children's playground unless accompanied by a child?

[monday]

"So, one would ask 'why' such a law exists."

No doubt it was passed with the best of intentions, but the reality is to penalize people who have not molested anyone. Society begins to get outcomes like this whenever laws are passed that require punishment for presumed intentions or thoughts. It requires "thought police" to enforce the laws because they are the only ones who can read minds and thereby determine guilt.

The people who passed this law assumed that every adult that sat on the park bench without a child would be a child molester. It's a silly assumption and this is the logical outcome.

A better solution would be to fine parents who let their young children play in the park without supervision. It is the parents job to safeguard their children, not the states. If left to the state, your children will never be safe.

[af_vet_1981]

So, one would ask 'why' such a law exists. Consider, how else can one prevent a 'pervert' from sitting in the park and stalking a child while the parent is distracted? Perhaps the park itself is set aside as a refuge for children, a small section of land in a very large section of town; designed for children. How do you prevent thugs, bullies and muggers from preying on women and children? These are two reasons why (perhaps) such a law and fine are imposed. Either the law is enforced, or it is not. If it is disregarded for women, then it can not be enforced for men; at which time the entire purpose of the law is removed.

Yet the journalist's angle is to make all parks safe for pedophiles.