Sexual Predator Bill Up for Hearing Tomorrow
Suburban Milwaukee leaders are mobilizing against a bill that would outlaw local ordinances that restrict where sex offenders can live.
A hearing on Assembly Bill 759 is set for Thursday before the state Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts.
Franklin Ald. Steve Olson said Tuesday that elected officials from Franklin, Greenfield, Cudahy and possibly other suburbs plan to attend the hearing.
Olson said he thinks the bill would result in Milwaukee sex offenders being released from prison and allowed to live in the suburbs.
“It’s an effort by some Milwaukee legislators to again pass something quickly, when nobody sees it, and put their problems on to other communities,” Olson said.
“Why should we accept Milwaukee’s, why should Milwaukee accept Franklin’s (sex offenders)?” he said. “It’s a matter of simple logic and fairness - take your own back.”
Franklin is among municipalities that restrict sex offenders from living in certain areas, such as a prescribed distance from schools.
The bill would prevent those municipalities from enforcing such ordinances and would prohibit any more such ordinances from being enacted.
Once again we have the state wanting to impose a blanket rule instead of letting different municipalities manage these things according to their own values. It’s disappointing to see so many Republicans co-sponsoring this. Local control, folks… dig it.
But why should I then allow the city of west bend to dictate what I can do on my block? Local control should extend to just me, right? Any form of government is inherently oppressive, whether state level of city level, right? Right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1121 hrs
I’m all for letting communities set their own rules, but some places have run into problems with it, as I recall. Basically shunning these people to such a degree that they were living under bridges and so on. Given their complete inability to reintegrate into society, some feel it’s even more likely that they’d reoffend. To say nothing of the difficulty of parole and probation offices to monitor them. At least this is what I’ve heard. I don’t know the answer to the problem, but there are in fact two sides to it.
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1342 hrs
Our city is in the process of passing an ordinance right now. We went at it with the idea that it is not right to completely outlaw them from living here but definitely want the public to know where and who they are. We needed to pass our own ordinance because nearby cities were trying to send there offenders here because we had no ordinance. I agree with Mr. Olson from Franklin that they should first have to return to their own city where people know them and can warn their kids about them. I also agree that the circumstances are different with each one and most are not necessarily violent. A rapist should be kept behind bars but a kid who had consensual sex at 19 years old with a 17 year old should not be marked for life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1359 hrs
Scott:
You’re dealing with unproven arguments. The “bridge” story comes out of Miami. The monitoring by probation and parole is a different issue than the sex offender registry and in any case, there is no data showing that residency restrictions have had any impact in and of themselves on registration. Both are arguments poised by DOC staffers who may not be interested in a bit more work.
We should remember that the DOC now believes that they’re real estate agents who have to find these criminals housing.
Milwaukee was set to vote on a banishment ordinance. They didn’t pass one. 90% of the ordinances are fair in that they are not overly restrictive (there are places for offenders).
Once again, some legislators believe that they’re the smartest people in the state.
The bill that’s proposed DOES NOT provide for residency restrictions and only in very limited circumstances does it provide for safety zones. 301.48 (3m)(a) provides “perimeters of 100 to 250’” for probation only.
Do you REALLY want some overworked parole agent deciding between 100’ and 250’ when they probably have never met the offender nor been to the community he’s moving to? Do You REALLY?
This is an effort to dump all of Milwaukee’s offenders into the suburbs.
Take a look at the ordinances in the suburbs. Most of them require that they take back their own offenders. That’s the key. EVERY community must take their own offenders back.
Posted by Steve O on March 10, 2010 at 1408 hrs
this myth that there is some kind of shared set of values within a city is amusing
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1443 hrs
Disagree. But not because I pity those on the sex registry. Instead, I think that home rule in this case is incompatible. The state should be able to enact a law that trumps city ordinance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1453 hrs
I’m all for letting communities set their own rules, but some places have run into problems with it, as I recall. Basically shunning these people to such a degree that they were living under bridges and so on. Given their complete inability to reintegrate into society, some feel it’s even more likely that they’d reoffend. To say nothing of the difficulty of parole and probation offices to monitor them. At least this is what I’ve heard. I don’t know the answer to the problem, but there are in fact two sides to it.
This is where I stand as well.
Not to mention the number of people who have been branded “sex offender” for having sex with their 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18. This is an area of the law that is an absolute mess right now, and no solutions will be easy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1546 hrs
This isn’t so much a Republican/Democrat issue as it tends to be an urban/rural issue. Most of the bill’s sponsors are from rural areas where residents are concerned that the trend of overly prohibitive rules passed by certain urban and suburban communities are going to ultimately mean that more sex offenders end up in their rural townships. Go find a map and draw a circle with a 2,500 foot radius around every school, community center, day care, public playground, and church you find. That’s the problem in Miami-Dade County and why there are sex offenders living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. In many communities, there’s no place for sex offenders from that community to realistically integrate.
Also, think about what happens if there are only a handful of homes in a given community that don’t fall into one of these circles. Your local government is effectively destroying the property value of homes in those areas by requiring every released sex offender to become your neighbor. That’s also been a problem in certain communities. If local governments want to create sex offender ghettoes, they should be responsible for paying fair market value for properties in those areas that residents no longer want to own.
I don’t have a problem with these perimeter requirements, per se. I do think the state has an interest in making sure that these laws are reasonable, ensuring that communities can absorb their returning offenders, and ensuring that we’re not creating sex offender ghettoes unless we’re willing to relocate those who may otherwise be located in or near those areas.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 10, 2010 at 1725 hrs
The only good place for them to be located is somewhere no one else lives. That leaves about two choices:
a. Outside city limits in an empty farmhouse.
b. Cities would have to make an exception to zoning laws and have small apartment buildings in the middle of an industrial park.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1816 hrs
a. Outside city limits in an empty farmhouse.
b. Cities would have to make an exception to zoning laws and have small apartment buildings in the middle of an industrial park.Okay, let’s put them all in farmhouses in the Town of Jackson in Washington County. I’m sure they’ll be just fine with it. They’ve got lots of space. Or to go with your other option, who’s going to build and own these sex offender apartments in your industrial park? Can’t imagine a private party is going to step up unless there’s a huge government subsidy. Otherwise, you’re going to have local governments using tax dollars to build and operate these facilities. Think you can recover costs? Yeah, fat chance. It’s not like sex offenders get out and suddenly make mad bank. So now your tax dollars are paying to construct, operate, and subsidize sex offender housing. Congratulations.
Also, what if you’re in a community that actually wants to grow and develop its industry? Think locating a bunch of sex offenders in your industrial park is going to make it a prime location for businesses looking to relocate? Nope.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 10, 2010 at 1854 hrs
Another issue that comes up in these ordinances is keeping them from being near a church. Our city took that part out of the sample ordinances because we realized that this is a way to allow them to become better people. They are still not allowed to teach Sunday School and must inform the church of their status but many ordinances we read prohibited them from attending church at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1924 hrs
Reminds me of how backwards-ass it is to deny federal student loans to people who have prior drug convictions.
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1927 hrs
I feel compelled to add that I’m skeptical that a true sexual predator—a pedophile or a violent serial rapist—can ever be cured/trusted/redeemed. I think the best you ever get out of ‘em is that they get old, and at least that’s something.
A kid busted for a bag of weed—or even a drug dealer—should absolutely be allowed to attend college. Not the same thing at all.
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1933 hrs
Residency regulations are the wrong solution, the expedient solution, to this problem anyway. They give everyone a false sense of security and they also allow cities to create sexual predator ghettos or to cast them off to other communities outright. What we should be doing is looking carefully at whether many of these individuals should ever leave an institutional setting, be it prison or a mental health facility.
Additionally, we should also be requiring stricter regulation, say, psychological testing, of those who work with our kids. After all, if you have a predilection for kids, you are probably going to find a profession working with them before you ever get caught. If I have to take a psych eval to get anything from a police job to a sales job, teachers, daycare workers, etc, should as well.
Posted by Jib on March 10, 2010 at 2304 hrs
I agree with Jib. Most of these people should never be released into the general population. However, if they are released then it means that they have paid their debt to society and it’s idiotic and unfair to tell them where they can and can’t live. Idiotic, because if they want to molest/rape someone they’ll find a way to do it regardless of where they live. Unfair, because as previous comments mention, it creates a “ghetto” situation, or for communities that don’t have such laws, it creates a situation where you have a higher population density of pervs. I think that the key is to keep them in jail and if they are released to keep very close tabs on them and make sure that the general public has access to their registries.
Posted by Limor on March 11, 2010 at 0024 hrs
Law enforcement authorities arrested a sexually violent predator Wednesday, just hours after he was seen for the second time in seven days on the Del Campo High School campus.
Authorities say Hugh Levell Stewart (left photo), 55, a registered sex offender, was arrested shortly before 4 p.m. at his home in the 7900 block of Shrewsbury Avenue in Fair Oaks.
However, authorities are not connecting Stewart with a series of attacks on Del Campo High students.
Stewart was arrested on suspicion of being at Del Campo. Under state law, registered sex offenders are not allowed on school grounds without permission from school authorities.
Law enforcement officials said Stewart was seen twice—once Wednesday morning - and “had no lawful reason” to be on campus.
Matt John
————————-
mcitpPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 0119 hrs
I have a question.
Is everyone in agreement that once you are convicted and pay your debt to “society” by spending time in prison? Then why are there even more punishments after someone is released? I’ve read countless stories about kids, high school, elementary, that are on the sex offenders registry because they touch the boyfriends/girlfriends in an improper manner. Is anyone reading this capable of saying they didn’t engage in a little heavy petting and other shenanigans during their school years?
I understand the desire to keep the riff raff away from you so you feel safe, but like others have pointed out, is it right to have a blanket policy for all “sex offenders” in your local area? Does the 15 year old boy who was making out with his 14 year old girlfriend deserve the same treatment as the 40 year old guy who was diddling the little boys at the bus stop?
With the hyseria we currently have over “sex offenders” we’ll all eventually be on that list. Don’t this so? Got kids? Ever take pictures of their baths as a baby or even a little older? Sex offender.
Just turned 18 but your boy/girlfriend is still 17? Engage in any “contact”? Sex offender.
Take pictures of your kids in the backyard during the summer? Do the neighbor kids come over in little bathing suits? Get them on film too? Sex offender.
It doesn’t matter what your reason was, if it can be construed as a “sex offense” then the wheels of the law will begin turning and your life will be ruined. I know people like to think “sex offender” only means people raping children, but it doesn’t. I’ve seen many people on here cry about using common sense, but on this topic apparently common sense just gets in the way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 0952 hrs
I agree, Jay. in spite of my comments in #13.
Posted by scott on March 11, 2010 at 0958 hrs
I also agree with Jay. We release murderers from jail all the time and yet we don’t put them in big online databases or graph their residences on maps or hold community meetings or keep them from living near others. All of this crap is just well-intentioned paranoia.
If one is so concerned about the likelihood of reoffending, then one should be prepared to argue that these individuals be locked up forever AND be prepared to find a funding mechanism for lodging all of these prisoners indefinitely. If we release them, it’s presumably because the system (as representatives of the public) has decided they have paid their debt to society. Beyond that, any monitoring/probation requirements aren’t really the business of the general public, no matter how badly the public thinks it needs to know everything about everything.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 11, 2010 at 1338 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 07:08 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).