OPINION & EDITORIAL
Policies obstruct offenders’ privacy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Rising food prices indicate worldwide crisis (April 25, 2008)
- Corn subsidies distort market (April 18, 2008)
- Sexual abuse not protected by Constitution (April 11, 2008)
- South trying to rewrite history (April 4, 2008)
- Saving Tibet not worth trouble (March 28, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Offenders need not be damned (February 8, 2008)
- Sex offenders deserve to be rehabilitated, not exiled (September 27, 2007)
- Controversial green plates for offenders will bolster safety, despite criticism (May 8, 2007)
- Letters to the editor -- 3/20/02 (March 20, 2002)
- Green Bay nativity dispute displays legislative misguidance (January 21, 2008)
Share This:
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, March 2, 2007
Last weekend, while visiting my hometown of Green Bay, I noticed an interesting tidbit in the local paper: the City Council was debating adopting a local ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 1,500 to 2,000 feet of a school, day care facility, park, trail or place of worship. According to local reporter Chris Duffy, the low end of the ordinance would restrict offenders to barely a fifth of the city and the high end would virtually bar sex offenders from living anywhere within the city limits. I heard about these restrictions being put in place elsewhere, but the fact that my hometown was considering adopting them spurred me to look deeper into how local and state governments deal with the release of sex offenders. What I've learned has convinced me that there are fundamental problems with the current system that local governments are using to deal with this class of felons.
The basic system of tracking sex offenders is through a registration program. After conviction, sex offenders are registered in the program and then must notify authorities whenever they change addresses, jobs, phone numbers and other related information. An offender is placed on the list for life. While tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders may be desirable, there are two main problems with this process. Most obvious is that offenders may move without contacting authorities. The January 2007 Madison Police Department newsletter makes this point clear, stating, "Currently, there are thousands of Registered Sex Offenders who have failed to comply with the registration requirements." This means that although there is a system in place for tracking them, it doesn't necessarily work that well.
Another problem regards public access to the sex offender registry system. Wisconsin does not allow the general public to search the registry and identify sex offenders based solely on location. Instead, the Wisconsin registry requires a specific name. However, other states like Michigan allow searches based on city, and give pictures and addresses to go along with the results. I don't sympathize with those who have committed many of these crimes, but even felons have a right to have their privacy respected. Offenders can hardly be expected to ever transition back into society if their privacy is invaded by neighbors. Police departments and other governmental institutions have a legitimate case for tracking sex offenders, but allowing the general public to do so adds to the chance they will re-offend and contributes to the voyeuristic atmosphere that the erosion of privacy in modern society has created.
Now, consider the possibility of zoning where these offenders live. At first, it seems like a great idea. Who doesn't want to look like they're being tough on crime? That stance has always been a surefire way to pump up a politician's image in American politics, and many cities have passed ordinances similar to the one taking shape in Green Bay. Looking past the get-tough vision reveals a problem with this strategy. As more cities adopt prohibitions like this, more convicted sex offenders will be pushed to outlying areas. It forces a smaller number of communities to deal with sex offenders and concentrates them — hardly the ideal solution. Furthermore, I have no doubt in my mind that these zoning regulations would not stop a determined offender from committing another crime. It takes all of a minute to drive half a mile along a residential street, hardly a deterrent to staying away from schools or other similar places.
If society's justice system chooses to release sex offenders from prison, they need to have a chance to build a new life. If these felons end up stigmatized for life because their neighbors know what they did, it can only have a negative effect on their chances of committing another crime in the future. Doing away with open access to sex offender registries and zoning is not being soft on crime. Instead, it's a logical and reasonable response to an overzealous and overplayed issue. Why are justice systems and populations obsessed with sex offenders? After all, why not add murderers and drug dealers to a registry? They are plenty dangerous. So are drunk drivers. Should we zone all of these people out of cities? Where does this stop? Hopefully in the near future there will be court challenges to these measures that might reverse them. Otherwise, our society risks sliding further down the slope of segregation and division.
Andrew Wagner (awagner@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 7:38am):
Wagner, you seem to think that "correctional facilities" actually correct people of their perversions.
Our jails just make people into monsters, more so than when they entered.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 9:54am):
Great idea Andrew. Here's an idea, when you have a child, you can invite a sex offender into your home to help him "build a new life." He could babysit for you while you work.
Or better yet, take your bleeding heart, simple minded liberal filth and go sexually offend yourself.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 11:30am):
All of these prohibitions and notices are a waste of time. We need to be addressing the problems that create sex offenders instead of just figuring out what to do with them after the fact.
Of course, the same thing could be said of terrorism. But there's no money to be made in curing a disease instead of just treating it, so on we go.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 11:59am):
"Or better yet, take your bleeding heart, simple minded liberal filth and go sexually offend yourself."
That was just about the stupidest comment ever made here. Yes, we need to protect people from sexual predators, but all you're doing with laws that effectively ban predators from living in entire cities is dumping the problems they present onto other people. You might not like it, but the law doesn't allow you to deport all sex offenders from the country, and that's what you'd have to do if we followed your idiotic comment to its logical conclusion.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 2:16pm):
You filthy liberals don't want to execute them, you don't want to keep them away from children. You want to protect them and let them live in our neighborhoods. We spend so much money on criminals that don't deserve to live. How much money do we spend on the victims? Many child molesters are repeat offenders after spending time in jail. How many chances do we give them?
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 2:17pm):
I totally agree with this article. Here is another issue for your consideration. A few years ago, somebody I know was sentenced to 7 years in prison and life-time registration as a sex offender. The "crime" he committed was this: while sitting in a waiting room, he passed a note to an underage boy (I believe he was 17), that contained some sort of sexual pickup line. There were some other issues brought up during the trial, such as the person's history of alcohol abuse. But let me be clear about this: the "crime" was passing a note to a 17 year old boy soliciting sex. For this "crime," he was sentenced to 7 years in prison and life-time sex offender registration. And because of Wisconsin's truth in sentencing, he will serve every day of those seven years.
The trial was one of two that I have attended in my life. Both have made me thoroughly disgusted with the sentencing/justice system in our state. One has only to read the paper to see how child abusers, even murderers get off with less.
Our extreme hatred toward sex offenders is way out of hand. It leads to outrageous sentences and policies by judges and politicians. Some rationality needs to be used rather than allowing our emotions and desire for revenge to dictate how we approach these issues.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 4:31pm):
I think there is plenty of open space in Siberia for all of our sex perverts.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 6:41pm):
Many years ago when I was 18, I had a friend from childhood in my car, he was 17. Stopped for a traffic violation, the cop found two empty beer cans rolling on the rear foor. I was arrested for 'Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor'.
Sentenced to 15 days jail time, the infraction was interpreted as 'child molestation' by fellow middle aged inmates. It gave them license to rape me. When I reported (snitched) about it, the sheriff/guards laughed and said I deserved it. I was then sent to 'Isolation' where I was locked in a room with the joke-man you all like to call Bubba, continued, while officers of the law watched on.
When I fear prowlers at my window in the night, I fear the prowler has a badge.
Megan's list would not have helped me! It won't help you either! It is a worthless peice of s*** used to further punish and humiliate. A tool for use by bullies and the sexually repressed.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 3:53am):
"Wisconsin does not allow the general public to search the registry and identify sex offenders based solely on location. Instead, the Wisconsin registry requires a specific name."
While I agree with Mr. Wagner's point, you actually can search the official DOJ sex offender page by area.
NIMBYism isn't going to keep anyone safe, and all you wannabe-hardass "tough on crime" fools are actually a bunch of scared little pansies dressing up as cowboys.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 8:02am):
6:41pm, you need better lawyers.
Anonymous (March 4, 2007 @ 4:48pm):
Is Lifers Union Advocacy Group (http://www.lifersunion.org/) just a front organization for sex predators housed at the McNeil Island Special Commitment Center?
Lifers Union Advocacy Group (LUAG) states:
Lifers Union Advocacy Group (LUAG) is organized exclusively for charitable, educational, and literary purposes, Lifers Union Advocacy Group is organized for the purposes of sponsoring and contributing to activists and/or organizations working toward the betterment in family and otherwise social contacts for individuals incarcerated in prisons and/or mental hospitals nationwide;
This is from the web-page of the group and this is from the web-page of DSHS which keeps this group off the streets:
The Special Commitment Center Program, operated by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), provides a specialized mental health treatment program for civilly committed sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences.
The civil commitment process is under the authority of the superior court in the county where an individual was previously convicted of sex crimes. Only sex offenders whom the court finds to meet the legal definition of a sexually violent predator may be civilly committed to the Special Commitment Center (SCC).
Public safety is the central purpose of the Community Protection Act of 1990. In each of its facilities, the Special Commitment Center Program employs a variety of stringent public safety and security measures to provide for the community's safety.
Yes, the men who operate Lifers Union Advocacy Group are sexually violent predators, the worst of the worst, men like Kevin Coe, the South Hill Rapist, Richard Roy Scott the untreated child rapists who, if released in the morning would be raping before night fall.
How is it that this group is allowed to use the internet to continue their sex offending ways? The men who run this group are strong-arming weaker inmates, forcing them to give up monies for their personal cause.
The members of Lifers Union Advocacy Group are nothing more then sex predators using the net to offend.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 2:25pm):
Wagner,
You are most wise beyond your years.
Let's make these laws fair for those who are truly trying to make a new better way of life,be it on their own or with their families.
If they are dangerous ,prone to be a violent reoffender ,than dont release him or her from prison.
Most people are voting or creating new laws pertaining to sex offender's based on their anger or fear !
Let's get educated about some of these offenses .Come on people, we are better than just send them to an island or saying kill them!
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 11:14am):
Kudos to Green Bay for attempting to pass this law. If only every state, county, city, town, village, township, borough, parish, etc. in the United States passed this kind of law.
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 3:34pm):
To me, all these laws that are being passed are worthless empty attempts at trying to keep our children safe..funding for these new laws are ridiculous & really give us a false sense of security,imo.
Anonymous (March 17, 2007 @ 2:19am):
Critics say it aids in the harassment of sex offenders. Well, I suppose that might make them think twice before offending. Come on. Everyone knows that you never used to hear about it until just recently. Not that it never happened but because it finial was addressed. I think of it and I think of a few years in prison and then parole. That makes it worth the crime. For example, say I wanted to really murder someone, I would think to myself about what would happen after the act. I would assume the CSI would catch me and I would go to prison forever. Okay, that makes me a little leary of acting out such an act. I personally would rather just be murdered than raped and yet who gets off easy...Cynthia
Anonymous (March 17, 2007 @ 2:22am):
The effect of the list is what exactly? What is the purpose? To give public awareness to those whom have committed an INDECENT ACT? Okay, it sounds feasible. The guy found with child porn couldn't possibly compete with the guy found guilty of sodomy of a child. I mean after all I am sure that the later never even looked at child porn? Oh, okay. I see. So stupid of me to assume that looking at child porn would really have any risk compared to an actual offender who crossed that line from fantasy to reality. I suppose I wouldn't be bothered not knowing that the local janitor at the elementary school my child attends was convicted of child porn. He is not a real risk surrounded my a whole gathering of children that he can look at and picture what a magazine would. What makes him hold back from acting it out? I am sure there is someone out there who committed some sexual misconduct act that was low risk and later couldn't control a desire to act it out. Cynthia
Anonymous (March 17, 2007 @ 9:10pm):
Hey , im for equal right! Put ALL criminals on a registry ,not just sex offender's!
Anonymous (April 8, 2007 @ 2:29pm):
The problem we have now is that we have so many expensive law enforcement resources diluted, and it still doesn't take away the fear factor of finding out that your neighbor is a sex offender and child rapist. In addition, communities will start having to pay court costs as the offenders start getting the American Criminal Liberties Union thugs to start defending the right of rapists to live as near to schools and playgrounds as they want, which is a double hit in my opinion. Finally, how are we going to keep them off the Internet when all they have to do is to drive to the nearest Starbucks or go to San Francisco and jump on the free Internet hotspot, where they can't even be traced, let alone monitored, while they entice our children to their doom?
The sex offender colony is the only solution, in my opinion. All new offenders can be sentenced from 25 to life and spend their days trying to avoid Bubba, and anyone out of the system should be restricted to the colonies. If we have to make a constitutional amendment (perhaps the Sex Offender Residency and Employment Restriction Amendment to the US Constitution, or SORERA), so be it. Let them collude all they want in their demented colony.
Anonymous (May 12, 2007 @ 8:37pm):
All of you who think sex offenders should pay forever haven't given a thought to the fact that there are innocent men and women who have been accused of sexual crimes. If it can happen with murder, it can surely happen with other crimes. I can imagine nothing more ironic than being forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of my life and I did not do the crime.
In addition, for all of you who equate registered sex offenders with fixiated pedophiles, do your research. That may have been the original intention way back when, but it isn't the case now. Due to politics and the way the federal government doles out funding to the states, there are hundreds of categories of offenses that can land one on the sexual registry. Many of these do not have a victim and many aren't even connected to sexual contact. But never mind. If some politician wants to make a name for himself or herself by branding johns who frequent prostitutes as sex offenders or guys who pee in the park or alleyway as sex offenders, and people are too ignorant or sheep like to even question this practice, then American citizens must realize that we're slipping into a police state. Upping the ante on all former offenders for the crime of one offender (ie John Couey) is taking group punishment to the extreme. It's what Hitler did in Nazi Germany, but it is hardly fitting for the United States.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
