Opinion: Editorial
Passive aggressive
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
- The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
- The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
- Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
- Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
As part of his budget plan, Gov. Jim Doyle suggested altering the lifetime GPS monitoring system for convicted sex offenders originally proposed in 2006 and implemented in 2008. Under this revision in the 2009-11 proposed budget, sex offenders now under an active, or real-time, monitoring system would be give the option to switch to passive monitoring after the offender spends at least 12 months on monitoring with no violations. Passive monitoring still tracks offenders throughout the day but only sends the information every 24 hours.
This proposal, of course, has not evaded criticism from state Republicans, with Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, going so far as to say Doyle is essentially “letting [sex offenders] go on the streets of Wisconsin to save a few bucks.” But in light of Wisconsin’s projected $5.9 billion budget deficit, Doyle’s plan is appropriate at a time when nearly all sectors of the budget are facing cuts.
Considering the cost of the two programs — $8 per person per day for active monitoring and $4 for passive monitoring — reducing the number of sex offenders under active tracking could potentially save the state a considerable amount of money. If the projected 748 sex offenders eligible for lifetime GPS monitoring at the end of 2010 are placed under active monitoring, the state should spend approximately $2.18 million each year just in managing these offenders. Provided even half of these 748 offenders are placed under passive monitoring, this could save the state hundreds of thousands of dollars — and every little bit helps in this economy.
Saving a buck or two is certainly no reason to place the public in harm’s way. However, at the moment, these is no conclusive evidence as to whether a switch from active to passive monitoring of sex offenders will have any effect on recidivism rates whatsoever. Therefore, this change seems all the more practical.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Step one in combating the budget deficit ought to be cutting the salaries of all state legislators by 10%.
It was with great irony that I read the line stating that the editorial staff crafts its opinions independently from news coverage. Apparently so, because they missed some key issues about sexual predators that would have been made clear from the front page story about a recent rape victim: Sexual predators never strike once. The girl who got raped at a party in October could identify at least one other victim of the group that assaulted her. But that criminal still walks the street - the criminals who would be transferred from active tracking to passive tracking are those that have actually been convicted of sexual crimes (which is oftentimes hard to prove) and have been considered dangerous enough that the state has a vested interest in knowing their whereabouts at all times. These aren't sexual offenders that had relations with their 17 year-old girlfriend when they were 18; the state considers them significant threats to the public.
Even if one isn't convinced that these sexual predators will harm someone again, why take that chance for the measly sum of a few hundred thousand dollars in a multi-billion dollar budget? Releasing not just one, but several offenders, into passive tracking means the likelihood of rape and assault at the hands of people required to check in just once every 24 hours will increase sharply. Risking the assault of even one more Wisconsin resident to cut corners on the state budget is absolutely unacceptable.
There are far too many people with the label of sex offender who are not considerred violent or dangerous, yet they are required to wear lifetime GPS. The way the laws are written, non-dangerous sex offenders are lumped into the same category with violent preditors and child molestors. The Governor is just doing what should have been done years ago by trying to sort out the different levels of sex offenders. The cost of monitoring someone on a GPS is outrageous and keeping up with all the technical flaws is running the Parole Officers ragged. Most POs have 20 or more SOs to keep track of.