FranklinNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

This Just In...

Kevin Fischer is an award-winning veteran broadcaster who has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for nearly three decades.
Kevin, who is a legislative aide to state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, “INTERchange,” on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, in Franklin.

One court hearing affects every child in Wisconsin: Will you make a stand?

By Kevin Fischer
Thursday, Nov 1 2007, 08:14 PM
THE FOLLOWING REPORT INVOLVES A CITY OF FRANKLIN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE STATE OF WISCONSIN.  IT IS ARGUABLY ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUES OUR STATE FACES. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE. 

In June, convicted, but now released sex offender Steven Hanke purchased a home in the 8200 block of South 77th Street in Franklin. Hanke was sentenced to nine years in prison in 1996 for second-degree sexual assault.

Problem: Hanke moved into his Franklin several months after the city had passed a milestone ordinance severely restricting where sex offenders can live. Hanke lives not far from Forest Park Middle School in complete defiance of the Franklin ordinance, and now refuses to move.

The city of Franklin has filed a lawsuit against Hanke in an effort to force him out. A hearing is scheduled this Monday before Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Franke in Room 502 of the Courthouse at 1:30.

At stake is not only Franklin’s ordinance, but numerous other laws just like it that were patterned after Franklin’s and are now either in place or being considered in numerous communities around the state.

A large crowd is needed before Judge Franke next Monday to show support for these ordinances.

If Franke rules in favor of Hanke, his decision will literally take the teeth out of restrictive laws and be a huge victory for sex offenders.

To truly understand the magnitude of this issue, some background is in order.

HISTORY

From an earlier blog of mine on Franklin’s top issues:

Franklin has been Wisconsin’s leader in the fight against sex offenders. It has had to be.

Not too long ago, busloads of Franklin residents stormed a public hearing at State Fair Park to protest a special state committee’s thought of building a facility in Franklin to house numerous sexually violent persons. Franklin was considered an ideal location, having the most open space in Milwaukee County.

The loud and strong stand by Franklin residents couldn’t be ignored. The special panel wrapped up its business without recommending any site in Milwaukee County for a sex predator house.

A flurry of activity ensued at the state Capitol. A key piece of legislation was approved and signed into law that killed funding for the facility for sexually violent persons and also disbanded the special committee assigned to find a location for the facility. Another bill signed into law makes first degree sexual assault of a child punishable by life in prison. Both bills were authored by Senator Mary Lazich.

After sailing through the state Senate, a bill requiring that the worst sex offenders in the state be monitored by Global Positioning System or GPS was finally approved after much wrangling in the Assembly and signed into law.

Still, Franklin officials worried that released sex offenders would be dumped in Franklin. Sparking that fear was the state allowing notorious offender Billy Lee Morford to travel back and forth between his northwest side Milwaukee home and Franklin for 18 months without properly notifying Franklin.

After several public hearings and a thorough legal review, the Franklin Common Council late last year approved an ordinance with tight restrictions on where sex offenders could go and live within the city limits of Franklin.

Other communities quickly took notice, with several surrounding municipalities and some out-state either approving or considering Franklin-like ordinances of their own.

The Franklin Police Department has already used the new city ordinance on restrictions to force offenders out of areas they’re not welcome. Several local web sites now feature links to the sex offender registry and the family Watchdog offender map.

So far, no one has challenged the constitutionality of Franklin’s ordinance, or any other Franklin-like ordinance around the state. If they do, they’re in for a battle.

Jim McCarthy, a member of the City Council in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania wrote the following in a letter to the editor in American City and County Magazine. McCarthy was responding to an article that predator protection laws around the country are coming under fire. McCarthy writes:

“As one who has been trying for eight months to pass a law restricting where convicted sexual predators may reside or work in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., my research shows the majority of such laws have already passed court muster. Currently, 30 plus states, and hundreds of local communities, have passed such laws, most of them based on the “original” proposal passed by Iowa, which was upheld by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court (see Doe vs. Miller), and Ohio's “Distance Marker” legislation, which was similarly upheld as constitutional by federal courts.

In challenges to the Iowa and Ohio laws, the courts have ruled that these laws do not infringe upon a person's rights in that they are a form of civil regulation and not a form of punishment, they are intended to protect children and are rationally related to that end, and they represent a rational argument that prohibiting sex offenders from places children congregate will advance a community's interest in protecting children. Two federal courts have upheld city actions to ban individual sex offenders from parks and recreation areas where children congregate.

There have been some isolated cases where a poorly written law was struck down by courts, but that was because the authors failed to do the research required to make their law iron-clad. It is up to us, the legislators, to make sure “they” do not have access to our little children, whose rights far outweigh the rights of someone who preys on the weakest of our society.”
From my blog on August 16, 2007.


The city of Franklin is to be credited with aggressively going after Steven Hanke in court. Monday’s court hearing is before Judge Franke. Franke is a very liberal judge with a history.

In June of 2003, Franke released one of Wisconsin’s most notorious predators, four-time-convicted child molester Billy Lee Morford, to a home reportedly less than a mile from two schools and a park. Morford was the first sexual predator given supervised release in the city of Milwaukee.

In 1997, Franke granted predator Shawn Schulpius supervised release, contingent on the creation of a plan for housing and monitoring him in Milwaukee. But for more than two years, officials could not find supervised housing for Schulpius in the city. In 2000, Franke reversed himself, saying Schulpius didn't deserve release after all.

This is why a strong showing of support from not just Franklin residents, but citizens from all parts of Wisconsin concerned about the safety and welfare of families and their innocent children is critical at Monday’s hearing.

As I mentioned on WISN last Thursday when I filled in for Mark Belling, according to an article in last week’s Green Bay Press Gazette, “At least 11 Wisconsin municipalities have passed some restrictions on sex offenders, whether residency limitations or restrictive zones where certain types of offenders are not allowed. Twenty-five more are considering similar restrictions, said Tom Smith, a registration specialist with the Department of Corrections.”

All of these ordinances protecting innocent children could be all but rendered meaningless by Judge Franke’s ruling. A caller to my show on WISN said the decision could always be reversed on appeal. Appeals take time, are not guaranteed, and in the meantime, sex offenders could ignore ordinances and move into areas around schools, day care centers, etc.

Will you take a stand for children and against sex offenders?

Will you take a stand for common sense laws designed to protect our most precious citizens?


MONDAY

NOVEMBER 5, 2007

ROOM 502

MILWAUKEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

1:30

JUDGE JOHN FRANKE


The safety of every child in Wisconsin is on the line.

Yes, it’s that important.

 

Comments

Steve O   

Kevin:  

Thanks for staying on top of this vital issue.

We can argue over brick or stone, pedestrian freindly, sidewalks and taxes, but this one issue demands our full and reasoned attention.  There is nothing as important as protecting the safety of our children.  We must prevail and we will prevail.

I hope to see a lot of people in court on Monday.

Ald. Steve Olson

November 1, 2007 9:01 PM

Fred Keller   

I'm there, Steve.

November 2, 2007 6:31 AM

Burnt Toast and Coffee Time for 11/2/07 « Spring City Chronicle   

Pingback from  Burnt Toast and Coffee Time for 11/2/07 « Spring City Chronicle

November 2, 2007 7:27 AM

This Just In...   

In the state of Wisconsin, if I am a licensed gun owner, it is legal to shoot a feral pig, anytime, anywhere

November 2, 2007 4:03 PM

keep kids safe   

Thanks for keeping the community updated about this very important event.  I hope every parent residing in the state of Wisconsin realizes how very important this issue is.  Our children are in need of our support.  We are always hearing about why some laws are not fair to ex-criminals.  I want to know, when we are going to make more noise about why it is not fair that defenseless childrens rights are not the focus of this state.  What laws have these kids broken in the past?  What wrong decisions did they make that may follow them for their lives?  NONE!!!

Show up downtown Monday and let Judge Franke know how strongly you feel about protecting our children and enforcing this necessary ordinance.

November 2, 2007 5:13 PM

This Just In...   

The floods in New Orleans caused by Katrina: the wildfires in California. Jerry Bowyer has a great column

November 2, 2007 5:55 PM

This Just In...   

A few years ago, when the controversy exploded about an ethnic slur Mark Belling said on his radio show

November 3, 2007 3:52 PM

Thinking Out Loud   

This past summer, our village board adopted a sex offender ordinance to protect Menomonee Falls from

November 3, 2007 3:59 PM

This Just In...   

Before you continue on to the rest of this post, please look at some or all of this video: Two of today

November 4, 2007 8:29 AM

Thinking Out Loud   

Score one for Christmas. You remember the war over Christmas last year, right? Traditionalists fought

November 4, 2007 8:50 PM

Thinking Out Loud   

I have an issue with Larry King. Maybe I am too young to fully appreciate the accomplishments of Larry

November 4, 2007 9:20 PM

Middle of the Road   

Two subjects that I want to remind you about. First on Monday November 5th - The city of Franklin has

November 4, 2007 9:39 PM

Michael Storac   

I am a contributor to sex offender issues around the country.  In fact, I supplied Andrew Arena with the materials that helped him assist in his case to defend Steven Hanke's constitutional rights, specifically they first, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution, as well as ex post facto laws.

The problem regarding the residency restrictions of former offenders required to register under the various sex offender registries around the country is that none of them are based in actual safety measures. Basically, the argument is NOT whether former offenders like Hanke will reoffend or not.  But the laws are based on FEARS and HYSTERIA. The bottom line is this:  Hanke committed a crime, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to that crime. Finally, he completed his sentence, so that he was completely free of the court system.  Therefore, even though he has a requirement to register as a sex offender for public disclosure (as per "Smith vs. Doe", Supreme Court decision ruling 6-3 that the registry was not in itself punitive).  

Finally, you may wish to review the actual results of such laws.  For instance, in the very law that was decided by the 8th circuit court that the city of Franklin is so adamant on using for its basis for restricting offenders, the law is an unconscionable disaster.  Former offenders have been relegated to registering addresses that are traffic rest areas, motels, and even open fields.  The non-compliance rate for registration TRIPLED.  In fact, the laws are so out of control in Iowa, that the Sheriff's Association and the Iowa County Attorney's Association, who originally heavily supported the residency law, are now just as heavily AGAINST the laws, and have publicly called for its repeal.

So setting aside the constitutional problems, including the blatant falsehoods that attorneys purport that such laws are "constitutional", the real problem is that the laws are not doing a THING to protect children.  The ONLY REASON such laws exist is because of the emotional aspect of laws with regard to children.  That is what is wrong,incidentally, with a lot of laws based on offenses against children. Emotions do not make for rational decisions, and to name a law that affects ALL sex offenders whom are just one step away from John Couey actually creates a more FEARFUL atmosphere, and such conditions lead to the emotional response that city's have, such as Franklin, by enacting residency restriction laws.

In short, we should make laws far stricter for offenses in the first place, which should then be duly meted out in a court of law.  But once the trial is over, and the sentence is complete, we should focus more on prevention of the ACT, not the former offender.

November 7, 2007 2:19 PM

Mike B.   

Nice job Michael, you are a real hero.  You say that you are a national commentator on this issue, but I don't think that you are looking for real solutions.  You portray this more like some kind of legal game.  Well, you may very well know the law regarding this issue, but you seriously misrepresent the reasons for such an ordinance, as strictly emotional - really I don't believe that this is a misconception on your part as characterizing the other side is part of what you do as a lawyer.  Nevertheless, this is no more of an emotional issue to people close to the situation than it is to own automobile insurance.  A person like Steven Hanke poses, what they call "risk".  And, there is a whole industry based on the concept of risk - the insurance industry, which is made up of accountants and finance types - really emotion people - Oprah watchers if you will.  Now, with my tongue removed - I'm sure if you assembled these accountants and finance types together, they could come up with a real hard monetary number for the value of the risk that Steven Hanke poses to a community.  As, you suggest, the legal system may be limited in ways to further deal with Mr. Hanke; however, I think that the Town of Franklin should come up with some other creative and more market based solutions.  A solution to the problem posed by the Mr. Hanke's of the world needs to address the value of the risk that they pose to their communities and the other real costs communities incur from their presence.  

February 11, 2008 11:27 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

 
The opinions and views expressed by Community Voice writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Journal Interactive, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or Community Newspapers. MyCommunityNow.com does not control, is not responsible for, and does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of, the postings on this Web log. Readers can report objectionable content by clicking here.