This Just In...

I applaud your call for the community to take a stand for their children.  We must all do that.  The way to take a stand is to educate yourself.  Residency restrictions do not work.  The experts tell us they cause more harm than good.  The comprehensive State studies in Colorado and

Minnesota found that residency restrictions would not have prevented a single case of child molestation.  The experts tell us that offenders leave their home area if they are going to re-offend, so that they will not be recognized.  Research shows no correlation between where an offender lives and where he offends.  Experience has shown us that residency restrictions cause many offenders to go underground because they are unable to find homes.  Experience also has shown that there is an increase in homeless offenders, making it much harder for Law Enforcement to track them.  The Prosecutors Association and the Sheriff's association in Iowa, where there are statewide residency restrictions have come out with multiple statements AGAINST those restrictions.  Professionals tell us that offenders need a home, job, support system to reduce the risk of re-offense.  What we are doing in the NAME of protecting our children is actually placing them at more risk.  It is time to be SMART on sex offense instead of repeating the same ole mistakes over and over again.  

If you want to STAND UP FOR CHILDREN, educate yourselves on the FACTS and vote NO for residency restrictions.  Wouldnt you rather know WHERE that offender is living than having them homeless, hopeless, and unable to locate?  Just because something can be defended in a court of law does not mean it is the best practice.

QUOTE"Ald. Pietrowski voiced his concerns regarding the people who have served their time in prison and have paid their due. He is concerned about excluding people from the community and not dealing with the real issue of rehabilitation and counseling."

Councilman Petrowski actually has the right idea.  He sounds like a man who has DONE the research and given much thought to the issue.  Instead of putting a band-aid  on the hole in the dike, he seems to be interested in fixing that dike with the most updated and effective means.  

The organized out of state sex offender sympathizers strike, the same tired, old arguments.

"Wouldnt you rather know WHERE that offender is living than having them homeless, hopeless, and unable to locate?"

I'd rather have them nowhere near children.

Magister, whoever you are, the people of Wisconsin don't agree with you. In three dozen communities, communities have taken the common sense step of either adopting or seriously considering measures to protect their families and neighborhoods. That is their duty and their right.

I make no apologies for my stance and refuse to waver: pro-child, pro-family, anti-sex offender/predator.

Kevin,

The only solution that is tenable to your position, and frankly MOST right-thinking people, is to establish a colony for all registered sex offenders. The problem is that the offenders have constitutional rights; therefore, we must USE the US Constitution to our advantage, rather than to the molesters' advantage.

Although I’ve posted to several sex offender blogs, Kevin, I still feel it’s very important to get this message through. Our children and families are under a greater threat of domestic terrorism than at any point in our country. We should consider not ONLY restricting the length of distance a child molester lives from our schools and parks, but consider a concentrated place to intern registered sex offenders AWAY from ALL children and vulnerable citizens. As yourself, Kevin, I make absolutely no apologies with regard to segregating children from registered sex offenders.

It is time we seriously consider building sex offender colonies throughout the western United States and Alaska.

It is obvious. Nobody wants sex offenders to live in their neighborhoods, or even their cities. I’m a parent, and I would fight tooth and nail to prevent sex offenders from living anywhere that children may live, even if their victims were people they knew. It means NOTHING to me; what means EVERYTHING to me is they committed an atrocious crime against children. That’s enough for me.

Unfortunately, these sex offenders have rights. If they are not in prison, they will probably get the ACLU to sue the city and we will have to spend thousands of dollars defending the restrictions. Thank god your city had a decent decision with regard to one offender, which hopefully bankrupted him and will ultimately result his return to prison after molesting another child.

The ONLY thing, Kevin, to prevent future molestations, is to create an amendment to the US Constitution, creating sex offender colonies to restrict where these convicted sex offenders live in the first place. How to do this?

The first thing that needs to be done is to create an outline of such an amendment. I looked at the process for how an amendment is created. Here is the process:

Under Article V, there are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution and two ways to ratify them.

To propose an amendment

1. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

To ratify an amendment

1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.

I would submit that the state legislature route would probably be more effective, but the congressional method can be tried first. It can effectively be used as a litmus test for voting, i.e., if someone doesn’t want to vote for proposing the amendment in congress, their 2008 opponent can have a field day in saying that the incumbent protects sex offenders at the expense of children’s safety, etc.

Such an amendment would solve many problems. First of all, the registry would not exist in its current form. Parents don’t have to worry where the sex offenders live, as they all would, by law, have to live in the colony. This also eliminates the need for GPS, as the sex offenders would be restricted to the colony in the first place. No worries about convicted child molesters stalking your children’s school or favorite park, or trolling on the Internet.

Next, registrants would constitutionally have to be subjected to non-court ordered search of their premises within the zone. In addition, all their mail and phone calls would constitutionally be authorized to be monitored for illicit activities. Internet usage would also be strictly regulated, with all file storage for every computer actually done at the server-level. In addition, emails would be assigned by the administration, no Instant messaging or accessing MySpace or other children sites allowed, and all keystrokes and sites visited will be recorded 100%. All costs for such usage would be borne out by the offender, incidentally.

All registrants would be required to work, with their paychecks being handled by the administrators. Deductions for medical, rent, all services, and everything else would be done automatically, and any credit the registrant have be used for discretionary income ONLY from the colony store. Also, EVERY registrant will be required to go through treatment appropriate to his crime, and be certified as cured; otherwise, he can be subject to a felony charge and returned to prison.

Kevin, please keep in mind one thing: The sex offender colony is NOT…repeat…NOT a replacement for tough, appropriately long, non-paroleable sentencing guidelines in the first place! THAT IS PARAMOUNT. The colony would exist because society cannot handle the large amounts of offenders in their neighborhoods, with the inherent terror parents have with the knowledge that offenders are around their children. Therefore, the colony is SPECIFICALLY for offenders to spend their entire registration periods in a constitutionally-approved manner, eliminating the need for registries as they exist now. Prison should ALWAYS remain a first option for new molesters, but right now there are WAY too many off the court system that we need to do this.

Keep in mind, many offenders also are able to leave the registry for certain crimes after a specified amount of time has passed. Therefore, once a registrant’s time period has expired, he can petition the administration to be relieved of the duty to register and live in the SORERA zone. A panel of professionals, law enforcement individuals, and the offender’s victim representatives, will go over the request. If they feel the offender is ready to join society, then he can leave the zone and live anywhere he wants, although he will have to permanently register with law enforcement wherever he goes for the rest of his life. Bear in mind, also, that any registrant who has to register for life will NEVER get the opportunity to leave the zone. Only the most benign of the registrants will ever be allowed to leave. In addition, if most states can actually make all sex offenses a lifetime requirement, we would alleviate any such concern in the first place.

So there you have it, Kevin. With a constitutional amendment, we can control where they live, where they work, and how they communicate, with confidence that they won’t have a “relapse” when our own children are in striking distance.

Please contact me at soretra@aim.com for my ideas and completed impact papers on the "Sex Offender Residency, Employment, and Technology Restriction Amendment (SORETRA) to the US Constition." With the support of your position, we can get this going all over the country. Thank you for your enduring support of the children, Kevin, and until ALL registered sex offenders are PERMANENTLY segregated, FOR LIFE, from ALL SOCIETY, then I will not rest.

I believe in common sense and rational thought and dealing with reality.

The previous comment, though possibly well-intentioned, does not fall into any of those categories.

Greenfield doesn't and shouldn't have to wait for a cockamamie "Constitutional amendment" that will never see the light of day.

The people of Greenfield can take measures into their own hands right now and I urge them to do so.

Kevin, I'm disappointed that your assessment of my post is without "rational thought" and "reality."

The "reality" is that if we restrict offenders from YOUR city, they will then move to MY city. Then WE have to "take matters into our own hands" as well.

And then they will move to JACK's city. Then once Jack's city "takes matters into their own hands," they will move to JILL's city, who will in turn "take matters into their own hands."

Do you see where I'm going with this? More importantly, do you see the "rational thought" that this "reality" is presenting??

That is why I created the amendment in the first place: to ALLEVIATE this irrational, out of control nonsense. Why bother with millions of billable hours by city/county/state attorneys that cumulatively have to be spent defending ourselves from these idiots in the first place? Not to mention court costs and overall ill will.

Look. I don't mean to mince words, and frankly I'm surprised at your attitude. What happens when the US Supreme Court rules in the molesters' favor by the courts violating the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments of the US Constitution? What then?

That is why we have to PREVENT such actions in the first place, by CONSTITUTIONALLY restricting these people in the first place, Keven! I truly hope you understand the legal situation not just as it applies in Wisconsin, but in Nevada, Iowa, Alabama, Florida...every state in the country is expending resources and these PERVERTS still reoffend at skyrocketing rates while winning court cases preventing their restrictions.

I'm sorry, Kevin, but I don't think you understand that we MUST use the US Constitution, and that you give the amendment a bit more thought, before your actions in Greenfield cause molestation in Madison, or Milwaukee, because the sex offender HAS to live somewhere. And that "somewhere" is best segregated as far from society as possible.

No other solution is possible, and every time you put off this problem indefinitely by creating pipsqueak regulations, ANOTHER child's life is ruined forever. Please, Keven, please reconsider. If you like I will speak on your radio show and answer any questions.

So "take matters into your OWN hands"... and consider thinking this problem through completely, and understand WHY I have created this amendment. It is, in fact, the ONLY solution based in "reality."

"The 'reality' is that if we restrict offenders from YOUR city, they will then move to MY city."

No, that's not the reality and you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the issue. Restrictive ordinances limit where a sex offender can live in a city.....they do not BANISH.

Peter, you've been peddling your outrageous idea for some time, I see, and have been taken to the woodshed for it:

sentencing.typepad.com/.../advocacy_agains.html

Peter, you've had your 15 minutes of fame on my site. I would prefer you send your garbage somewhere else.

Kevin,

Why is it that all you people who want to pass knee-jerk ineffective laws call those of us who have educated ourselves in the facts and want effective, fact based laws sex offender sympathizers?

In that case I suppose you call Patty Wetterling, STOP IT  NOW, and many other victim advocate groups who are ALSO calling for effective laws and are AGAINST residency restrictions sex offender sympathizers also?  

You say the restrictive ordinances limit but not banish!?!?  What a load of horse hockey.  Look at the mess Florida is in!  NIMBY is rampant.  Cities pass stronger and stronger ordinances as offenders from one city move to the next.  Florida has homeless offenders, offenders living under bridges and in the Everglades.

Not so far from Mr. Del Valle's notion.  We hear on the news the neighbors screams of "clustering" of offenders in the few area's that are left to them...

Will YOUR AREA be the one that is LEFT for the offenders to live in?  DO YOU want to be in the neighborhood with 50 offenders living in it?  I question who here has the lack of understanding of the issue?!?  I think it is you Mr. Fischer.  I have studied it extensively.  I have seen it up close...and no I am not a sex offender.  (that is always the next accusation)  How can YOU, a broadcaster, know more about the issue than the Professionals who study it and the States and Federal Government who have tracked it?  

What will you do when you find that the proposed distance makes no difference?  Increase the distance?  Even longer Prison sentences?  You get closer and closer to the "Island" all the time.

Then when you have them all locked up in prison or on the island and the same problem continues...what then Mr. Fischer?  What will you say to the children then?

Residency restrictions protect no one! It’s about time state legislators pay attention to what the EXPERTS are saying.

I wrote this article a few week ago.

THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM ARE THE LAW MAKERS WHO PASS LAWS WITHOUT EXPERT ADVISE  

It is my educated opinion and that of the experts that sex offender laws as they are written today,“Do More Harm than Good.” These laws actually endanger children and society.

Megans Law and the Residence restrictions do not protect the children as these regulations intended. They actually make matters worse by creating itinerant predators.

Let me explain,

Incest and friends of the family make up approximately 98% of all sex offenses. There has been estimated that 60 million individuals in this country that has experienced child sexual abuse. 50%, 30 million will go on to abuse a child. This is the crux of the problem, and we are NOT addressing it.

Instead, law makers are creating laws that Do More harm than good. For example,

The public registries. 98% of those come from the family and friends of the family. It is a fact that once caught that 95% of them NEVER EVER repeat another sex crime. And that without therapy.

The remaining 5% are HIDING in the registries. Those who DID NOT know their victims, the violent rapists and the repeat offender.

AND, approximately, 95% of all new sex offenses are committed by individuals NOT on the registries. Is it no wonder because law makers have totally ignored the fact that Incest and friends of the family are the crux of the problem. There are 30 million abusers out there and lawmakers have done NOTHING to address PREVENTION through EDUCATION.

By ignoring incest and friends of the family, law makers have created a GREATER RISK to children and society. If we do not openly discuss it, do not propose any educational models to better inform ourselves and keep ourselves afflicted with guilt and shame which washes over all concerned, perpetrators, victims, and other family members alike, we all help shield and perpetuate the crime.

These sex offender laws are being passed without advice of the EXPERTS. They are knee jerk regulatory reaction which is just another way of saying, additional punishment is justified. Congress and the house have ignored the experts in the field. But when it comes to light bulbs they clamor for expert testimony. There is something very fundamentally wrong with your approach.

The remainder of this article may be viewed here

http://www.cfcoklahoma.org

Who will commit more new sex offenses within 3-years of being paroled, sex offenders -OR- non-sex offenders? Non sex offenders commit more new sex offenses when paroled!

Released (Paroled) Offender Type Paroled ReArrested for

New Sex Offense

%/# of New Sex

Offenses by Parolees

Convicted of

New Sex Offense

9,691 Sex Offenders 5.3% (517) 13% (1 every 2 days) 3.5% (339)

262,420 Non-Sex Offenders 1.3% (3,328) 87% (3 per day) 83% (2,179)

272,111 All Offenders 1.4% (3,845) 100%

Based upon (Pub 2003): Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from

Prison in 1994. (NCJ 198281).

http://www.cfcoklahoma.org

Ahh, we've got the network of sex pervert apologists jumping now!

Magister, there are many days I wish I was just a broadcaster.

But I guess I'm just one of those dummies who doesn't understand that sex offenders never re-offend, that once they're out, they'e just like everybody else and should be allowed to live and go where ever they want, and under no circumstances should a city, town, or village ever consider passing laws in the interest of public safety.

Fallenone (nice moniker) your comment is not being posted because it linked to a website loaded with profanities. I won't have that on my blog.

By the way, folks, none of these "Take a sex offender out to lunch and pin a medal on him" yahoo's are from this state and don't have a stake in our communities.

Nice to know you consider the TRUTH about your indecent proposal "profanity." Fact is you don't WANT people to know that you are feeding people the same tired myths and lies. As if calling Former Offenders by such a derogatory name is any lessinsulting or profane.

3. Residency Restrictions

A number of states and locales are considering residency restrictions in which sex offenders may not reside within a certain radius of schools, parks, skating rinks, certain neighborhoods, etc, and may not utilize resources such as group homes, homeless shelters and hurricane shelters. However, there is no evidence that these laws protect children. In fact, those states that have studied the issue carefully have found no relationship between sex offense recidivism and sex offenders' proximity to schools or other places where children congregate (see for example, Minnesota Department of Corrections, Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community, 2004).

Moreover, residency restrictions are having unintended consequences that decrease public safety. For example, Iowa Department of Public Safety statistics show that the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled since a residency restriction law went into effect in June 2005 (Iowa Sex Offender Registry, data as of February 15, 2006). Sex offenders who continually move or become homeless as a result of residency restrictions are more difficult to supervise and monitor, thereby increasing the risk of re-offense. In addition, the establishment of sex offender residency laws is creating a domino effect, in that once a law is established in a community or state, the neighboring communities and states are considering similar laws so as to keep sex offenders from moving to their jurisdictions.

Research has shown that sex offenders with domestic stability (stable housing and social support) are less likely to commit new sex offenses compared to those offenders who lack such stability (Managing Sex Offenders in the Community: A National Overview, Lane Council of Governments, Eugene, Oregon, 2003). Because residency requirements cause instability, which may increase the risk of re-offense, NAESV opposes residency restrictions.

This is a POSITION PAPER FROM THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END SEXUAL VIOLENCE

You just call us names and say that we are saying things that we are NOT saying.  We are not saying that sex offenders do not re-offend.  That would be just plain silly wouldn't it.  Of course they do, and some have higher re offense rates than others.  What we are saying is that we MUST use effective measures to protect our children...not measures that have PROVEN to be ineffective and cause more harm.  

Facts are facts no matter which State you are from.  Everything we have said here is fact.  It is backed up by State, Federal, or professional studies.  What is YOUR opinion backed up by?  Name calling?  Innuendo?  I am saying that if you want to pass a law, make it one that makes sense and one that would actually HELP and INCREASE SAFTEY instead of decrease it.  Here is the link to the Iowa Prosecutors statement on Residency Restrictions

www.iowa-icaa.com/.../Sex%20Offender%20Residency%20Statement%20Dec%2011%2006.pdf

and read the Amicus brief here www.atsa.com/.../AmicusBr-Prop83.pdf

for more studies and groups who opose residency restrictions for very good reasons.  I do not think you would be able to call THESE people "sex pervert apologists".  If you would just open your mind and actually read the information simply for the benifit of protecting children the very best way we can, you would see that no one is saying to be SOFT on sex offenders, simply be SMART!

I'm sorry that you think I'm only looking for my "15 minutes of fame," but apparently it looks as if you have a lot of people here who are trying to justify their perversions, or of their perverted friends. Good luck with your ordinance, but keep in mind that if you don't advocate an amendment to the US Constitution, cities such as Greenfield may potentially be liable for millions of dollars when (not "if," based on the record of the 9 justices on the bench) the Supreme Court rules residency restrictions, not based on due process by a court of law, as unconstitutional. THAT is what I'm trying to avoid, as well as TRULY keeping ALL children safe.

Take care.

At the outset, I've read just a couple of the exchanges above and appreciate that there are people in this world who believe that sex offenders can be treated and become model citizens of the world.  Like everything, there are some.  I am a practical man who tries to use my head first and I am trained as a natural skeptic in the use of "studies."  

Catagorically, anyone who uses the Iowa County Attorneys Association OPINION as a supporting argument loses all credibility with me.

Now, to look at the issue instead of the extraneous apologies I present this:

There is a solemn responsibility for LOCAL elected officials to do what they can to protect their citizenry.  The most vulnerable of that citizenry is of course, children.  As LOCAL leaders, we need to do all we can to protect our children from the harm that we know and can identify.  Child sex offenders are a harm that we know and whom we can provide some control.

The tool box that municipalities can draw from is admittedly somewhat limited.  Municipalities can control land use within their borders.

We cannot treat sex offenders.  That's the State's responsibility.  We cannot, in most instances, prosecute the sex offenders.  That's left to the State.

We can, however, to some degree, manage the RISK by controlling their residences and the places that they may frequent.

So to muddy the argument with extraneous arguments about punishment, treatment and other issues does not serve the simple need to do what we can, within the limits of our authority, to minimize the RISK of a sex offender preying on an innocent child.

And that's what Greenfield is preparing to do.  And I support them and commend them.

I wonder if he would still spew his blind hate if it was HIM or HIS KID up on a sex offense case. The mere accusation is enough to ruin a life these days.

There's not much to love about someone who assaults children.

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.

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.”

I must comment on the above mentioned. Not EVERYONE on the registry is a PREDATOR or interested in harming a CHILD!

My son and his girlfriend were in love and they did something stupid that he is paying for....REGISTRATION as a SEX OFFENDER!

A child was NOT involved, nor force, violence, drugs or alcohol. Have we as a society gone back to the dark ages? The pendelum has swung too far.

The registry is a great tool, well, it WAS a good tool until anyone and everyone that committed a 'sex offense' was thrown in with the truly violent and dangerous offenders.

The system has raped my son and our family with greedy legislators out for votes.

Having an individual on the registry such as my son and mandating all these requirements and restrictions truly 'misleads the public into a false sense of security'.

My son is NOT a threat to ANY child OR to the public safety! He does NOT prey on innocent children. As a mother, I would have personally knocked him out if he was like this. And I would be on a registry for domestic violence! Furthermore, I would not be standing up for HIS rights!

No, I am not from this state, but as an individual of the UNITED STATES, I have a right to have a voice.

My voice says to clean up the registry! Focus on those that are a true threat to our children and those that are dangerous! Remove individuals such as my son that are only covering those that DO prey on children!

Has our society gone mad?

Finally, these laws and restrictions were NOT meant to include the 'sins of the youth', as I am sure many of us are guilty of!

"My son and his girlfriend were in love and they did something stupid that he is paying for....REGISTRATION as a SEX OFFENDER!

A child was NOT involved, nor force, violence, drugs or alcohol. Have we as a society gone back to the dark ages?

Has our society gone mad?"

Since when, as a society, have we accepted that sex with an underage girl is ok?

I would venture to say that more than half of all males have been guilty of this.

And YES, depending on the 'decade' it WAS acceptable! This has been going on since Biblical times!

My grandmother was fifteen when she had my mother. She was married to my grandfather for over thirty years!

A dear childhood friend gave birth to her first child when she was fifteen. She claimed God must have planned this, as she was able to raise her children and enjoy some years of being a grandmother before breast cancer took her life. She was married to the same man for over twenty years! How many cases would you like? These are only two that personally and immediately touch my life. It happens and DID happen to the 'best' of families!

I'm sure you are well aware of Mark Lunsford's son Joshua? Double standards!

Therefore, it is 'safe' to say this was acceptable as long as the couple 'quinched' their urge for sexual desires by marrying.

BUT, now, these young kids are NOT marrying and the government is picking up the tab for the cost of the un-wed mothers and babies.

Putting individuals such as my son on a registry is nothing more than a form of BIRTH control! It is nothing more than 'setting an example'.

To continue such requirements for registration does nothing more than make the registry a JOKE! IN-EFFECTIVE!

Grouping such individuals into the mix with the John Couey's brings us to a Communist state and the last time I checked, we were the "United States!"

Lets put some dollar amounts into this, which SORNA has only been the beginning. In Ohio, the state is NOT only going to RECIEVE the Bryne Grant of 10%, but Ohio citizens will pay the full astronomical cost of SORNA, which is MORE than 10%, with NO federal funding!

Everyone is in agreement that a child's life is priceless. I am positive ALL American citizens are willing to 'pay', at ANY cost to protect their children; however, I am just as positive they do not want to pay the added cost of non-violent, non-dangerous, NON THREATENING to children, "Romeo's"! What is this percentage state to state?

Here is the cost:

Link:    www.njjn.org/.../resource_840.pdf

American's are being taken on a 'hysteria' ride and are paying for 'false' sense of security.

How much would be SAVED in money and resources if 'WE the People' (not just YOU) restored the registry to its true intent? There would NOT be a need for all this hysteria and misconceptions!

What rock have you just crawled out from under Sir?

The issue isn't teenagers having sex with each other, although that's a serious one.

The issue is convicted sex offenders who've been released and municiplaities taking responsible action to protect their citizens.

The sex offender sympathizers can try to blur or distort the discussion all they want. Numerous Wisconsin communities care more about children than the child molesters. I hope Greenfield is next.

"The issue isn't teenagers having sex with each other, although that's a serious one.

The issue is convicted sex offenders who've been released and municiplaities taking responsible action to protect their citizens."

"The issue isn't teenagers having sex with each other, although that's a serious one."

Sir, it is when it makes them a sex offender and this is the 'cause' to protect children and citizens.

Sir, these 'convicted sex offenders' include persons just as my son.

These 'convicted' sex offenders include father's who married their girlfriend, the state-made 'victim'. They have children of their own; who is protecting THEM? What of THEIR children? They are just as innocent! How do you suppose they feel that their 'daddy' is a sex offender because he and their mother had 'under-age' sex? I am an adult speaking out, what about those children? Who stands for them??

These 'sex offenders' who are being released INCLUDE teenage sex!

These families, are not any different than families that were made in YOUR day or MY day, except father's are becoming 'sex offenders'. As one mother put it, "I'm more afraid of my child becoming a sex offender than being molested."

YOU know, "I" know and thousands of people KNOW, there is a DIFFERENCE; yet, it continues, as you stated: "municiplaities taking responsible action to protect their citizens."

From WHAT? From WHO? And from "WHY"? THAT should be the focus, because the registry is nothing more than a bunch of 'lumped' up individuals whose sex offense ranges from 'young loving' to 'predators'.

Clean up the registry and THAN start protecting children and the citizens. I by no means say be 'soft', but 'just'!

Thank you for allowing me to post.

Oh, may I say, "God's Blessings" to all, we surely need Him.

To be clear, here are the registerable offenses for the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry:

940.225(1) First Degree Sexual Assault**

940.225(2) Second Degree Sexual Assault**

940.225(3) Third Degree Sexual Assault

940.22(2) Sexual Exploitation by Therapist

940.30 False Imprisonment-victim was minor and not the offender's child

940.31 Kidnapping -victim was minor and not the offender's child

944.01 Rape (old statute)

944.06 Incest

944.10 Sexual Intercourse with a Child (old statute)

944.11 Indecent Behavior with a Child (old statute)

944.12 Enticing Child for Immoral Purposes (old statute)

948.02(1) First Degree Sexual Assault of a Child**

948.02(2) Second Degree Sexual Assault of a Child**

948.025 Repeated Acts of Sexual Assault of a Child**

948.05 Sexual Exploitation of a Child

948.055 Causing a child to View or Listen to Sexual Activity

948.06 Incest with a Child

948.07 Child Enticement

948.075 Use of a Computer to Facilitate a Sex Crime

948.08 Soliciting a Child for Prostitution

948.095 Sexual Assault of a Student by School Instructional Staff

948.11(2)(a)-(am) Exposing Child to Harmful Material-felony sections

948.12 Possession of Child Pornography

948.13 Convicted Child Sex Offender Working with Children

948.30 Abduction of Another's Child

971.17 Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease-of a listed sex offense

975.06 Sex Crimes Law Commitment

980.01 Sexually Violent Person Commitment**

** Indicates Mandatory Life Time Registration

Any individual that has been committed under 980.01 Sexually Violent Person Law must complete a SORP address verification form every 90 days for life.

Discretionary Registration- The Court has discretion under Wisconsin statutes to require in a court order that a person register for violating the following statutes if the court determines that the underlying conduct was sexually motivated and registration is in the best interest of public safety:

Chapter 940 Crimes Against Life and Bodily Security

Chapter 944 Crimes Against Sexual Morality

Chapter 948 Crimes Against Children

971.17 Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect

943.01-943.15 Certain Crimes Against Property

942.08 Invasion of Privacy

Thank you for your clarity Sir. These statues are not any different state-to-state.

Your state, my state and states in between all amount to 'sex offense' = 'sex offender registry' = 'predator' = $$Cha-Ching$$ to tax payers.

Picture taking, consensual sexual activity between two young lovers in a relationship = 'sex offender'. These 'offenses' do NOT consitute such individuals to be classifed as 'predators' on a registry!

These picture taking, consensual sexual activity between two young lovers in a relationship do NOT need restrictions to PROTECT a child. They are KIDS themselves! These ARE the types of individuals that ARE on YOUR sex offender registry, just like any other state. These ARE the individuals that are being punished for the crimes of violent and dangerous offenders. These ARE the types of individuals that must abide by laws and restrictions that Greenfield is trying to impose.

Sending these individuals to prison and mandating they have 'sex offender therapy/treatment', is like sending a sane person to a mental institution. When they are released, the public FEARS them and legislations tells them AND the public they are a THREAT to children, are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet to wherever a child may be. Register their life history and future life history!

Raising the age of consent, which started in the '90s, was to aid Welfare reform in preventing teenage pregnancy! It has NOTHING to do with protecting 'children'.

As I stated earlier, having such individuals on a registry is nothing more than MAKING an example of them and a form of birth control!

The people have a right to know WHO is on the registry and WHY.

It is a nightmare, a true living hell!

I've said all I can say (quite a relief for you I'm sure!) or care to say at this point. I understand your position, I respect your beliefs, but common sense in applying laws and restrictions MUST be utilized!

Once again, I thank you for allowing me to comment. I hope that Greenfield applies 'common' sense.

I leave you with this:

a3ceesaffirmed.org/VL5.htm

Copy and paste. Wait for the download. Click on Ali's presentation. The beginning is distorted, but it clears up. This is my son's 'kid' sister, my eldest daughter. Not often do you hear from this point of view. She is very much her mother's daughter. I love my children and want to protect them too; but I failed with my son.

Please remember Mr. Fischer, "The First will be Last and the Last will be First."

God Blessing's to you.