WI: Homeless person required to register as a sex offender killed
A 54 year old person required to register as a sex offender was found dead with “suspicious head injuries” according to the Madison Wisconsin Police, A local alderman is calling for the closure of these “homeless encampments”, but fails to recognize that persons forced to register are generally not allowed in most shelters, are subject to restrictions on housing and are chronically unemployed or unemployed because of the stigma of being registered. Homeless encampments are their only option.
Being homeless increases their exposure to vigilantism and health risks. While the police are “still investigating” the cause of his “suspicious head injuries”, those who forced to register have little doubt but for his registration status he might still be alive.
Neither Madison nor the state of Wisconsin has a sex offender residency restriction. His homelessness might have been in part because of problems finding employment due to the registry, but it wasn’t because of residency restrictions.
Who would argue with an idiot about the ins and out of technicalities of issues at hand …written or not residency if hindered greatly and the Public/Authorities are abusive and counter productive to these mens lives…and no just for the Record “they are Not Justified” …they ard WRONG AND SO ARE YOU !!! If you are agree, accept, condone or play any part in perpetuating or blocking, stiffilling etc these mens lives !!!
It does not matter if the damage to mens lives are done directly or indirectly…they play a part/role in doing Wrong !!!
Clear enough !!!
FAC’s article above implies that the victim was subject to, among other things, a residence restriction.
Was he not?
Wisconsin has MANY RESTRICTIONS. You must live in the country where you committed your crime and then each individual city, town and village may further have child safety zones of up to or more than 1500 ft.
Also if your on paper the doc
Will deny you to live with other sex offenders because of the density of sex offenders to children( I know, made up non delegation bs)
Also the one person who has provided housing to registrants in my county will no long take SBN ( sex offender bulletin notice) . He said he just can’t handle the constant harassment from people who find out who he is.
Although there is no government mandate restricting where “sex offenders” may live in Wisconsin, the very existence of a public registry is a delegation of authority to John Q. Public to act as government agents. Whether it be for housing, employment, travel, commerce, etc., the registry empowers individuals and corporations to marginalize and create a sub-class of citizens, much like China’s “social scoring” system.
If there is no governmental restriction on where a “sex offender” may live in Wisconsin, that person should be able to sue any individual or corporation who denies them residency solely on the basis of being listed on the registry.
Of course the elephant in the room is the fact that the politician’s the public foolishly elects and re-elects have sold their souls to those corporations. The government has no power nor desire to stop these entities to which they have ceded the power of enforcement to.
Don’t believe me? Look at Packingham. SCOTUS says we have the right to use Facebook, but won’t force them to allow us to use it.
There are residency restrictions for sex offenders in Wisconsin. Chapter 980 offenders cannot live within 1,500 feet of a school, etc. while on supervised release. Many cities in Wisconsin, i.e., Racine, have registry restrictions for sex offenders. Several of these cities have been sued and some cities have modified their residency restrictions in order to comply with lawsuits.
Part of what causes homelessness of sex offenders is the confusion in the law. Until we get rid of residency restrictions, homelessness and vulnerability will remain in the lives of sex offenders and their families.
It is not just sex offenders who are rendered homeless due to these laws but spouses, children and disabled dependents. Organizations such as FAC and ilvoices are a step in the right direction, but until we have a single national organization capable of a nationwide coordination of these lawsuits, these laws will stay on the books. There are national organizations fighting for the rights of registered citizens, but their legal efforts are piecemeal. If we could bring together FAC, ilvoices and other organizations, we could develop a national strategy.
The problem is that registrants are primarily focused on how the registry affects them as individuals. This has created local groups who pool their resources for lawsuits within their own states. Until registrants can see the larger picture, they will be continuously fighting the laws in their individual states. Every registrant must view combating these laws as a single unit at a national level in order to succeed.
It does little good to win one lawsuit in one state like Michigan and than lose 10 lawsuits in 10 other states. Registrants have to wake up to the fact that they need a coordinated national effort to succeed or they will continue to fight these laws piecemeal.
The 1500 foot restrictions in Wisconsin only apply to people who are released from civil commitment. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/980/08
If Wisconsin is like most states, people are never released from civil commitment, so in reality that 1,500 foot restriction probably applies to just about nobody.
There may be no state mandate but there are lots of individual town and city mandates.
Dear Detroit, you are seriously intelligent and well informed and you write excellent. My gratitude.
p.s. Ginsberg just croaked. One more trump supreme court pick and one more nail in the coffin of civil liberties.
I’m not sure why people are necessarily acting why liberals are good for sex offenders. There are several threads on here about how William Barr is seemingly going to try applying SORNA nationally, including in the 33 or so states that have never passed SORNA. (Which will result in huge confusion about how a former sex offender can possibly register and avoid committing a federal crime if their registration period has timed out under their state’s laws but not under SORNA.) Barr’s only allowed to do that because of Ginsburg and the other liberals in the Gundy v United States ruling. Liberals acted like the entire United States government would collapse if Gundy had won in that case. Conservatives never had the same extreme views about Smith v Doe that liberals had about Gundy v US.
And look at liberals in these totalitarian coronavirus shutdowns. Andrew Cuomo and other liberals have literally used the “if it only saves one life” slogan to justify their coronavirus shutdowns. The only other times where I’m aware of politicians using “if it only saves one life” slogans is when they pass tough sex offender regulations.
You missed the point of my post. The idea of posting comments is that they are brief. If I had gone into all of the SVP details, I would have spent too much time on the technicalities and my point would have been lost in the verbage. The statute you posted is chapter 980 that I eluded to. As I pointed out in my comment, the statewide residency restrictions in Wisconsin only apply to chapter 980 offenders on supervised release.
Wisconsin is a far cry from Minnesota. According to the latest statistics (September 8, 2020), currently there are 69 chapter 980 offenders on supervised release. However, it appears that the 1,500 foot restriction is applied to a larger number of offenders due to confusion in how the law is applied.
Local residency restrictions are common in Wisconsin. The point of the comment being, yes, residency restrictions are widespread in Wisconsin.
It’s not only the laws on the books, but how those laws are applied in practice. And it appears that cities in Wisconsin with residency restrictions are sincere in their enforcement.
Here in Michigan, confusion reigns. Michigan has a 1,000 foot restriction for schools, but not day care centers, parks, etc. However, a federal judge has barred residency restrictions from being enforced against persons whose offense date predates January 1, 2020 and a series of court decisions makes it difficult to enforce residency restrictions against the remainder of registrants.
To complicate things, in 2018, Michigan residents elected Dana Nessel as attorney general. Barely 3 months into her term, AG Nessel filed 2 amicus briefs in 2 Michigan Supreme Court cases arguing that registration is punishment. She is also pushing the state legislature to remove most persons from the registry. Currently, it appears that the state is content with persons registering and only going after persons who blatantly fail to register. It appears that the state is even slow to go after these people.
The state legislature has been unable to pass new sex offender legislation despite various aspects of the state’s registry scheme being found unconstitutional in a series of state and federal court decisions over the last 6 years. Some legislators are starting to realize that SORA is not cracked up to what it was meant to be and there is a lot of pushback from non-registrants. It is difficult to predict the future, but Michigan may very well become the first state where the registry collapses.
It doesn’t matter whether a judge or AG is a liberal or a conservative. Ginsberg was the driving force in dissents that questioned the constitutionality of these sex offender schemes.
You have to remember that Judge Richard Matsch was a died in wool conservative appointed by Richard Nixon with a very strong libertarian streak. He wrote one of the most blistering opinions on the registry in Millard v Rankin, 265 F Supp 3d 1211 (2017).
I believe it depends on their views of the constitution and if they have the courage to stand up for what is right. Judge Matsch showed his independence and courage in several opinions.
I don’t believe the registry is high on Bill Barr’s list. It helps that he’s not elected like most state AG’s. Michigan elected Dana Nessel, a liberal AG. She has shown courage in standing up to the legislature and advising them to reduce and reform the registry. Even though most on this site would prefer abolition, she’s stands alone of all of the AG’s in opposing most aspects of the registry. Her Michigan Supreme Court briefs in People v Bettis and People v Snyder are every bit as stunning as Matsch’s opinion in Millard v Rankin. Matsch served for 45 years on the U.S. District Court in Colorado. Dana Nessel’s future is ahead of her. Hopefully, a president will see merit in her fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and place her on the federal bench.
Matsch and Nessel, two opposites on the political spectrum. Both with the courage to to stand up for what is right, rather than what is popular.