Monday, August 27, 2007

"Banishment"? Why Not?

The handwringing begins.

The city [of Franklin] has sued to evict a registered sex offender in what appears to be the first civil action arising from one of several local ordinances passed in Wisconsin over the last year that restrict where sex offenders may live.

...[The sex offender] bought a home in the 8200 block of S. 77th St. in June, five months after Franklin adopted an ordinance restricting certain sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, day care centers and other places where children might congregate.

Yada, yada. The money quote:

"The real problem with many of these ordinances is they are often drawn so broadly that they include people who present no risk of offending the populations they purport to protect," said Jung, who heads Hastings' Center for State and Local Government Law. "They're so broad, they effectively banish people."

Wouldn't be the first time in History. Many of the people inhabiting the Old West were 'banished' from their home towns Back East.

And it's clear that a number of illegal aliens are here because they are not welcome where they came from.

We're not dealing with "thought crimes" here, nor parking tickets, nor burglars. We're dealing with sex-predators who pick on children. They're not in prison. So what's wrong with "banishment"?

4 comments:

capper said...

The problem is that they don't disappear because of banishment, they only go underground. I would much rather know the positions of the bad people, then wondering who are the bad people.

Steveo said...

Ordinances such as the proposed Milwaukee ordinance are banishment. They ARE bad law. The Franklin ordinance is relatively narrowly written to exclude all but those sex offenders who have committed crimes (sex) against children who were not Franklin residents at the time of their conviction. Those sex offenders who are from Franklin have more than 1/3 of the city where they may reside lawfully. Those areas include a few pretty "toney" neighborhoods as well as some great homestead areas.

This "guy" moved from Milwaukee. He was convicted of raping his daughter. He had been arrested once before during the girls adolescence (she was a CHILD) but she later admitted recanting because he had threatened her with his own suicide. She testified that he raped her throughout her adolescence.

The Franklin ordinance is on solid legal grounds. It is (was) well researched with over 400 pages of supporting documents, legal cases and studies.

The ordinance has several goals: Protect the children, protect property values and prevent our community from becoming a dumping ground for all others. This case is a prime example of another community exporting their problems.

October 8...

As for driving these pervs underground, there is no documented proof of that tired argument.

Dad29 said...

Steveo, my point was that banishment is NOT a bad idea.

Steveo said...

I got it.

Just a bit sensitive because some of the large communities in SE Wisconsin have been doing banishment through the DOC, DHFS and legislature for years.

That causes problems for the places that get or are targeted to get the pervs.

Doing one of the following solves the problem:

Keep them locked up or keep them in the community where they came from.