.

Sturtevant Considering Sex Offender Ordinance

Neighboring communities like Racine and Caledonia have ordinances governing where sex offenders can live. Sturtevant trustees are looking into having one as well.

Sturtevant trustees are looking into whether or not they should adopt an ordinance governing where sex offenders can live.

Trustee Chris Larsen said Tuesday during the Continual Committee meeting that he got the idea after learning about a similar ordinance in Caledonia and reading in The Journal Times about the efforts to pass one in the City of Racine.

"I just want to make sure that Sturtevant doesn't become the dumping ground for sex offenders in eastern Racine County," he said. "I'd like feedback on whether or not I should continue researching."

The ordinance Larsen is proposing would only apply to offenders determined by a court to be sexually violent who are released under the state's 980 commitment petition. That statute allows the state at the end of a convicted offender's prison sentence to petition the court to commit the offender to the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, WI.

Sturtevant Chief Sean Marschke cautioned trustees to be sure the state would have to comply with local ordinance.

"If the state doesn't have to comply with our ordianances with these cases, then it's not worth pursuing," he said.

Patch contacted the Department of Human Services to find out if the state does have to comply with local ordinances.

"Yes, the state does," wrote Claire Smith in an email response to our note.

In Caledonia, the following rules apply for violent offenders released under the state's 980 petition:

  • At least 1,000 feet from a school, church, park, athletic field, trail, playground, conservation district, or H.F. Johnson Park (which is managed by the city); and
  • At least six blocks away from other sex offenders.

For those not under supervised release but required to register with the Department of Corrections' sex offender registry, they must live:

  • At least 2,500 feet away from schools, churches, parks, athletic fields, trails, playgrounds, conservation districts, or H.F. Johnson Park; and
  • At least six blocks away from other sex offenders.

Village President Steve Jansen agreed Larsen should continue his research.

"I'd like to see some more research into whether or not this makes sense for us," he said.

C. Sanders April 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Sex offenders didn't provide their victims with any respect, and I don't see any reason to offer any consideration to a sex offender by offering he/her with a place to live in our community.
Shelly Stow April 27, 2013 at 03:57 PM
You cannot make a blanket statement like this with any validity. According to official numbers, there are almost 800,000 persons, men, women, and children as young as nine, with offenses ranging from innocent to violent, who are labeled sex offenders. You cannot possibly make a statement of the sort you make that would cover them all. And even for those with serious offenses in the past, if they are living in the community, your stated opinion runs counter to all research findings and analysis. There is every reason to do everything possible to foster successful re-entry and assimilation in communities, with the betterment of public safety being one of the main ones.
Sam Izera April 27, 2013 at 10:01 PM
If there is a need for more research, please check my newest book entitled: Is that a Sexual Predator hiding behind that badge? Visit whowrotewhat.net/books It explains the who, what, where, when and why people sexually abuse children. More important it show what must be done to prevent child molestaion. It examines what is being done today and why it is not working. My book is FREE as a pdf file download at the bottom of the link above.
C. Sanders April 28, 2013 at 03:40 AM
Your "official" numbers are invented. The facts: • Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime • 43 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for various offenses • Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison We'll just park the sex offenders next to your house as a means to "foster successful re-entry and assimilation in communities, with the betterment of public safety being one of the main ones."
Shelly Stow April 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Thank you; I am already involved in programs that seek to do just that. Since you have such a concern for victims, I will assume that you volunteer your time and services working in shelters and other victim services supplied by the private sector since the sex offender industry doesn't see fit to include those in their budget. And please, sir, in using statistics, finish what you started. You stopped virtually mid sentence, and it continues: "The 15 States in this study released a total of 272,111 prisoners in 1994. The 9,691 released sex offenders made up less than 4% of that total. Of the remaining 262,420 non-sex offenders, 3,328 (1.3%) were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years. By comparison, the 5.3% rearrest rate for the 9,691 released sex offenders was 4 times higher. "Assuming that the 517 sex offenders who were rearrested for another sex crime each victimized no more than one victim, the number of sex crimes they committed after their prison release totaled 517. Assuming that the 3,328 non-sex offenders rearrested for a sex crime after their release also victimized one victim each, the number of sex crimes they committed was 3,328. The combined total number of sex crimes is 3,845 (517 plus 3,328 = 3,845). Released sex offenders accounted for 13% and released non-sex offenders accounted for 87% of the 3,845 sex crimes committed by all the prisoners released in 1994 (517 / 3,845 = 13% and 3,328 / 3,845 = 87%)."
Shelly Stow April 28, 2013 at 12:55 PM
And I tend to agree that the over 750,000 number of registrants is invented, but I am not the one who invented it, if that is your implication. That number comes from the SMART office, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, from the Federal Marshals, who get huge grants for tracking missing registrants, also a huge number that is totally bogus and has been exposed as such, from Mark Lunsford and John Walsh and others of their ilk, and from politicians every time they propose new legislation that is tough on crime and for the children, although nothing they have done has helped any children or stopped any assaults or reduced the rate of child sexual abuse because their tough on crime laws do not target the people who are committing the child sexual abuse. But that's for another comment.
YankeeVictor April 28, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Maybe those running Sturtevant should ask how many of the work release inmates at Sturtevant Transitional fall into the sex offender category. Might also want to look at how they are tracking and if they are monitored as to where they are during the day. In the past, "walk aways" are usually only discovered after they don't return.
Non Citizen April 29, 2013 at 05:44 PM
Which is why people who are listed on your nanny, big government lists are at war with immoral un-Americans like you. The people on those lists identify people like you and then do everything legal to lower the quality of your life, your spouse's, and your childrens'. Exactly as you do to them.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »