In the interests of added protection, communities created restrictions on where convicted child sex offenders can live upon release, but something was left out of the political mix.
In short, nothing in those ordinances addressed how the rights of sex offenders might be left unprotected under the U.S. Constitution, and as a result, those local restrictions have started to fray at the edges due to a 2017 federal court decision
Following a successful lawsuit filed against Pleasant Prairie, which had required a 3,000-foot safety zone around places where kids are readily found, Waukesha County communities have begun to scale back, or are considering scaling back, such restrictions.
The lines were drawn some time ago. Those cities DARE to cross it and now they are paying for it.
The idea of leaving a residency or presence law in place and considering it constitutional because an appeal process exists is troubling. As Waukesha City Attorney Brian Running said, finding people with the requisite qualifications to render a professional opinion and decision who are not politically or personally motivated to simply deny all appeals is going to be difficult. It would be difficult for a large city to do this. Imagine how much more difficult for every small municipality throughout the state to do it, and to do it consistently and fairly.
All that aside, residency and presence restrictions have not been shown to be effective in ensuring public safety. In fact, they likely do the opposite, and arguably constitute punishment.
Any distance is still too far.
3000 feet. Wow. Just wow Wisconsin. That’s some high quality crazy right there.
This points out that, in the absence of outright wins, increasing judicial demand for credible due process can fiscally break these jurisdictions and provide a potential means to tear down, not just residency restrictions, but the Megan’s Law website, IML and individual tier assignments. Hell, maybe even the Registry, as a whole. Individual risk assessments. That is going to be key. And very, very expensive for the state, not least because there exist no credible tools to provide them. Instead, the bogus statistics that have been used to subjugate us for decades will be replaced by genuine statistics which will not support any of their fear-mongering crap. We just have to keep at this, chipping away at the foundation from different angles until there is nothing left holding it up.
‘This fall, the city decided to establish a new [Former] sex-offender residency [Soviet] appeal board to allow those convicted to gain another opportunity to live in restricted areas”
Clearly these Wicked Servants are establishing a Institution to execute “Extra-Judicial Punishment”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_punishment
In addition to Being a serious violation to the Separation of Judicial & Legislative Powers
The principle of separation of powers states that the executive, legislative, and judiciary powers of government should be divided into different branches and not concentrated in one. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state.
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the “opulent minority” from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches.
Typically this was accomplished through a system of “checks and balances”, the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu.
Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law.
For example in the contexts of the topic at hand:
Only the a Judicial Court may:
1. Determine how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
2. Determine how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.
I speak a True Song
As Yehovah lives, so should we