Republicans are leading an effort to get rid of blanket restrictions on where some people with sex-offense records can live. A Democratic governor is blocking them. Full Article
Related posts
-
WI: Washington Co. challenging placement of violent sex offender in Town of Trenton
Source: washingtoncountyinsider.com 6/8/24 The chairman in the Town of Trenton is speaking out about steps being... -
WI: Seventh Circuit considers challenges to Wisconsin sex offender laws
Source: courthousenews.com 4/18/24 One case challenged who gets defined as a sex offender, while another raised... -
WI: Gov. Tony Evers signs law requiring more sex offenders to be placed on registry for life
Source: jsonline.com 4/2/24 MADISON – Wisconsinites convicted of multiple counts of a sex offense will be...
This only would have applied to the handful of people each year that are released from the civil commitment under Chapter 980. It would not have helped the vast majority of registered persons in Wisconsin who are subject to the various residency restrictions in place all over the state. The proper response to the problem which the state govt created with the 980 program is to do away with it.
If the state wants to help the rest of us registered persons, they could preempt the local restrictions. Of course, the last time they wanted to do that the plan was to create an even more onerous restriction that would have had no grandfather clause and only provided 90 days to move if in violation. And, the distance was set so far that nearly all the housing in towns & cities would have been off limits.
Probably the most difficult to work around is the ‘original domicile’ rules, which state that if you were not living in the jurisdiction at the time of your offense/conviction you can’t move there later on. In other words, many are stuck where they are with no where to go. Not even if they find a place that meets all the other distance requirements.
My community instituted a residency restriction based on distance. I was grandfathered in since I was here before the ordinance. However, since I was not a resident at the time of my offense/conviction, I would not be permitted to every move to another house in this town since that would constitute establishing a new residence.
I also can’t move to the surrounding communities since they also have an ordinance with the ‘original domicile’ rule.
Most ridiculous, is that the only jurisdiction in this corner of the state I could move to would be the town where I committed my offense, which is also the town where my victims lived/live. Meaning that the one place it makes no sense for me to go is the one where I am permitted, but then only if I can meet the absurd distance restrictions.