Photo by Jabril Faraj. Raymond Rosa , 48, was convicted of second degree sexual assault in the case of a year-old friend of his daughter in Rosa received a year sentence, consisting of seven years of imprisonment and five years of extended supervision. He has, most recently, served about 15 months at Jackson Correctional Institution in Black River Falls but is set to be released at the beginning of June and is facing the prospect of living in his van. Red and orange highlights denote areas convicted sex offenders cannot reside within the city of Milwaukee.
Map produced by City of Milwaukee. The legislation came in response to similar ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live in all 18 other municipalities within Milwaukee County. A recent panel discussion of the ordinance at the Washington Park Senior Center addressed what some called the unintended consequences of the legislation. Murphy said a analysis of DOC data by his office showed that of sex offenders living in the county in , 89 percent resided in Milwaukee. Thoreson said the cities of Waukesha, Racine, Kenosha, Green Bay and Madison also shoulder the heaviest burden when it comes to housing sex offenders in their respective counties.
Attempts to address the question of where sex offenders should live have surfaced at the state level with bills introduced to the state assembly in and ; both pieces of legislation failed to pass. Barrett, who signed the ordinance, said inaction on the part of state legislators made the Milwaukee residency restrictions necessary.
During the panel discussion, Thoreson dispelled a number of myths when it comes to the perception of sex offenders and their behavior. Among them are that former offenders assault strangers, find victims in public places and never change. How would you feel?
In theory, these ordinances protect children and families by not allowing potentially dangerous individuals easy access to children. Five units in DOC are responsible for supervising sex offenders. Certain factors, including how old the person was when the offense was committed and how many people were victimized, contribute to the assessment of risk. Marik also noted that whether the individual has recently used drugs or alcohol, lost a job or lost a home can increase the risk that a sex offender will reoffend. Thoreson quoted testimony given before the Wisconsin State Assembly in by Dr.
They destabilize offenders without offering any protective effect. They, ultimately, reduce the number of sex offenders who are supervised and monitored and increase the number who are unseen, unknown and free from oversight. Murphy said recently a realtor called him on behalf of an individual who was convicted of a sexual offense eight years ago, wondering whether that person was able to buy a home in the city.
If an offender wants to live in another state, that state has the right to refuse.
Scholars have warned that classification system required under Adam Walsh Act is less sophisticated than risk-based approach previously adopted in certain states. Sex offenders must periodically report in person to their local law enforcement agency and furnish their address, and list of other information such as place of employment and email addresses.
The offenders are photographed and fingerprinted by law enforcement, and in some cases DNA information is also collected. Registration period depends on the classification level and the law of the governing jurisdiction. States apply varied methods of classifying registrants. Identical offenses committed in different states may produce different outcomes in terms of public disclosure and registration period.
Sources of variation are diverse, but may be viewed over three dimensions — how classes of registrants are distinguished from one another, the criteria used in the classification process, and the processes applied in classification decisions. The first point of divergence is how states distinguish their registrants. At one end are the states operating single-tier systems that treat registrants equally with respect to reporting, registration duration, notification, and related factors.
Alternatively, some states use multi-tier systems, usually with two or three categories that are supposed to reflect presumed public safety risk and, in turn, required levels of attention from law enforcement and the public. Depending on state, registration and notification systems may have special provisions for juveniles, habitual offenders or those deemed " sexual predators " by virtue of certain standards.
The second dimension is the criteria employed in the classification decision. States running offense-based systems use the conviction offense or the number of prior offenses as the criteria for tier assignment. Other jurisdictions utilize various risk assessments that consider factors that scientific research has linked to sexual recidivism risk, such as age, number of prior sex offenses, victim gender, relationship to the victim, and indicators of psychopathy and deviant sexual arousal.
Finally, some states use a hybrid of offense-based and risk-assessment-based systems for classification. For example, Colorado law requires minimum terms of registration based on the conviction offense for which the registrant was convicted or adjudicated but also uses a risk assessment for identifying sexually violent predators — a limited population deemed to be dangerous and subject to more extensive requirements.
Third, states distinguishing among registrants use differing systems and processes in establishing tier designations. In general, offense-based classification systems are used for their simplicity and uniformity. They allow classification decisions to be made via administrative or judicial processes. Risk-assessment-based systems, which employ actuarial risk assessment instruments and in some cases clinical assessments, require more of personnel involvement in the process. Some states, like Massachusetts and Colorado, utilize multidisciplinary review boards or judicial discretion to establish registrant tiers or sexual predator status.
In some states, such as Kentucky, Florida, and Illinois, all sex offenders who move into the state and are required to register in their previous home states are required to register for life, regardless of their registration period in previous residence. States apply differing sets of criteria to determine which registration information is available to the public. In a few states, a judge determines the risk level of the offender, or scientific risk assessment tools are used; information on low-risk offenders may be available to law enforcement only.
In other states, all sex offenders are treated equally, and all registration information is available to the public on a state Internet site. Information of juvenile offenders are withheld for law enforcement but may be made public after their 18th birthday. Under federal SORNA , only tier I registrants may be excluded from public disclosure, with exemption of those convicted of "specified offense against a minor. Disparities in state legislation have caused some registrants moving across state lines becoming subject to public disclosure and longer registration periods under the destination state's laws.
Laws restricting where registered sex offenders may live or work have become increasingly common since In addition, hundreds of counties and municipalities have passed local ordinances exceeding the state requirements,   and some local communities have created exclusion zones around churches , pet stores , movie theaters , libraries , playgrounds , tourist attractions or other "recreational facilities" such as stadiums , airports , auditoriums , swimming pools , skating rinks and gymnasiums, regardless of whether publicly or privately owned.
The report also found that laws preclude registrants from homeless shelters within restriction areas. Restrictions may effectively cover entire cities, leaving small "pockets" of allowed places of residency. Evidence to support the effectiveness of public sex offender registries is limited and mixed. In fact, a number of negative unintended consequences have been empirically identified that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk.
According to a study, the majority of the general public perceives sex offender recidivism to be very high and views offenders as a homogeneous group regarding that risk. Consequently, the study found that a majority of the public endorses broad community notification and related policies.
Critics of the laws point to the lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of sex offender registration policies. They call the laws too harsh and unfair for adversely affecting the lives of registrants decades after completing their initial sentence , and for affecting their families as well. Critics say that registries are overly broad as they reach to non-violent offenses, such as sexting or consensual teen sex, and fail to distinguish those who are not a danger to society from predatory offenders.
Lanning argues that registration should be offender-based instead of offense-based: "A sex-offender registry that does not distinguish between the total pattern of behavior of a year-old man who violently raped a 6-year-old girl and an year-old man who had 'compliant' sexual intercourse with his girlfriend a few weeks prior to her 16th birthday is misguided.
The offense an offender is technically found or pleads guilty to may not truly reflect his dangerousness and risk level". Some lawmakers recognize problems in the laws. However, they are reluctant to aim for reforms because of political opposition and being viewed as lessening the child safety laws.
These perceived problems in legislation have prompted a growing grass-roots movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States. Sex offender registration and community notification laws have been challenged on a number of constitutional and other bases, generating substantial amount of case law.
How To See Where Sex Offenders Live - Milwaukee, WI - Find out You can use the Wisconsin Department of Justice Sex Offender Map to. Milwaukee Sex Offender Halloween Safety Map - Milwaukee, WI - The City of Milwaukee has registered sex offenders listed on the.
Those challenging the statutes have claimed violations of ex post facto , due process , cruel and unusual punishment , equal protection and search and seizure. In , in Connecticut Dept.
Doe the U. Supreme Court affirmed public disclosure of sex offender information and in , in Smith v. Doe , the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's registration statute, reasoning that sex offender registration is civil measure reasonably designed to protect public safety, not a punishment , which can be applied ex post facto.