THIS WEEK, I AM WRITING A FIVE-PART SERIES ON THE TOP ISSUES FRANKLIN FACES. TODAY, ISSUE #4.
SEX PREDATORS
Franklin has been Wisconsin’s leader in the fight against sex offenders. It has had to.
Not too long ago, busloads of Franklin residents stormed a public hearing at State Fair Park to protest a special state committee’s thought of building a facility in Franklin to house numerous sexually violent persons. Franklin was considered an ideal location, having the most open space in Milwaukee County.
The loud and strong stand by Franklin residents couldn’t be ignored. The special panel wrapped up its business without recommending any site in Milwaukee County for a sex predator house.
A flurry of activity ensued at the state Capitol. A key piece of legislation was approved and signed into law that killed funding for the facility for sexually violent persons and also disbanded the special committee assigned to find a location for the facility. Another bill signed into law makes first degree sexual assault of a child punishable by life in prison. Both bills were authored by Senator Lazich.
After sailing through the state Senate, a bill requiring that the worst sex offenders in the state be monitored by Global Positioning System or GPS was finally approved after much wrangling in the Assembly and signed into law.
Still, Franklin officials worried that released sex offenders would be dumped in Franklin. Sparking that fear was the state allowing notorious offender Billy Lee Morford to travel back and forth between his northwest side Milwaukee home and Franklin for 18 months without properly notifying Franklin.
After several public hearings and a thorough legal review, the Franklin Common Council late last year approved an ordinance with tight restrictions on where sex offenders could go and live within the city limits of Franklin.
Other communities quickly took notice, with several surrounding municipalities and some out-state either approving or considering Franklin-like ordinances of their own.
The Franklin-based group, Citizens for a Safe Wisconsin has been crusading since day one for laws that will make not just Franklin, but all Wisconsin neighborhoods safer.
I get the sense that most of the hundreds and hundreds of people who put up yard signs or who hopped on busses to attend the State Fair hearing have since developed complacency, a feeling that the fight is done, been there and done that, the threat is over. While there is no imminent danger on the immediate horizon, Franklin, because of its open spaces, seems to have a bull’s eye on its back. One local judge has commented that in lieu of constructing a new facility, Huber facilities could be used to house offenders, intimating that the House of Corrections be considered. Franklin cannot and should not be the dumping ground for released offenders from other communities. They should go back to the area they lived in at the time of their offense. Each city, town or village should be responsible for its own problem individuals.
The good news is that while many city residents have either forgotten or dismissed this issue, others have remained ever vigilant, including Citizens for a Safe Wisconsin, the mayor, aldermen and officials who represent Franklin in the state Legislature. The Franklin Police Department has already used the new city ordinance on restrictions to force offenders out of areas they’re not welcome. Several local web sites now feature links to the sex offender registry and the family Watchdog offender map.
So far, no one has challenged the constitutionality of Franklin’s ordinance, or any other Franklin-like ordinance around the state. If they do, they’re in for a battle.
Jim McCarthy, a member of the City Council in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania wrote the following in a letter to the editor in the current issue of American City and County Magazine. McCarthy was responding to an article that predator protection laws around the country are coming under fire. McCarthy writes:
“As one who has been trying for eight months to pass a law restricting where convicted sexual predators may reside or work in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., my research shows the majority of such laws have already passed court muster. Currently, 30 plus states, and hundreds of local communities, have passed such laws, most of them based on the “original” proposal passed by Iowa, which was upheld by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court (see Doe vs. Miller), and Ohio's “Distance Marker” legislation, which was similarly upheld as constitutional by federal courts.
In challenges to the Iowa and Ohio laws, the courts have ruled that these laws do not infringe upon a person's rights in that they are a form of civil regulation and not a form of punishment, they are intended to protect children and are rationally related to that end, and they represent a rational argument that prohibiting sex offenders from places children congregate will advance a community's interest in protecting children. Two federal courts have upheld city actions to ban individual sex offenders from parks and recreation areas where children congregate.
There have been some isolated cases where a poorly written law was struck down by courts, but that was because the authors failed to do the research required to make their law iron-clad. It is up to us, the legislators, to make sure “they” do not have access to our little children, whose rights far outweigh the rights of someone who preys on the weakest of our society.”
The combat against sex offenders is an ongoing struggle. Franklin’s fight has been the most daunting, and so far, the results have been good. This particular war rages on. Working in Franklin’s favor, its soldiers have been, and will continue to be, battle-ready.
FRANKLIN’S TOP 5 ISSUES
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) SEX OFFENDERS
5) FRANKLIN’S IDENTITY CRISIS
DON’T WANT A BIG INCREASE IN YOUR SCHOOL TAXES? CONTACT FRANKLIN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS NOW.
