Oshkosh begins researching sex offender residency ordinance
In watching last Tuesday’s meeting of the Oshkosh Common Council and reading this morning’s Oshkosh Northwestern we see that councilor Dennis McHugh is interested in exploring the possibility of having a city ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders may live. It’s an interesting concept, but I believe the city needs to approach this subject very carefully.
I understand that some sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. I also understand that some can be. It really depends on what one’s exact diagnosis is. I also think it is extremely important to understand the varying degrees of sex offenses. It can be the case of person who preys on young children or it can be something as innocent as two teens having consensual sex with one another. Or how about the man who believes his girlfriend to be of legal age – she even uses a fake ID to get into bars – but it turns out she is still a minor. Some of these cases are not what I think of when I think of a “sex offender” and yet, under Wisconsin law, every one of them can be and have been considered a sex offender. If convicted of their "offense" they then must register. Do we really feel we need protection from each of these kinds of person? I certainly don't.
I also understand there is a natural fear when we hear the words "sex offender." I, too, was initially concerned several years ago when such an offender was going to move into my neighborhood. But I listened to what the police department said and did some research on my own. I came to the realization that it is important to know where the offenders are living so we can be better prepared. If we know where they’re at, every one can keep a better eye on them and their activities. We can also be more mindful of our own activities in such a situation. And if we are able to learn the specifics of their offense, it can equip us even more.
We also have to realize that there are times when a court may dictate where an offender lives. Does the city really need to be butting heads with the courts over issues of constitutionality, etc.? Just a few months ago, the constitutionality of such laws was the subject of an in-depth piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Finally, I think we should also be mindful of the fact that if more and more cities enact some kind of residency ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders live, they will eventually have few, if any, places to choose from. There is a city, I believe it is in Florida, where the local leaders had to make exceptions to their ordinances to allow registered offenders to live under a bridge because they could not find any other housing under the residency ordinance. So if we continue to restrict where registered offenders may live, will we end up with a worse societal problem? I think that very distinct possibility exists.
According to the Northwestern, we currently have 160 registered sex offenders living within the Oshkosh city limits, and there don't seem to be any real problems as a result of that. Instead, we seem to have other types of crime.
I am not by any means downplaying the seriousness of the offense committed by the kind of sex offender who goes after innocent children, even adults. And I am all for protecting children and the rest of society from the true deviants, especially those who cannot be rehabilitated. But I also advocate using common-sense and being mindful that being armed with knowledge is sometimes the best defense – and offense – we can have. Let’s not forget, many sex offenders commit their crimes within their own families and there are plenty of others who are sex offenders who we don’t even know about because they’ve never been caught. Remember too, some of our worst sex offenders have come from our Catholic churches.
Bottom line: To our city staff and Common Council members, explore the possibilities, but if drafting an ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders live, be careful, use common sense and consider the different types of “sex offender” and understand the benefit of knowing where they’re at as opposed to not.
I understand that some sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. I also understand that some can be. It really depends on what one’s exact diagnosis is. I also think it is extremely important to understand the varying degrees of sex offenses. It can be the case of person who preys on young children or it can be something as innocent as two teens having consensual sex with one another. Or how about the man who believes his girlfriend to be of legal age – she even uses a fake ID to get into bars – but it turns out she is still a minor. Some of these cases are not what I think of when I think of a “sex offender” and yet, under Wisconsin law, every one of them can be and have been considered a sex offender. If convicted of their "offense" they then must register. Do we really feel we need protection from each of these kinds of person? I certainly don't.
I also understand there is a natural fear when we hear the words "sex offender." I, too, was initially concerned several years ago when such an offender was going to move into my neighborhood. But I listened to what the police department said and did some research on my own. I came to the realization that it is important to know where the offenders are living so we can be better prepared. If we know where they’re at, every one can keep a better eye on them and their activities. We can also be more mindful of our own activities in such a situation. And if we are able to learn the specifics of their offense, it can equip us even more.
We also have to realize that there are times when a court may dictate where an offender lives. Does the city really need to be butting heads with the courts over issues of constitutionality, etc.? Just a few months ago, the constitutionality of such laws was the subject of an in-depth piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Finally, I think we should also be mindful of the fact that if more and more cities enact some kind of residency ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders live, they will eventually have few, if any, places to choose from. There is a city, I believe it is in Florida, where the local leaders had to make exceptions to their ordinances to allow registered offenders to live under a bridge because they could not find any other housing under the residency ordinance. So if we continue to restrict where registered offenders may live, will we end up with a worse societal problem? I think that very distinct possibility exists.
According to the Northwestern, we currently have 160 registered sex offenders living within the Oshkosh city limits, and there don't seem to be any real problems as a result of that. Instead, we seem to have other types of crime.
I am not by any means downplaying the seriousness of the offense committed by the kind of sex offender who goes after innocent children, even adults. And I am all for protecting children and the rest of society from the true deviants, especially those who cannot be rehabilitated. But I also advocate using common-sense and being mindful that being armed with knowledge is sometimes the best defense – and offense – we can have. Let’s not forget, many sex offenders commit their crimes within their own families and there are plenty of others who are sex offenders who we don’t even know about because they’ve never been caught. Remember too, some of our worst sex offenders have come from our Catholic churches.
Bottom line: To our city staff and Common Council members, explore the possibilities, but if drafting an ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders live, be careful, use common sense and consider the different types of “sex offender” and understand the benefit of knowing where they’re at as opposed to not.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 6:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home