AL - New law could force sex offenders to move from Chilton County church facility

Original Article

04/22/2014

By Mike Cason

MONTGOMERY - A small church property in Chilton County where dozens of sex offenders have lived over the last four years will apparently no longer be able to house them.

Gov. Robert Bentley has signed into law HB 556, pertaining only to Chilton County, that prohibits registered sex offenders from living on the same property within 300 feet of each other unless they are related.

Rep. Kurt Wallace, R-Maplesville, sponsored the bill because of the multiple sex offenders living behind Triumph Church, which is on a two-lane highway just outside Clanton. There are camper trailers behind the church for the men.

Ricky Martin, who operates the facility, declined to talk to AL.com for this article.

The law gives the district attorney's office the authority to file a civil complaint against someone owning or leasing property where more than one unrelated sex offender lives. The law takes effect July 1.

C.J. Robinson, chief assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial Circuit, who helped write the bill, said notice would be given before a complaint is filed. He said the law gives judges the authority to issue fines of up to $5,000 per violation.

“It’s one of those things where we’re not going way overboard with the punishment,” Robinson said.

Under Alabama’s sex offender laws, offenders are required to notify authorities when they move into a county, and authorities notify nearby residents.

Robinson said he received notices for 51 sex offenders moving to the address from August 2010 through October 2013.

Many have come and gone. Robinson said he’s not aware of any moving there this year.

Chilton County Sheriff Kevin Davis said last week there were 10 offenders living at the address and one had filed his paperwork to move.

Davis said he’s not aware of any problems caused by the men.

Brandy Morrison, 26, has lived next door to the church for four years. She said she worries sometimes but that the men have never bothered anybody. She said one of the men helps her father with work around the yard.

Morrison says the family takes precautions when nieces and nephews visit and play outside.

“We always make sure they stay real close because you never know,” Morrison said.

Wallace worked on the bill for several years and at one point had a statewide version that would have required facilities with multiple sex offenders to have a live-in monitor and obtain a license from the county sheriff.

He said he thought the bill that passed, more simple and applying only to Chilton County, would achieve the purpose.

"The guys who are there now are going to have to find somewhere else to go," Wallace said.

Wallace and Robinson said one objection they have had to the facility is that most of the men are from outside the county.

Robinson said only two of the 51 men committed their crimes in Chilton County. One of those was a misdemeanor, he said.

“These are not folks from Chilton County who committed a crime and are coming back home,” Robinson said.

Today's Untouchables: Sex Offenders

Original Article

04/14/2014

Sex offenders are the foremost pariahs of our current day. In opinion polls, even intravenous drug users place higher. A recent series of high profile cases involving child sexual abuse have revealed the maddening frequency of the problem. My hometown newspaper now exists in electronic format, and as I read the local news, it seems that every other week brings a report of a new crime against minors. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Most are the product of incest, unreported, hushed up within families. The offenses that occur in a public setting, among those who aren't blood relatives, most often make it to most peoples' attention.

One of the few places sex offenders are welcomed and made to feel included are in houses of worship. It shouldn’t be said that the red carpet is necessarily rolled out for them. Yesterday, during Meeting for Worship, an issue that has lain smoldering for over a year once again took center stage. A frequently tone-deaf member of the Meeting implied strongly in her vocal ministry that the sex offender who has been Worshiping with us has no right to participate. He has provided no problems whatsoever for anyone since he began attending, three or so years ago. In her mind, exhaustive policies made to ensure child safety were a waste of time, since there was no way to contain the potential threat.

The sex offender she called out by her vocal ministry took understandable offense to the treatment, leaving Worship in dramatic fashion, midway through. His son departed with him, leaving an ugly energy behind in the Meetinghouse. Healing ministry followed, though what had been a joyful gathering until then was still soured by its conclusion. The man rightfully noted, as he parted, that he had been treated the same way as the tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers of Jesus’ day.

Striking a balance between button pushing and responsible journalism is increasingly difficult. Gotcha journalism exaggerates the threat he poses to children. Prior to writing this post, I read three separate accounts of this man's recent life. Each account was quick to rush to judgment towards what was billed as an inexcusable parole violation for a deplorable human being. I read them now as an exercise in yellow journalism. He spoke in front of a group of people where children were present, but had gotten permission from his parole supervisors. In short shift, the chargers were dropped, but it was further proof that he will live the rest of his life with a target on his back.

As I read each article posted online, his full name is never presented until halfway down the page. He is introduced mostly as “a sex offender” or “a convicted child molester”, depending on how inflammatory one wishes to be. Following closely behind is another retelling of the crime for which he was convicted and spent eighteen years in jail. He will wear a scarlet letter until his dying day and he knows it. If he returns to prison, he knows he will be specifically targeted and face the constant threat of being murdered by a fellow inmate.

The details of his offense are always enclosed with the salacious details. I’ll retell it one more time, to see what kind of impact it makes on you. The man sodomized a nine-year-old boy, nearly two decades ago. Since then, he has admitted he was wrong and has gone through intensive therapy in prison. In our company, he has willingly assented to be chaperoned and is shadowed everywhere he goes, save the bathroom. He has agreed to never be alone with children or even a single child.

With all the hassle, he has asked to be a part of us all the same. I fault the local media for preying on the fears of parents at the expense of a story. I don’t know all the details of his crime and would feel uncomfortable asking for them unless they were volunteered, which is unlikely. His very presence among us has been very controversial. Some have left us. The rest of us have wrestled with our own anxiety and fears, but also our desire for inclusivity.

I hope that he returns to our Meeting. It is difficult to strike a balance with issues so emotionally charged. No one ever feels halfway about child sexual abuse. Some of us are very uncomfortable with the notion of a sex offender worshiping with us. Some of us believe that a radical, difficult concept of tolerance and love are the very foundations of our Quaker faith. We choose our words carefully to not seem to favor one view or another, else we risk disturbing the fissure that has yet to fully heal.

Other groups are not nearly as magnanimous as we are. I know that in certain feminist conferences or gatherings, male allies with a confirmed history of violence towards women would be banned from attending. If this history included sexual assault, that would be further reason to keep them from taking part. This would be true even if the allegations, proven or unproven, were many years old. If he had done time in jail because of them, excluding him would be more tempting and perhaps even more certain.

Get-togethers with different standards do not adhere to the same definition of forgiveness and tolerance. I’m not being judgmental. Everyone has a right to set the ground rules and the boundaries for themselves. Yet, it might be worthwhile to examine what emotions these arrangements and negotiated compromises bring out in us.

I hasten to bring this up one more time, but I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse when I was the age of the man’s victim. The man who abused me is now deceased and has been deceased for many years. I don’t have the opportunity to confront my abuser, or to worry that he might show up at my conference of choice. This is a good thing in some ways. And yet, even with my history, I believe that the sex offender who worship and participates with humility and cooperation has a place among us.

This statement isn’t made to divide the Meeting between those who favor his attendance and those who don’t. It is rather to say that each of us has past events we’re not proud of confronting. One of the most effective arguments against capital punishment follows: Imagine if you were judged on the basis of your worst day on Earth.

I pivot to another identity and cause very important to me, that of Feminism. Sometimes I, too, want to throw down the gauntlet and draw lines in the sand. That impulse contradicts what my faith teaches. I eagerly welcome self-identified groups who clamor for protection under the moniker of what is termed safe space. People have been persecuted, injured, or psychologically damaged in some way, and giving them recognition and protection has become a patented part of the liberal diaspora. But know this. No space is ever safe enough, and I say that both to 20 year old college students and 33 year old couples who have just had their first child.

In a very abrasive kind of way, this is what the speaker at Worship meant to convey. Even two responsible parents couldn’t prevent my own abuse. Early Quakers believed in the perfectibility of the soul, wherein enough hard work and listening to the Holy Spirit might eventually lead to a perfect balance with God’s will. That's not too far away from the idealism of liberal activism.

I know too much of human nature and human frailties to ever believe in the perfectibility of the soul myself, and it’s an idea among fellow Quakers that is rarely believed today. Knowing the foibles of humanity, should we come down harshly or be more accepting? I admit I’m often not sure which is the correct approach.

Let's talk about (sex offenders)

Original Article

Nazi Germany had registries as well!

04/05/2014

By Marc Allen

First, let’s put some things on the table. There is wide consensus that sexual assault is under reported. There is some disagreement about just how under reported sexual assault among adults is (and some controversy about how it is defined and measured), but there are good estimates that only about a tenth of sexual abuse against children is ever reported. Abuse against children is especially heinous because of the lifelong harm it can inflict on the survivors and the subsequent costs it imposes on society.

Now, let’s talk about one hugely counterproductive way to deal with sexual assault: public sex offender registries.*

Public registries started appearing in the early 1990s and became ubiquitous, with the help of federal legislation, by the early 2000s. Since then, both the feds and the states themselves have slowly been expanding their registries and adding restrictions to registrants.

There have been a number of good pieces in the last few years critical of public registries. Here. Here. And here. But public registries remain popular. Some states have expanded their registries in the last decade and/or added additional restrictions to registrants.

You can imagine why this ratcheting upwards keeps happening. Being pro sex offender isn't a terribly popular political stance. Take geographic bans for example. Once registrants are banned from living or loitering within 500 feet of a school, it’s easy and good politics to to expand 500 feet to 1000 feet (or even 2500 feet). After that, it’s easy to add daycare's, parks, churches, and Chuck E Cheese’s to the list of protected places.

The end result of these geographic bans is that large portions of cities become off-limits. Densely populated areas are especially bad. Here’s a map of the city of Grand Rapids, blue areas are within 1000 feet of a school, red areas are within 1000 feet of a day care:

Read the rest of the article

WI - Residents seek fix for sex offender clusters in older neighborhoods

Original Article

If you want a fix for this then remove the residency restrictions, then offenders can live where they want and will not be clustering in your neighborhood due to the buffer zones.

03/15/2014

By Jennifer K. Woldt

Areas of Oshkosh once filled with modest single family homes and owner-occupied duplexes have slowly transformed into a neighborhood where those residences have been converted into multi-family homes or boarding houses that have cheap rent.

Those rental properties in the central city and on the city’s east side have, over time, become magnets for sex offenders who return to the city following release from prison. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections, which authorizes sex offender placements, says it’s a matter of pure economics — affordable rent, access to public transportation and other advantages make it a natural fit for offenders moving back into the community.
- It's a matter of residency restrictions that cause the clustering and does nothing to prevent crime or protect anybody.  You remove this and most of this goes away!

But residents of those neighborhoods are increasingly bristling at shouldering what they feel is an unfair burden, where clusters of offenders are driving down home values and contributing to the deterioration of their neighborhoods.

Those residents understand offenders need a place to live and are not trying to ban sex offenders from living within Oshkosh, they do not understand why the placement of offenders cannot be spread throughout the city.

“(Department of Corrections) need to realize they can’t use one city, one neighborhood, as a dumping ground,” said Oshkosh Councilor Steve Cummings, who has made neighborhood revitalization a central focus of his two terms on the common council.

Of the 201 registered sex offenders that live in Oshkosh, 126 offenders, or 63 percent, live in the area that encompasses the 54901 zip code, with high concentrations of offenders on some blocks and, in some instances up to five offenders living in a single boarding house.

In Oshkosh, there are eight addresses that are home to multiple offenders, according to the state’s sex offender registry.

Some cities have adopted ordinances to attempt to disperse offenders or to bar them from living within a certain distance of parks, schools and other locations. Oshkosh does not have such an ordinance, but residents of impacted neighborhoods have begun arguing that it’s time of the city to take a hard look at correcting the imbalance in offender locations.

“Our neighborhood is not suggesting extreme residency restrictions,” said Lori Palmeri, who lives in a central city neighborhood west of Main Street. “We’re looking at a solution that would be a guided placement based more on dispersion and density to prevent clustering.”

DOC silent on placements

The Department of Corrections declined multiple Northwestern phone and email requests over the past month for an interview to explain the role the department plays in determining where an offender will live.

In declining the request, a DOC spokesperson responded with an email that said in most cases, offenders are required to live in the county where they were convicted after they are released from prison, unless they have no ties to the county other than the offense. In those cases, the offender is able to live in their county of residence at the time of the offense, said Joy Staab, director of public affairs for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

DOC tries to assure the residential population density of serious sex offenders is proportionate to the number of cases that originate in the county, however, DOC did not indicate whether they try to assure proportional population density within cities or among cities in a county.

Stan Stojkovic, dean of the Helen Bader School of Social Welfare at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said its important for residents of impacted neighborhoods to look beyond the just simple number of offenders in their neighborhoods.

Stojkovic, who has an extensive background in researching sex offender placement within communities, said “sex offender” is a broad term that can take on many different meanings depending on the context of the crime he committed and not every sex offender poses a danger to the community.

Many of the individuals who are required to be listed on the state sex offender registry committed offenses against a family member or friend. The sexually violent offenders only make up 3 to 5 percent of the sex offender population, Stojkovic said.

“There are guys in the bushes, but they’re far and few between,” Stojkovic said. “You’re more likely to be assaulted by someone you know.”

Managing sex offenders in a community requires a balance of protecting the community by establishing rules and supervision for the offenders, while not violating the constitutional rights of the offenders, Stojkovic said. However, he said, many community leaders prefer to highlight the fear that most offenders are violent, rather than make informed decisions and try to address the problem of managing the offenders that are in the community.

“We have to have them in the community,” Stojkovic said. “It will never get addressed if there’s lack of political leadership.”
- Politicians like to pass laws further punishing ex-offenders to help their reputations and careers, if they speak out against these laws, then they could lose their jobs, and they don't want that, so "political leadership" will never happen!

Offender restrictions

Since the mid-2000s, municipalities around Wisconsin have been enacting ordinances that have placed restrictions on where sex offenders can live in communities. At least 110 municipalities in Wisconsin have adopted some kind of ordinance, including the town of Algoma.
- And that is what is causing this clustering!

Stojkovic argues those ordinances do nothing to protect communities from offenders. Rather, Stjkovic said the ordinances are often written too broadly and include every sex offender that’s on the registry instead of focusing on the violent or dangerous offenders that the community needs protection from.

“All of those do nothing,” Stojkovic said. “It’s more political fodder for politicians who want to make hay.”

The town of Algoma enacted a residency restriction ordinance in November 2006. The ordinance prohibits sex offenders who victimized a child under 16 years old from living within 2,000 feet of parks, playgrounds, churches, schools and bike trails.

The ordinance, which covers about 99 percent of the town, does have a mechanism which allows offenders to live within the town if they already have an established residence with a family member who previously lived in the town, said town chairman Tim Blake.

Only one offender resides in the town of Algoma, Blake said.

While the restriction essentially eliminates sex offenders from living within the town, Blake said the intent was not to push offenders off on other communities.

“We weren’t looking to shove anybody anywhere,” Blake said. “We were looking to protect the kids. And we still are.”
- But the residency restrictions do just that!

Oshkosh efforts

Neighborhood advocates and the city have begun exploring options that may help prevent the clustering of offenders in a small area.

Last year, Cummings and Palmeri met with officials from the departments of corrections and probation and parole along with Oshkosh Police Chief Scott Greuel to learn more about placement of sex offenders within the community.

Greuel recently said that he does not support Oshkosh instituting a sex offender residency restriction due to concerns it may force offenders underground, resulting in law enforcement and members of the community not knowing where they are living.

Palmeri sent a follow-up memo to city leaders earlier this month that discussed alternative ways to handle sex offender placement in the city, including an option that sought to address offender density to ease the burden on neighborhoods like hers.
- A free person can live anywhere they wish.  You don't have the government telling you where you can or cannot live, so stop stomping on others rights for your false security!

Among her suggestions was creating a residency review committee that would need to be consulted before an offender moved into the community. Anouther option could involve placing offenders throughout the seven Oshkosh Police districts in the community on a rotational basis.
- Yeah like that will work!  Then you will have this committee just denying everybody the ability to move into their neighborhood, so the problem will still exist.

“I know that’s not a perfect solution since some districts don’t have rentals,” Palmeri said. “It may be the case that we not start with that approach, but maybe instead a distance requirement of how close they can be to each other.”

Palmeri said she has not received a response to her memo from the city.

While more than 100 cities, villages and towns in Wisconsin have created ordinances that restrict where offenders can live, Palmeri said the idea she has proposed — which avoids outright restrictions and instead addresses the population density of offenders within an area — is not utlitized as much. She has identified two communities, the village of Allouez and the town of Wheatland in Kenosha County, that have adopted a hybrid-type ordinance that not only restricts, but also addresses density.

“It hasn’t really been looked at in the state of Wisconsin,” Palmeri said. “I think most of the municipalities have been more clear that they don’t want them here.”

At minimum, she would like the city to create a task force to investigate the issue and work with residents and rental-property owners to address residents’ concerns.

Cummings said the city is exploring ways to limit the number of offenders who live in the city’s older neighborhoods through a zoning rule that would limit the number of non-related people who live in a unit or other moves, such as design standards or creating an apartment registry, that could be made to help reduce the number of low-rent properties in the neighborhoods by either increasing the rental price or turning rental units into single-family homes.

“The major issue why Oshkosh is a good dumping ground is the older sections of the city have very low rents,” Cummings said.

GA - Georgia Republican stands up for sex offenders’ access to schools and playgrounds

Rep. Sam Moore

Original Article

02/21/2014

By David Ferguson

A Georgia Republican state House member submitted a bill to the current legislative session that would remove restrictions on convicted sex offenders and allow them to go anywhere in the state they like, including schools.

According to the Cherokee Tribune, freshman Georgia Rep. Sam Moore (R-Macedonia) said that once they satisfy the terms of their parole, sex offenders have “done their time” and should be allowed to go forth unhindered by intrusive government supervision.

Moore’s HB 1033 would overturn the crime of loitering and loosen restrictions on convicted sex offenders, enabling them to go anywhere they like, including schools, church youth functions, parks and playgrounds. Moore said that the risk of recidivism is outweighed by the increase in freedom.

“I am OK with that,” he told the Tribune. “The reason I’m OK with that is the assumption is they have done their time. If they’re still a danger to society, they should not be free.”

“Am I saying it’s not creepy?” he asked. “It’s definitely creepy,” but worth it to avoid big government’s infringement on personal liberties.

“In my 34 years of law enforcement I have never heard of such an insane law having been introduced,” said Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison Friday. “Sexual predators are one of this country’s most violent (type of) offenders. If there’s any equal it would be an out-and-out serial killer.”
- So what about politicians who agree to wars that kill thousands or more?  Or what about drunk drivers who kill a while family?  Not all sex offenders are as dangerous as you make them all out to be, but hey, you cannot look soft on crime we understand that, got to protect your reputation!

Garrison said that to allow sexual predators to “once again lurk around our parks, around our schools, around our swimming pools” is unacceptable.
- How many sexual crimes can you show us that occurred at ANY of these places?

Cherokee Superintendent of Schools Dr. Frank Petruzielo told the Tribune by email, “The School District is strongly opposed to any legislation that would allow predators the opportunity to endanger our students, which it appears this bill would do.”

Anti-loitering laws are a key law enforcement tool in keeping adult sexual predators away from children, but Moore feels that they are unconstitutional in that they compel suspects to identify themselves to the police. HB 1033 would forbid police from forcing residents to identify themselves under any circumstances.

Moore said that he is protecting the Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens’ right to remain silent.

Sheriff Garrison blasted the bill’s potential to make law enforcement impossible.
- Oh come on, really?

“It’s insane,” he said. “If you can’t check them, how are you going to know who they are? They could be wanted for murder down the street.”
- So I guess you just want to eliminate the 5th amendment and let your Gestapo search anybody, anywhere, anytime you wish?

One of Moore’s fellow Republican lawmakers unloaded on him at the state House session on Friday morning.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted Rep. John Pezold (R-Fortson) as saying, “I am shocked and appalled anyone would suggest that pedophiles should be allowed to loiter near day care centers, schools — the places where our children learn and play.”
- Not all ex-offenders are pedophiles and by saying so could be a form of defamation!

“If Mr. Moore’s mission was to come down to the state Capitol and alienate his colleagues by staking out positions that no one in their right mind could agree with,” Pezold continued, “he can now hang a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner behind him because he has done just that.”

See Also:

• (02/28/2014) Rep. Sam Moore back tracks on his controversial bill
• (02/24/2014) Georgia lawmaker apologizes for bill scrapping sex offender loitering statute
• (02/21/2014) State representative’s sex offender bill receives fierce criticism (Video Available)

WI - Sex offender who can't find a home told to sleep in jail

Original Article

Since when did homelessness due to draconian and unconstitutional laws become a crime? If this man is not on probation / parole we do not think they can force him to stay at the jail.

02/17/2014

By Ashley Luthern

_____, a registered sex offender, has nowhere to live because of local sex offender laws so the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is requiring him to report to the Racine County jail every night, according to the Journal Times.

_____, who is applying for jobs to save money for rent, told the Journal Times that he would rather stay in the jail at night than be homeless. Some attorneys have questioned the legality of the statewide practice of holding homeless sex offenders in jail.

Mount Pleasant, Racine, Sturtevant and Caledonia have ordinances that limit how close offenders can live to schools, day cares, churches, parks and playgrounds.

See Also:

• (02/25/2014) Homeless sex offender given temporary housing

WI - Freed, but still in jail: New limits on sex offenders leave them in care of sheriff

Original Article

So he's done his time but because he couldn't find a place to stay, behind bars, he will remain behind bars? That is just so wrong!

02/08/2014

By Stephanie Jones

RACINE - _____ is supposed to be free. He’s not.

_____, a convicted sex offender, served his time and was supposed to be released from the New Lisbon Correctional Institution on Jan. 28. He was released on schedule, but his release was not to freedom. It was to the Racine County Jail. There was nowhere else for him to go.

“It was a rather depressing situation,” he said about finding out the jail was his only housing option. “All I wanted was a place to live.”

Municipal ordinances have become so restrictive on where registered sex offenders like _____ can live in the county that state officials have directed the jail to hold him. It’s not clear how or when he’ll get out.

This is a new problem resulting from recent sex offender ordinances and it’s concerning, said Lt. Dan Adams of the Racine County Sheriff’s Office.

No options

In early January, _____, 59, was planning on moving into a transitional residence in the 2100 block of Racine Street in Mount Pleasant. Then those plans changed when the Mount Pleasant Village Board passed an ordinance Jan. 13 greatly restricting where sex offenders can live. That ordinance came on the heels of similar ordinances passed in Racine, Sturtevant and Caledonia.

Mount Pleasant’s new ordinance effectively eliminated the home _____ had lined up, which is near a church.

“That was the last oasis,” Adams said about the Racine Street residence. “Then the ordinance passed. Now we are in this predicament.”

It’s not an issue that other released prisoners face, he said, because they have alternative shelters where they can stay that sex offenders cannot.

Staying at the Homeless Assistance Leadership Organization shelter also is not an option for sex offenders. Because families and children stay at the shelter, they don’t accept sex offenders except for particular circumstances such as if there is an 18-year-old who had a relationship with a 17-year-old, said Stephanie Koeber, HALO’s family program and child care director. She didn’t know offhand of any other place that will take sex offenders now.

“It’s definitely a population that is underserved,” she said.

Past mistakes

_____ doesn’t try to justify the mistakes he made, he said. When he committed his first offense in 2000, he was living in Indiana with his wife and five children. He used to write articles for the Elkhart Truth’s sports department, he said, and he owned his own business that sold new and used equipment to fire departments.

Then he started an online relationship with a person who he thought was a 14-year-old boy, he said. He drove from Indiana to Racine County to meet the boy at the McDonald’s by Interstate 94 at 13343 Washington Ave. It turned out it was an undercover agent, and _____ was taken into custody.

Years later after he was released from prison for that crime, he ended up arrested again in 2007 after he was caught looking at a website at the Racine Public Library called “Barely Legal.” He said it turned out some of the photos were of teens under 18. He admits it was a stupid decision, although he claims he thought they were adults.

What’s next?

Now, after being released again, _____ is on extended supervision and he has a GPS monitor on his ankle, which he said he may have to wear for the rest of his life. His first goal is to find a job so that he can afford housing, he said Thursday while seated at the Department of Corrections Division of Community Corrections office in Sturtevant, with a notebook filled with possible job leads.

That is where he spends the day for the most part. _____ said his day starts with breakfast at the jail, then he gets a packed lunch and is transported to the Sturtevant corrections office, where he spends time looking for jobs until he is transported back to the jail before dinner. He is required to return to jail each night, Adams said.

Joy Staab, a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, said for sex offenders who warrant special notifications to law enforcement, the current policy is to “utilize jail in lieu of homelessness.”

This is a statewide policy, she said, although she did not know if it is occurring anywhere else outside of Racine County.

“As a result of local ordinances restricting where sex offenders can reside, housing options can be very limited for sex offenders,” she said.

Another man at jail

According to the Sheriff’s Office, one additional sex offender in _____’s situation also has been housed in the Racine County Jail since Tuesday. Both men are listed in jail online records with their “hold reason” as “homeless sex offender.” It’s not clear how long the offenders will have to stay in jail, Adams said. The state will pay for the jail stays, he added. “I think there is some concern about what comes next,” he said. “There has to be some alternative solution because I don’t think this can be sustainable.”

In the two weeks since _____ was released from prison, he hasn’t had any luck finding work, he said. Until he gets a job, he doesn’t know how he will be able to afford rent, he said, and with the transitional facility no longer an option, he is not sure when he will be able to finally spend a night outside jail.

If he had money in the bank, possibly he could find someplace that the ordinance would allow a sex offender to live. But he doesn’t, and he is not sure where he could find housing.

“I’m not trying to look for sympathy. I don’t expect that,” he said. But he said, “I did my prison time. Give me an opportunity. Allow me to try to put my life back together.”

See Also:

• (02/25/2014) Homeless sex offender given temporary housing