Back in the early 1990’s, state Senator Alberta Darling authored chapter 980 of the state statutes. These laws made it so that once the sentence of a sex offender is up, they go from prison to their home county to receive treatment and supervision in the home county. In short, it shifts responsibility and costs for these predators from the state to the county. In the flawed statute, it says that the local county Department of Mental Health must deal with placement. That’s a department headed by a county exec appointee. Oddly enough, for purposes of this legislation, pedophilia is benignly considered to be a mental illness. Until now, this diagnosis has allowed authorities to extend the incarceration of sex offenders beyond their court-ordered sentences, confining ex-cons to their homes and keeping them under electronic surveillance.

So here’s the rub: then-state Rep. Scott Walker voted for chapter 980, figuring that it would look good at election time and that he would never have to deal with the fallout. Now he’s the Milwaukee county exec and his appointee oversees the county Mental Health Department, which he happily shifted responsibility to back when he figured he wouldn’t ever have to deal with it. Back then he couldn’t have dreamed he would have to clean up the mess he created.

Fast forward to 2005, and now Walker is running for governor. He’s taken the position of declaring that he would never allow sexual predator housing to be placed on county-owned land, but he knows the ramifications of this. The courts have made it clear that if nothing is done, the law will be declared unconstitutional and sex-offenders will run free.

Walker knew about this upcoming showdown 17 months ago. Were has he been? He knew that the courts would release these pedophiles unsupervised into the community if local officials could not agree upon suitable housing. It would have made more sense to build an offender apartment complex near some remote rural cornfield where these predators wouldn’t threaten our children. Instead, Walker’s been running all over the state on Milwaukee County’s dime, campaigning for governor under the guise of promoting the county. He could have taken that 17 months and worked with his partisan pals who control both the Assembly and the state Senate to remove the language in state statute 980.08(5) that requires these offenders to be placed back in their home communities.

According to state law, sexual predators who have fulfilled their commitment must be released. The state’s work-around of this has been to declare predators mentally ill and hold them in prison until housing is found for them. Some of these guys are spending extra months and years past their release date.

The courts are saying that if you don’t build something, we’ll declare holding them unconstitutional and offenders will be able to move anywhere they want.

Walker is putting our community at greater risk — and his gubernatorial aspirations are motivating him to cater to groups who don’t want a facility near their home. These groups are right to be upset and they have every reason to fear that these predators may harm their children. But if they truly want to safeguard their children, what they need to do is hold legislators like Walker and Darling accountable for their votes. If they don’t, poorly thought out legislation like chapter 980 will continue to be written and will continue to put the public in danger.

Darling wants to take both sites currently being considered off the table. That’s just precious. She authored the legislation that’s causing the problem and, for her part, she says she’ll work to find a solution. Here’s a solution she obviously didn’t think about – propose new legislation to rescind the verbiage in her own bill (chapter 980) that requires offenders to be placed in the county where they had a past residence.

Now, if Walker doesn’t make a decision and take some leadership on where to house these predators, state judges will declare their extended incarceration to be unconstitutional and they will be released into the community with no electronic monitoring bracelet, no supervision, nothing. Clearly, Walker’s lack of leadership — coupled with his legislative indifference to local governments — while serving in the Assembly, have created this problem. Now he has a responsibility to deal with.

The courts have made it clear. Either these predators are provided housing or they will just roam free. If Walker says we’re not going to sell county land, then he has a responsibility to propose an alternative. Sadly, the only alternative that Walker is embracing (to do nothing) puts our community and, more specifically, our children, at greater risk.

###

 State Statutes online  

980.08(5)
(5) If the court finds that the person is appropriate for supervised release, the court shall notify the department.  The department shall make its best effort to arrange for placement of the person in a residential facility or dwelling that is in the person’s county of residence, as determined by the department under s. 980.105.  The department and the county department under s. 51.42 in the county of residence of the person shall prepare a plan that identifies the treatment and services, if any, that the person will receive in the community.  The plan shall address the person’s need, if any, for supervision, counseling, medication, community support services, residential services, vocational services, and alcohol or other drug abuse treatment.  In developing a plan for where the person may reside while on supervised release, the department shall consider the proximity of any potential placement to the residence of other persons on supervised release and to the residence of persons who are in the custody of the department of corrections and regarding whom a sex offender notification bulletin has been issued to law enforcement agencies under s. 301.46 (2m) (a) or (am).  If the person is a serious child sex offender, the plan shall address the person’s need for pharmacological treatment using an antiandrogen or the chemical equivalent of an antiandrogen. The department may contract with a county department, under s. 51.42 (3) (aw) 1. d., with another public agency or with a private agency to provide the treatment and services identified in the plan.  The plan shall specify who will be responsible for providing the treatment and services identified in the plan.  The plan shall be presented to the court for its approval within 60 days after the court finding that the person is appropriate for supervised release, unless the department, county department and person to be released request additional time to develop the plan.  If the county department of the person’s county of residence declines to prepare a plan, the department may arrange for another county to prepare the plan if that county agrees to prepare the plan and if the person will be living in that county.  If the department is unable to arrange for another county to prepare a plan, the court shall designate a county department to prepare the plan, order the county department to prepare the plan and place the person on supervised release in that county, except that the court may not so designate the county department in any county where there is a facility in which persons committed to institutional care under this chapter are placed unless that county is also the person’s county of residence.

980.08(6m)
(6m) An order for supervised release places the person in the custody and control of the department.  The department shall arrange for control, care and treatment of the person in the least restrictive manner consistent with the requirements of the person and in accordance with the plan for supervised release approved by the court under sub. (5).  A person on supervised release is subject to the conditions set by the court and to the rules of the department.  Before a person is placed on supervised release by the court under this section, the court shall so notify the municipal police department and county sheriff for the municipality and county in which the person will be residing.  The notification requirement under this subsection does not apply if a municipal police department or county sheriff submits to the court a written statement waiving the right to be notified.  If the department alleges that a released person has violated any condition or rule, or that the safety of others requires that supervised release be revoked, he or she may be taken into custody under the rules of the department.  The department shall submit a statement showing probable cause of the detention and a petition to revoke the order for supervised release to the committing court and the regional office of the state public defender responsible for handling cases in the county where the committing court is located within 72 hours after the detention, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.  The court shall hear the petition within 30 days, unless the hearing or time deadline is waived by the detained person.  Pending the revocation hearing, the department may detain the person in a jail or in a hospital, center or facility specified by s. 51.15 (2).  The state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that any rule or condition of release has been violated, or that the safety of others requires that supervised release be revoked.  If the court determines after hearing that any rule or condition of release has been violated, or that the safety of others requires that supervised release be revoked, it may revoke the order for supervised release and order that the released person be placed in an appropriate institution until the person is discharged from the commitment under s. 980.09 or until again placed on supervised release under this section.