![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

74°
Rain | 7MPH
NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING
Friday
July 2010
30

State Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents parts of four counties: Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, and Walworth. Her Senate District 28 includes New Berlin, Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corners, Muskego, Waterford, Big Bend, the town of Vernon and parts of Greenfield, East Troy, and Mukwonago. Senator Lazich has been in the Legislature for more than a decade. She considers herself a tireless crusader for lower taxes, reduced spending and smaller government.
Here is testimony I gave to the state Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts today about Assembly Bill 759 and its companion bill in the state Senate, Senate Bill 548:
Senator Mary Lazich
Testimony
Assembly Bill 759
Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts
March 11, 2010
Greetings, Committee Chairman Parisi and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts about Assembly Bill 759.
Assembly Bill 759 (AB 759) and Senate Bill 548 (SB 548) impose the greatest risk to children and families in the state of
Why do I say that prohibiting a local sex offender ordinance in a community remote to your district would put you and your constituents in danger? We have outstanding law enforcement in the state of
One of the communities I am honored to represent,
During the trial, two expert witnesses, Dr. Jill Levenson and Dr. Chris Robison agreed with research concluding that in the 15 years following release of sex offenders, about 24 percent will re-offend, and that offenders with a prior sex offense conviction have even higher recidivism rates.
Although Dr. Levenson and another expert witness, Dr. Luis Rosell both testified against sex offender residency restrictions, they both find that reducing access to children can reduce the likelihood of a sex offense. Dr. Levenson testified that she once wrote, “It makes sense that risk might be managed by reducing some of the exposure to children and prohibiting them from living near places where children congregate.” Furthermore, Dr. Rosell had testified in a previous case, Doe v. Miller that “reducing a specific sex offender’s access to children was a good idea, and that if you remove the opportunity, then the likelihood of reoffense is decreased.”
Armed with this critical information,
Today, dozens of municipalities around
AB 759 and SB 548 are direct attacks on the communities that have enacted ordinances, and a direct attack on children and their parents. AB 759 and SB 548 violate the all-important concept of self-governance and home rule by striking down laws that benefit the health and well-being of citizens.
Can the state be trusted with the responsibility of ensuring families and their children are safe from sex offenders? A recent, highly publicized case suggests the answer is emphatically no.
During 1998, a Dane County Circuit Court Judge ruled Lindon Knutson to be a sexually violent person. Lindon Knutson had a very serious criminal record including convictions for rape and kidnapping, and was committed to a mental health facility. During March of 2009, a
It is reported that there was one assessment of Lindon Knutson relied upon for his release. One assessment, and that one assessment, was that he was safe to be released.
During November 2009, Knutson was arrested in Wilmar, Minnesota for allegedly asking for a church tour conducted by a 73-year-old woman, and then beat, raped, and robbed the woman.
Taking away the authority of municipalities and transferring decisions about offenders’ whereabouts to state bureaucrats is not just risky, it is dangerous. Committee members, please give serious consideration to the stakes. Communities in your districts are best equipped to apply safety.
AB 759 and SB 548 would repeal ordinances in communities that committee members represent including
Think about the ramifications of this legislation. AB 759 and SB 548 are gambling. It is gambling with lives of children and the lives of all
My bet and my gamble are with local law enforcement, local citizens, and local elected officials, not with the state.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
|
|||||||||||
12 Comments
fallenone - Mar 12, 2010 7:23 AM
http://www.oncefallen.com/ResidenceRestrictionsFacts.html
The only gamble you're making is opposing a blatantly counterproductive law.
Question Authority - Mar 12, 2010 8:04 AM
iluvbacon - Mar 12, 2010 8:49 AM
To those reading these comments, note that oncefallen's web link is "a support and referral service for (sex offender) registrants and their families".
As a Greenfield resident and parent, I'm proud that my Common Council enacted a local ordinance defining child safety zones and restricting where convicted sex offenders can live in Greenfield. The ordinance defines what level of sex offenders are restricted as well. For the state to preempt local municipalities' ordinances is a huge step backwards. I can't see how the state is being allowed to consider this given that the state doesn't have sex offender restrictions in place already. The only way this bill makes any sense and can be considered fair is to be amended to include the state restrictions in it. As it's written now, we're just suppose to trust that our state govt. will sometime in the future consider guidelines that possibly put residency restrictions on sex offenders. Show me those state restrictions now. Pass the state restrictions first for those communities that don't already have their own sex offender restrictions. Then, let the communities decide whether their local ordinance does what they want or whether to be governed by the state's ordinance.
Until then, keep the sex offenders away from our schools and our children.
Lally - Mar 12, 2010 10:02 AM
One has to wonder where we would be as a society, if restrictions and registries for AIDs victims had been allowed to pass? Thankfully, intelligence prevailed in that case, but we have a good idea from watching where sex offneder hysterics is leading us.
If it didn't work in Nazi Germany, Bacon, it won't work in Greenfield - listen to what an intelligent and informed person has to say. You'll become an intelligent and informed person yourself.
iluvbacon - Mar 12, 2010 11:00 AM
Thanks for the insightful comparison of Nazi Germany to Greenfield. If that's what you call "intelligent and informed", we must disagree on what those two words mean.
You also seem to be drawing on comparisons between AIDs victims and sex offenders. One group has a medical condition - the other preys on our children. Are you inferring that sex offenders are being unfairly discriminated against?
I would appreciate it if you could enlighten the rest of us non-intelligent people what specifically should happen to sex offenders upon their release. Do you believe that ALL sex offenders have served their time and should be released to society without any registration necessary or any restrictions placed on them?
TimPa - Mar 12, 2010 11:02 AM
TimPa - Mar 12, 2010 11:08 AM
Lally - Mar 13, 2010 7:24 AM
How's them apples?
Just a modicrum of research would show an 'intelligent' person such as yourself that crime rates have not altered one bit since these ever increasing laws have been passed. Millions of dollars, thousands of people - children included - on public shame lists, and disallowing Constitutional rights for those accused of this crime (guilty until proven guilty, just like the Salem Witch hunts!).
But your 'intelligent' and well researched response is to continue throwing gasoline on the fire.
Do you not know that over 90% of all sex crimes are NEW, and committed by family members or those in trusted positions? All the Nazi era ghettoeing of sex offenders is ot protecting any child, but certainly garnering votes for pander politicians who truly admire your 'intelligence' to buy into it. Speaking of 'buying into it' be sure to invest in GPS technologies. You local politicians certainly are.
steveo8091 - Mar 15, 2010 9:50 AM
The vast majority of these ordinances apply to a finite list of sex offenders convicted of a specific list of SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.
The vast majority of these ordinances make specific accomodation for the return of these same sex offenders to their own community.
In almost every instance, ordinances were passed by communities IN CONSULTATION with their neighboring communities (with the notable exception of Milwaukee). In most cases, one community mirrored the next.
As for the "failed" Iowa "experiment," it has not failed at all. It is, however, often used by ill-informed to justify not having restrictions based on opinions by the Iowa County Prosecutors Association piece that contains NO imperical evidence.
Opinions are fine, ones based in fact are great.
iluvbacon - Mar 15, 2010 2:28 PM
I'll ask you again - what do you think should happen to sex offenders (and more specifically, people convicted for sex crimes against children) upon release from jail?
It's easy to criticize solutions - it's hard to come up with them. I know that as you read this, you're focusing on the fact that I called our local municpal ordinance a "solution", but I simply would like to know what your solution is if you think ours is wrong.
Scott Ludtke - Mar 24, 2010 5:22 AM
What about the young man (18 yrs old) who is dating a 16 year old who ends up pregnant... They reside together, had consensual sex, the child was born and raised by both parents who are positive, active role models. Then one day word gets to the local DA's office about this event and the father is charged, convicted, imprisoned (perhaps?) and ultimately has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his natural life...
Does this make sense to ANYONE? I happen to know at least 2 individuals with this dilemma, and yes, for the record I did check their case history and court records which verify this factual scenario.
Sex offender who prey on younger children/adults should be held to the strict standards of the current sex offender registry requirements, but there are, and should be limited exceptions to the rule where common sense outweighs any possible public safety policy...
MuniAtty - Mar 26, 2010 3:10 PM
The very experts cited by Sen. Lazich to support her argument for local restrictions actually oppose them. She is relying on isolated statements devoid of the ultimate conclusion. Why give any weight to such statements when the experts who made them did not give them any weight?
Assume all sex offenders ARE dangerous. If the goal is to restrict a sex offender's access to children, why regulate where the offender sleeps? Hypothetically, a residency ordinance allows a sex offender to spend the other 16 hours each day trolling near an elementary school as long as he has to drive 2,000 feet to get home. Would you prefer that this offender live isolated from society and unmonitored or within society were he is monitored by law enforcement, DoC, neighbors, and maybe even GPS (as AB 759 suggests)?
Even though the questions above are rhetorical, the question of how to keep children safe from sex offenders remains. AB 759 may not end the issue, but it's an answer which is surely better than local residency restrictions.