Sussex trustees will meet Tuesday to continue talking about whether the village should enact an ordinance that would restrict where sex offenders could live.
Village leaders have been debating possible restrictions on sex offenders and where they can live or travel for months, however, due to the pitfalls such an ordinance can have, trustees want to discuss it as a whole before they proceed.
Facebook Poll: Should village restrict where sex offenders can live?
Village Administrator Jeremy Smith said trustees will not take any action at Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting and public input will not be taken at that time.
“This is just to educate them about what’s out there,” he said.
The meeting is set for 6 p.m. at .
Many communities across southeastern Wisconsin have restrictions on where sex offenders can live or where they can go in a community. While such ordinances were crafted to keep released offenders away from areas where children may be, some communities with such laws have faced large legal bills because those ordinances are litigated on a case-by-case basis.
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections also has warned the village about such an ordinance because officials have found that more released offenders lie about where they live when such laws are enacted.
See, you need a COURT of law to regulate someone who you are asserting is dangerous. Why? Because your assertion is just that, nothing more BUT an assertion. This is where your whole basis of freedom lies. The ability of government to regulate someone without ANY checks or balances. You think you are free with this kind of power? Only despotic government are allowed to vote or decree where someone can or can't live. Free countries force the government to PROVE something BEFORE they act against them. All of your residency restrictions are passed outside of a court of law and applied ex-post facto. You think you are credible? You better think hard and long, because without credibility your laws don't have to be followed at all, no matter how you line up the police to enforce the illegal law. Get it?
@Rudy101: when you are convicted of a crime, there is obvious proof. Any normal person who reads your comments should look at what your interest is. 100% of your comments are regarding sexual predators... that is really creepy. Makes one wonder what you have been convicted of...
Also, I find it ironic that you posted the poll on Facebook. Was that intentional? Because most ex-sex offenders cannot be on Facebook (in some states), so you are basically killing their ability to vote in the poll.
You know nothing of the old days. You are just fantasizing. And you know nothing but only speculation about what my interests are. Why will you not EVER know anything more about my interests? Because your comment is filled with violence and is being transmitted around the world. There is ONLY one problem with your advocacy. The way you think AND the fact they give you complete and unfettered access to a registry. This dooms any kind of credibility there is in enforcing your laws. You are not a court, Craig. And it is well settled that your style of justice is no justice at all. You comments and that registry are inherently connected. It is your irrational solutions that makes the community more dangerous BECAUSE they give you access to a registry. You can't see it, because you so want to be that court of law and execute punishments arbitrarily and at whim.
Most sex offenders don't re offend. It is just a myth that has no basis in fact. See, you have made an assertion that, "most sex offenders" repeat. If that assertion you made cannot hold up, where is your credibility for the laws? You better be sure about what you are saying, because if untrue, you literally have nothing as a legal foundation for passing such laws against ANYONE.
Too bad you can't prove your assertions. Because, again, if they are wrong, your laws are in very very big trouble.
Let the majority decide.
I think you are living in your own little world- which is fine with me... Stay out of mine.
Don't you think about them at all? Where do you live anyway?
Again, what about the victims? They know how the system works. A person is sentenced. The victim even gets a chance to make their statements at a sentence. All your arguments are about revenge and hate. Hate for people based upon a silly list that a legislature voted on anyone they wanted for any crime they wanted and applied it retroactively. See the laws are applied equally to all range of people. Even non-dangerous people. Laws inherently must be fair. A registry is not, by any measure fair. And where do I live? Any where I please. That is where I live.
The legislature writes the laws, Judges impose the laws accordingly. Not all victims are able to speak at sentencing, some are too damaged, some are too little. I have no interest in debating the issue with you any further. I engaged you in conversation to shed some light on how you people think. I hope Sussex residents are reading this....and turn out to support the proper changes to keep scum away from their kids.
There is a long history of governments targeting this group or that group. It is ALWAYS with a pretext of protection of some magnitude. But what they all do have in common is none of them ever had an independent forum for determining actual dangerousness before the State acted. Finally, local laws like this does NOT keep those people away from children. Why? Because children are everywhere. What the law does is is makes it difficult to find stability under any circumstances, which leaves to criminality, which leads to more victims and more tax dollars. You fail, Craig, under every single argument you can muster.