It was reported earlier this week that the South Milwaukee Common Council was going to consider a measure to change South Milwaukee’s existing sex offender ordinance so that offenders would be allowed to accompany their own children to school and to school functions. The ordinance change was requested by the South Milwaukee School District, which justified the change by saying, “barring otherwise prohibited parents from attending school functions and accompanying their children to school fails to promote the best interests of the children of these parents.”
I’ve received confirmation via email from Alderman Erik Brooks that the proposed change to South Milwaukee’s sex offender ordinance was denied unanimously, as “No one wanted to touch the issue of granting additional priviliges [sic]to sex offenders.” While I’m a strong proponent of parents being involved in the lives of their children, I’m glad the South Milwaukee Common Council took no action to change South Milwaukee’s existing sex offender ordinance.
I would have to agree. I don’t know what’s going on over there (city hall) but I have been agreeing with much of what they have been doing lately which is odd. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time that will change.
But speaking of SM…did you read they (school district) are cutting programs/classes because of the budget…and WA-WM (go Bulldogs!) are laying off 30 some teachers?? What do these two school districts have in common??
Anon, budget cuts are likely to only get worse for the South Milwaukee School District, which is why it’s so curious the board voted to give administrators a 4.1% raise for this year.
Zach, this is nothing but knee-jerk politicking and political cowardice. If these people have been deemed safe enough to take care of their own children (the vast majority of sexual abuse of children takes place in-family) then they must be allowed to re-integrate with society. It does a child no good to have a parent who is ostracized and handicapped in this manner. You should also remember that not all of these offenders were convicted of acts of pedophilia, many of them were convicted of minor offenses, such as public nudity etc. There are common sense measures that need to be taken to protect children from sexual abuse, but this is not one of them.
Sconz, perhaps I’m jaded because of what I do, but I think the ordinance is fine as is. What’s more, someone convicted of public nudity wouldn’t fall under the purview of the ordinance, which includes a list of offenses covered under the ordinance.
Here’s that list:
Those are all pretty serious offenses.
Do you even know what second or third degree sexual assault means? Yeah, it does sound pretty serious. But my fiance as a teenager in High School 10 years ago now, sleeps with his teenager girlfriend also in the same High School gets charged with 2nd degree sexual assault and gets a 15 year sentence! He as served 6 in prison and the rest is on an electronic monitoring bracelet around his ankle! We can’t find a place for him to live, so he sits back in prison! Thanks to all those narrow-minded assholes that pass ordinances keeping him from being able to find a home, he continues to sit in jail waiting for a half way house not within an ordinance to have an opening!
Second degree sexual assault:
(2) Second degree sexual assault. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class C felony:
940.225(2)(a)
(a) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that person by use or threat of force or violence.
940.225(2)(b)
(b) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that person and causes injury, illness, disease or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ, or mental anguish requiring psychiatric care for the victim.
940.225(2)(c)
(c) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who suffers from a mental illness or deficiency which renders that person temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the person’s conduct, and the defendant knows of such condition.
940.225(2)(cm)
(cm) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who is under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders that person incapable of giving consent if the defendant has actual knowledge that the person is incapable of giving consent and the defendant has the purpose to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the person while the person is incapable of giving consent.
940.225(2)(d)
(d) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who the defendant knows is unconscious.
940.225(2)(f)
(f) Is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of that person.
940.225(2)(g)
(g) Is an employee of a facility or program under s. 940.295 (2) (b), (c), (h) or (k) and has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who is a patient or resident of the facility or program.
940.225(2)(h)
(h) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with an individual who is confined in a correctional institution if the actor is a correctional staff member. This paragraph does not apply if the individual with whom the actor has sexual contact or sexual intercourse is subject to prosecution for the sexual contact or sexual intercourse under this section.
940.225(2)(i)
(i) Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with an individual who is on probation, parole, or extended supervision if the actor is a probation, parole, or extended supervision agent who supervises the individual, either directly or through a subordinate, in his or her capacity as a probation, parole, or extended supervision agent or who has influenced or has attempted to influence another probation, parole, or extended supervision agent’s supervision of the individual.
So Aimee, which of those is your boyfriend guilty of?