[Mpls] Sex Offenders

[Jhpalmerjp at aol.com]

Well, actually no Robert it's not about a choice between drug offenders  
(which incidentally is not exclusively the same as drug users but rather  includes 
drug dealers as well) and Level III sex offenders.  Level IIIs are  not being 
release or compressed into impacted neighborhoods because of the  number of 
drug offenders in prison, they are released because they've done their  time.  
Lighter penalties for drug offenders is a separate issue and trying  to hinge 
one on the other, in my mind, dilutes and draws attention away from the  real 
issue: compacting "problems" into impacted communities.
 
And while I agree with the sentiments of Booker's proposed ordinance, it is  
not feasible. (incidentally, the people who check up on and track Level IIIs 
and  other offenders here in the City are Hennepin County Probations Officers, 
and  while I speak to how well they do in other communities, the ones we have 
in  Jordan and Folwell are top notch).  The reasons why the ordinance is not  
feasible are: 1.The City doesn't have jurisdiction, and 2. even if it did no 
one  is going to support an ordinance to get more Level IIIs in their area.  
Joe  Mullery and Linda Hiiggins have tried this several times at the Legislature 
and  it has never passed.
 
However, the question of jurisdiction has led to a possible means of  dealing 
with this problem through a thought Keith Ellison had and that we've  
discussed at a couple of meetings on the Northside (in addition to discussions  I've 
had with some southside people like Barb and Jim).  While the City  doesn't 
have jursidiction, the Department of Correction does and we've been  working on 
getting a policy that would effect the same thing.  Those that  are on 
supervision, the Department should be able to tell where to go and where  not to.  
Therefore, the way to accomplish this is to get the Department to  agree to a 
policy of non-concentration in impacted neighborhoods.
 
Part of the problem is awareness.  While it doesn't mean that they  would 
care, many people are not aware of the concentration and the reasons for  it.  
Don Samuels, Dennis Wagner and I met with Steve Sviggum earlier in the  year 
about this issue and he was shocked to learned of the concentration (Jordan  has 
the highest concentration in North Minneapolis, combined with Phillips, the  
two communities have 50% of the Level IIIs in the city) and the reason (the two 
 from his hometown were there because of relatives).  1 in 9 people in  
Jordan is on some form of supervision.  There are only two halfway houses  in 
Minneapolis, one on the Northside and one on the Southside, and I don't  believe 
that probation or parole officers are directing people to these  neighborhoods, 
a number of them are not stopping them.  But the largest  problem is the group 
of landlords who will recruit them under the auspices of  doing "God's work" 
which is strange because I didn't know God liked you to  concentrate large 
numbers offenders in a small house and charge them huge  rates.
 
There are a number of other ways of dealing with this too.  Dorie's  idea is 
not bad, and we looked into it (but something else is happening with  Fort 
Snelling) as well as an idea of having a certification process similar to  what 
is done for Section 8 acceptable domiciles for those housing Level  IIIs.  If 
you were to do this, you could incorporate regulations such as  the provisions 
mentioned in the ordinance and cap the rental amount.  I  believe once the 
amount of money is capped or reduced, you'd see a lot less  eager landlords 
regarding this issue.
 
The bottom line is that impacted communities should not be subjected to  
carrying the weight of the City regarding problems.  Out of 81  neighborhoods in 
Minneapolis, only 1/4 have Level IIIs.  Something to think  about.
 
Jonathan Palmer
Victory
 
In a message dated 10/2/2004 12:43:26 PM Central Standard Time,  
rhalfhill at juno.com writes:

Proposals to make all released  sex offenders live at Fort Snelling or some 
other similar place is just another  proposal to build another prison.  If you 
put the released sex offenders at  Fort Snelling, you would need to hire gua
rds to ensure that the released  offenders stay there, money to build a wall 
around the facility, and money to  pay for their food, clothing, medical care, 
etc since you don't want them  leaving to work at jobs where they would be going 
into neighborhoods where they  would have the opportunity to reoffend.
We could avoid the  problem of sex offenders and other criminals being 
released to prey on new  victims if we habe a three strikes and you're out law for 
FELONIES.  I  limit three strikes to felonies because reasonable people would 
not want the  absurdity of someone being sentenced to life in prison for shop 
lifting or  cruising to pick up a prositute when these offenses are their third 
 strike.  But when someone has committed three successive felonies such as  
armed robbery or rape,  
they have been given a reasonable chance to  reform their behavior and the 
rest of us are entitled to the assurance that we  will not be preyed on  again.  
I did not mention murder because, in  the case of murder, ONE strike should 
be sufficient for being out.  And the  three strikes should mean any felony; we 
should not have to be told after  someone has committee two rapes and one 
armed robbery that we have to wait until  they have committed three rapes or 
three armed robberies before we can  
ensure that they will never prey on us again.
Cases such as  Dru Sjodin and Katie Poirier(sp?) demonstrate that there are 
criminals to whom  we should have said "no more" and "we're through explicative 
deleting with  you!"   But the problem is that we can't afford to build the 
prisons  to hold all the people we are locking up now plus all the additional 
people who  would be added with a three strikes law.  But many of the people we 
are  locking up now include people found guilty of victimless crimes, mainly 
drug  users.  If it were not for all the drug users we are locking up, we 
would  have more than enough prison space for the people we should be sending  
there.
So you people have to make a clear choice.  Would  you rather keep locking up 
the drug offenders and people who commit other  victimless crimes or do you 
want to lock up the murderers, rapists and armed  robbers who really do prey on 
you?  You are not willing to pay for enough  prisons to do both.  So it has 
to be one or the other.  If someone  likes to smoke marijuana and you don't, 
you can simply refrain from smoking  marijuana and let him or her smoke 
marijuana and you can both be happy.  On  the other hand, if someone wants to murder, 
rape or rob you and you don't want  any of those things done to you, there is 
no way you can both be  happy.
We can avoid having a draconian criminal justice system  that would be 
unworthy of a civilized society if we give criminals a reasonable  chance to reform. 
 But we can avoid having sex offenders who have continued  to offend after 
they have had a reasonable number of chances to change living  among us and 
having new opportunities to prey on us.
But we  can't do it if we continue overcrowding the prisons with people who 
commit drug  offenses and other victimless crimes.  So which do you choose?  
You  can't have both.
Robert Halfhill    Loring Park
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com