on Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:56:45 -0600 "Walt Cygan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - snip - <
>I was involved with creating the Predatory Offended Registration >application that the BCA is now using to track the whereabouts of these >offenders. > >As I recall, there are restrictions in MN law concerning multiple offenders living at >the same address. Does anyone have more information on this or a better understanding >of the law? If there is an address that is not a treatment center that has more than >one Level 3 offender living at it, let the police or City Attorney know about it; I >don't think it's legal. > >Concerning J. Free's original question, this is really tough. If a person has >completed his sentence according to the Department of Corrections (even if you don't >think the sentence was sufficient), is it appropriate under the law to block his >ability to reside in a neighborhood? I think it is certainly appropriate to attempt >to influence authorities to act if an offender violates conditions of his release, >but what else is legal or ethical? > >My question to J. Free is: what do you want to have happen in this case? ----------------------------------------------------------- Fair question; to touch back on my earlier posts, there are a couple of problems I'm having with this situation: 44 months seems like a relatively short period of time for someone to serve for a crime which involves a combination of illegal substance abuse (cocaine, in this case), assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping; to say nothing of the fact that this was a repeat offence committed by a man who, only less than ten days earlier, had been released after serving time for a similar crime. As others have also mentioned, this individual has a permanent status as a Level III offender - the most likely to be a repeat offender, and the most violent. This in itself seems enough cause for concern in any community. If this status is permanent, and irreversible, it seems fairly irresponsible to silently allow him to slip back into the community - any community, for that matter - without taking some precautionary steps, including providing ample notice to said community, if not the implementation of a strict monitoring program. I have heard of persons with DUIs who have been under stricter supervision, than this particular individual, whose actions were malicious and deliberate. This offender was required to complete a drug rehabilitation program, and failed repeatedly to do so. The question which asks itself in my mind, is why would authorities consider that the offender's time had been served, if he proved himself unable to complete such rehabilitation, especially since the crimes in question all involved substance abuse? In this case, I would like to see the sentencing and the rehab combined - in which case, the offender would be unable to return to any community, until he had at least completed a rehab program, regardless of how much time that takes. Frankly, I'm with Judge Judy's vision of commuting such individuals to a remote location where they can pose a threat to no one other than themselves. Impractical? I think not - the current cost of incarcerating these people is something like $200,000 a year, after which, they are apparently free to live among us, and possibly commit the same crimes. The timing of this particular situation seemed a bit awkward; I am referring to the fact that Longfellow residents received flyers, phone calls notifying us of the offender's intent to live in our community; when in fact, he had already been living right there for a couple of months. Considering his previous track record, we are all quite fortunate this man did not commit a repeat offense within this time frame, before any of us were even aware he was among us. What I would have liked to see happen in this case, would have been for the community to be made aware of his intent to reside there, prior to his release. As was explained to those of us who attended the notification meeting, this offender had violated his registration, and is up for a hearing in May, which may send him back to prison. Why, then, is he still living in the community? The reason given for his violation, was that he had made an arrangement to live with a relative, who, after the fact, apparently decided that it wasn't going to work out. The offender relocated himself, without notifying the authorities - which as a Level III offender, he is required to do. This situation raises two questions: if he is already in violation, why is he still out, awaiting a hearing that is more than a month away? Also, can the terms of his release include finding a suitable location prior to his actual release, rather than on a trial-and-error basis? Also, the question remains: attendees at the March 13th meeting were informed that any vigilante recourse would be unacceptable, and would likely jeopardize the continuation of the notification process. I have yet to find whether or not is would be acceptable to notify businesses in the area - particularly bars and liquor stores, in this case - of this individual's presence. The mediator at the notification meeting instructed us to notify police if we see this individual in such a business. Might not a precautionary measure be more effective than a reactionary one? The point has also been raised, regarding the rights of the offender, to be able to return to society, having paid for his crime, in a sense. This is another can of worms entirely, and I am afraid I lack an appropriate degree of awareness to adequately discuss this point at any length. I can say however, that this might be determined by the terms of the offender's release - if he is still considered to be a potential danger to the community, than I should think that alone would take precedence over his own personal rights as a neighborhood resident. Those rights were made forfeit by his crime, which were a deliberate impingement of the rights of another human being. If it has been determined that he has in fact demonstrated a willingness to lead a better life, than I might be inclined to take a more humanitarian view of the situation. Unfortunately, the situation we are faced with here Longfellow at the moment does not fall under this criteria. J. Free Longfellow neighborhood Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
