A Small Circle of Sex Offenders
It's easy to keep tabs on Shorewood's registered sex offenders, since there are only four of them.
Photos
Shorewood is a small enough town where about one of everything will do.
It has a Target, a Dunkin' Donuts, and one each of the drugstore chains Walgreens and CVS.
But when it comes to registered sex offenders, Shorewood has a whole four.
While having four times the number of sex offenders as Wal-Marts isn't something a village might want to brag about, the fact that it has only four out of a population of nearly 16,000 makes the big picture look pretty good after all.
And when there is only a handful of them to worry about, they have a harder time blending into the woodwork.
"They're easy to keep track of," Police Chief Robert Puleo said of his town's veritable lack of registered sex offenders.
Puleo did not admit to knowing each by name, by did say his department keeps close tabs on all four of them.
There seemed to be no clear reason why Shorewood has only four registered sex offenders while Plainfield, for example, a village with upscale aspirations and a population more than twice the size of its neighboring munipality, boasts 32 sex offenders, according to state police records.
"This is Shorewood," Puleo said. "There's not that many."
The nearby Village of Channahon has one less than Shorewood with only three registered sex offenders on the state police rolls, one of whom is doing time in Dixon Correctional Center, far from the town's boundaries.
"We don't allow it," quipped Police Chief Joe Pena.
They do, apparently, allow it in Joliet, where the state police put the number of sex offenders at 216. Police Chief Fred Hayes said the number is actually closer to 150, with the 60 some odd others living in unincorporated areas with Joliet addresses.
Joliet, with a population close to 150,000, has other factors going against it in the sex offender game. It is a county seat. It has both a bus and train station, and it is the center for social services in Will County.
"The social service options that are provided in Joliet definitely have an impact on why there might be a disproportionate number," Hayes said.
The link to social services, such as homeless shelters, is not specific to sex offenders, Hayes said, and is evidenced by the number of ex-convicts in general that find their way to Joliet upon being released from prison.
"I see that in parolees, really, because they don't have anyplace else to go," the chief said.
"I think (a shelter) is certainly an option for somebody coming out of the prison system that has been completely dismissed by their family support system," he said.
That turns out to be a burden for the Joliet Police Department, one that the Shorewood force does not have to bear.
"There's no doubt about it," Hayes said. "When the sex offender registry laws were created, they were basically unfunded mandates."
While Hayes calls the sex offender registry laws a "great idea," he admits they are taxing on his department.
"For us, it is a large responsibility we take very seriously," he said, "and have to commit a great deal of resources to."
Rudy101
1:53 pm on Saturday, January 8, 2011
The nearby Village of Channahon has one less than Shorewood with only three registered sex offenders on the state police rolls, one of whom is doing time in Dixon Correctional Center, far from the town's boundaries.
"We don't allow it," quipped Police Chief Joe Pena.
Hey Police Chief Pena? What don't you allow? You don't allow people to live within the law in your community? Oh, I get it, you ARE the law! And you have decided, through police powers to deny membership in the community. Think it is funny, Mr. Pena?
It is NOT wise to state to a media source your intention to not give equal protection under the law.
Maybe a nothing town in Illinios believes they are above the law, but they are not.
And who gave the authority to monitor a group of people? Was it done through a court system, with check and balances to ensure the monitoring is done within the law?
Or was it done through legislative fiat where a person has no recourse or no appeal?
This article illustrates beautifully why the registry is ONLY some Nazi-American tool to take away the rights of ANYONE you want. All you need is a conviction and, well, it is the easiest thing to come by in the "land of the free."
Anyone can do whatever they can to avoid your illegal and unconstitutional registry!
And what are you going to do about it, Mr. Pena? A whole bunch of NOTHING!
MelissaB
6:48 pm on Wednesday, February 9, 2011
I believe the officer meant it as a joke, seeing as there are some registered sex offenders living in Channahon. Personally, I think a sex offender registry is a good thing. People need to know if there are people in their neighborhood that have the propensity to do such horrible crimes. If you sexually assault someone you deserve to have your rights taken away. They've forfeited those rights by assaulting another person. It's not something that happens randomly to law abiding citizens. To be honest, I'm far more concerned with the victim's rights than the perpetrator's.
Rudy101
12:04 pm on Thursday, February 10, 2011
First off: An officer of the law is not in a position to joke about the freedom of his citizens under his jurisdiction. Next off: ONLY a court of law can take away rights. If society decides to do it through legislative fiat, THEN the registry, as a matter of law, becomes illegitimate and can be avoided by any means possible.
Your problem, Melissa, is that the State can put whomever it wants on the list, regardless of dangerousness. And victim's rights? It has no meaning. Victims' rights are the SAME as everyone else's. Even yours and the perpetrators. If you don't get that, either you fell asleep during social studies class or you don't know how a "free country" is supposed to operate.
MelissaB
12:38 pm on Thursday, February 10, 2011
I think a sense of humor in law enforcement is almost required when you think about what they encounter on a daily basis.
As far as the registry goes, the only people it effects in a possibly negative way, would be the people who broke the law. Unless you break the law and sexually assault someone, it's a moot point. For some reason, which I can only imagine, it seems to strike a nerve on you. I have no problem with the registry, I think it's a good thing.
Rudy101
5:38 am on Friday, February 11, 2011
Melissa, I understand the concept behind the registry. But don't you believe there should be SOME limits on how the registry is used? Or SOME limits on government's ability to place a person on the list? You THINK the only people the registry affects are the people who broke the law. Many people on the registry had a offense that is fairly remote in time. They now have children and families. The children and families also are affected in many many ways, from ostracization to harassment.
What about if the registry is making the community MORE dangerous. It seem counter-intuitive, right? People know, through the registry, who to avoid. That would SEEM to be a protection.
Except isolation from the community doesn't protect ANYONE. Look at any anti-social person, and you will find lack of socialization and anti-social personality goes hand-in-hand. Do you really think a person with mental health issues should have a full community notification which notifies EVERYONE in the community regardless of their intention or their need to know?
How about getting a person OFF the registry? Do you really think the legislature can define, especially children, a person for the rest of their lives under any and all circumstances? What about the role of a court? Should they not be able to listen to evidence and determine a person dangerous or not?
They sold you a placebo in the registry. It makes you THINK it is doing good things. It is doing far more harm.
Vicki
4:29 pm on Friday, February 11, 2011
I disagree and fail to see how it's doing more harm than good.
trivialthings
11:30 pm on Friday, February 11, 2011
Rudy 101 you sound like a died in the wool liberal. You can concoct ALL types of excuses tp try and negate what the law and lawmakers write down. You and your kind are the ruination of this country and it's legal system. I'll just bet you think the ACLU is doing a GREAT job of protecting the CRIMINALS RIGHTS while they, and individuals like you, tell the victims to go to... Oh I'm sure you know where.
I certainly hope thet you nor any member oof your family are the victims of a vicious crime, because some other liberal thinking moron will make excuse for the criminal and tell YOU to go to hell!
Rudy101
5:41 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
The ruination? I am sorry trivialthings, but the ACLU is the salvation of the country. The rights of criminals is the cornerstone of a free country. That is why the States demanded the 10 amendments in order to join the Union.
The rights to a trial are fundamental. The right to a sentence that is clearly defined is also fundamental. Why is that? Because the ability of the State to criminalize any conduct is almost unlimited. The use of the criminal as a political tool of oppression is long well known. The Constitution is supposed to protect against arbitrary governmental action. In essence, that means, before the State can act against ANYONE, they first must overcome a burden of proof and allow for a hearing.
The registry was passed ex-post facto and called, civil in nature. However, because the civil aspects are actually making the community MORE dangerous, AND the State does not allow for hearings AND because the State can increase restrictions at will AND because the legislature is able to label without limitation, which effects every aspect of the RIGHT to be a part of the community, it is the RIGHT to not follow laws passed in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments deals with the criminal justice system. These RIGHTS, so new in the 16th Century, are now fundamental to the WORLD's legal system. You are on the wrong side of history as society is going after another hated group THEY define exclusively.
Frank Juarez
9:21 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
Well at the risk of getting into a long spat w Rudy a few questions come top mind.
What is the basis of his assertion -- the civil aspects are actually making the community MORE dangerous ? It seems countintuitive.
He States --These RIGHTS, so new in the 16th Century, are now fundamental to the WORLD's legal system.---- Well really there is not a functioning world legal sysytem is there, The justice provided a middle east free thinker is quite different than a free thinker in the first world.
This does not even begin to touch on the different legal rights accorded women.
Lastly his assertion that -- it is the RIGHT to not follow laws passed in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
This begs the question who gets to decided that a law is constitutional - Does the second ammendment radical get to keep a Tank in his garage?
Does a radical muslim get to stone woman under his religous beliefs protected by the First amendment?
Allowing each individual to to choose what laws are valid really results in annarchy doesnt it ?
Rudy101
3:40 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Hello Mr. Juarez,
The civil aspects of the registry (and that was how it was passed by the courts) is what makes the community more dangerous. It seems counterintuitive, until you think about it.
Decades of research has shown that stability of housing, jobs and social life is the number one impact on whether a person will be anti-social and/or criminal. Nobody argues the registry has severe impacts upon housing, jobs and social life. The registry impairs those things until a registrant is isolated, estranged and very well angry. Those people, by and large, commit the most violent and depraved acts on society.
Next: There IS a functioning world legal system. This system is outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is based upon the U.S. Constitution. Although the U.S. is one of the few western countries that did not ratify it. The document is used, mainly, by countries judicial system when someone is applying for political asylum.
Next: Who gets to decide what is Constitutional or not? Well, let me put it this way. When blacks were slaves and Constitutionally so, did they still have the moral right to flee slavery? Of course they did. How about, putting someone on a list, where he will be harassed and threatened and banished, and you will put them on a list and force them to follow laws special to them, without ANY court, hearing or recourse? When a sentence is finished, the State can't expand; not without hearings.
trivialthings
10:09 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
"The rights of criminals is the cornerstone of a free country." THIS is one of the MOST idiotic statements I've EVER heard. You move in furtherance of proving the fact that you are a Liberal, Politically Correct idiot in favor of anarchy. Before spouting your "knowledge of the Constitution maybe you should READ AND COMPREHEND the document before making such blatantly idiotic statements.
As for your arguments on the Amendements to the constitution, yes Amendments 4 thru 8 deal with the judicial branch
4th - Illegal Search and Seizure
5th - Trials and Double Jeopardy
6th - Right to a Speedy Trial
7th - Trial by Jury
8th - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Not ONE of these prohibits the Sex Offenders List.
Oh and then there's the 9th - STATES RIGHTS.
This one ALLOWS the States to compile and publish a Sex Offenders List. Guess your typical liberal views don't fit into this one so you just choose to IGNORE it. Now that's another marker toward your typical liberal views.
I have no more to say to you. Arguing with an idiot would only bring me down to your level. You have a good life in your envisioned Utopian World. Just one last thought. Could it be that you are so vehemently against this Sex Offender list that it may have a personal affiliation to you?
Rudy101
3:20 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
I am not in favor of anarchy at all! I am in favor of the "rule of law" however. Oh, and article 1 section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex-post facto laws. For many the registry was passed ex-post facto and for MOST the laws attached to being registered are ex-post facto.
It isn't the fact of the registry that is illegal but how it is used. The registry is used, by both public and private, organizations and individuals to harass, threaten, banish, isolate and put fear into offenders.
The 5th amendment guarantees due process of law. No State or government can add to a punishment. Therefore, because the State has passed laws that is NOT making the community safer (and this has been proven), that touches upon a person's rights to be a part of a community, the registry, as a matter of law, is illegal. The registry, no matter what anyone says, impacts a person and their liberty interest to be a part of a community.
The U.S. was built upon the liberal views of equality and justice for all. These ideas are articulated in the Declaration of Independence. ONLY a court can curb liberty. Not a legislature and certainly not the executive branch.
You have a very rudimentary view of law and history.
trivialthings
9:19 am on Tuesday, February 15, 2011
One last comment to show you have no idea what you're talking about.
One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted.[9] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because this does not constitute any kind of punishment.[10]
Yes ex post facto and completely legal according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Your reasons are therefore inconsequential. Again I ask, "Could it be that you are so vehemently against this Sex Offender list that it may have a personal affiliation to you?"
Rudy101
9:42 am on Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Well, the Adam Walsh Act, has been both ruled Constitutional AND unconstitutional. Which means THAT law will be at the U.S. Supreme Court.
You are correct, posting of information is NOT, per se, punishment. However, it is the USE of that information that constitutes punishment. How is that information used? It is used to harass, threaten, banish, isolate and put fear into offenders. In other words, the registry strips a person of legal protection to even live in a community. If you or the courts or the country won't even look at the effects of the registration, it shows how little the U.S. understands their freedom. The whole point of the matter is, you can't force someone to follow a law that takes away legal protection OR that person goes to jail.
No matter how much screaming, ranting or raving you do, you just don't live in that world anymore.
The courts are going to have to re-look at their ruling. If they don't, because, well, they don't care about the effects of registration, then it is the RIGHT to flee and do whatever a person can to avoid such obviously illegal laws.
And if I was a sex offender and I was unregistered, what can you do about it? A whole bunch of NOTHING.
And finally, I am NOT against the registration. What I am against is HOW the registry was implemented. Society decided that they have someone on a list and they can systematically determine them dangerous and pass law after law after law against them. Won't happen!
Carl
4:22 pm on Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Rudy,
I totally understand your stance and agree with you whole heartedly. I think people are taking you the wrong way because they don't see the "whole picture" when it comes to these type of topics. The concept of sociology and psychology along with medical factors heavily play a role in our laws which make your points clear. Outside historical factors and legal cases, laws have been driven by current sociological view points. Over time, it has been liberal minds (no matter what political party you hold or don't hold) that have allowed for us to rethink how we are behaving as a society enacting new laws and possibly revising old ones. I appreciate where you are coming from with the registry and how a good program can be misused the way it is. It is usually hard for the "common" person to understand a big point you make. No matter if you are a victim, criminal, juvenile delinquent, etc...we all share basic human rights. It may be hard to accept that for those who hurt others or commit trecherous crimes, but it is the basis for what our country is founded on (as you said). It is also something we need more of around our world....COMPASSION. I appreciate your points and have respect that you speak with an open mind and a great level of intelligence....
Rudy101
7:13 am on Thursday, February 17, 2011
I will end with this: "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Society has created a monster in this registry. Passed ex-post facto, no way to get off and only MORE laws added. It is illegal in international law, Constutional Law and historical law.
HAVE SOME DUE PROCESS or you will ONLY look despotic.
Carl
4:23 pm on Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Oh,,,great story Dawn and Joseph!!
angie
6:50 pm on Thursday, October 18, 2012
Actually a convicted sex offender especially a child sex offender should only be registered with the department of corrections they should not be allowed back into society!!!!! They should not have rights, were the victims rights?so yes I agree there is a problem here don't you?