Since the State believes that tracking ex-offenders’ physical location and controlling where they live is a way to prevent crime; that keeping certain people away from other people works, then this statement makes perfect sense.

It’s why we have such little success fighting this thing issue by issue. We react to the symptoms, but the disease is still there.

In order for people and this sherriff to understand why it does not matter where people who have eveer been convicted of a sex crime live, they also have to then understand why registries and monitoring ie the whole scheme, doesn’t work.

Once the State decides that upon completion of a person’s sentence they are still legally allowed to control the movement of people, it’s game on.

The police are frustrated. Their big complaint is, how can you expect us to watch these people and prevent them from doing bad things if you allow them to live near a school?

Answer: We actually don’t expect you to watch these people and there is no way you can prevent them from doing bad things. In fact, by watching them and preventing them from living where they want to live, making life harder by putting a huge barrier in their life is probably encouraging bad behavior not preventing it.

Bottom line: You can tweek the rules of the Scheme all your want, but it’s stil punishment and that’s why the Scheme itself is unconstitutional. A bad law is a bad law regardless of how you enforce it.

…referring to Polk County Board, of course, not IL

Can FAC send them a letter? And/or call to action?

So that there’s clear written record of oppo + lack of rational basis, making it more vulnerable to challenge, no?

I realize that Judd will speak in favor and board will kiss his arse.