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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
