Latest sex offender placement rift pits Milwaukee vs. small rural town

---

12-9-15 Wisconsin:

The problem of where to release Milwaukee County sex offenders is like the can that keeps getting kicked down the road — and now the can has banged all the way to the Town of Eldorado, a small community three counties away.

More than 200 residents of Eldorado packed their town hall one night this week to object to news that state officials want a violent sex offender to serve his court-ordered supervised release there.

"People are more than willing to take their own," said Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney. "But we don't want to become a dumping ground, the Guantanamo Bay for Milwaukee sex offenders."

The not-in-my-backyard fight over sex offenders is a recurring tale in Milwaukee County. A rash of local ordinances purporting to sharply restrict where offenders may legally reside only concentrated the problem to fewer and fewer spots until officials say there's nowhere left.

This month's political football is Clint Rhymes, 51. He was convicted of a violent sexual assault, served a long prison term and then in 2009 was committed under the state's Chapter 980, which allows for indefinite, secure confinement of those found to be sexually violent offenders. More than 300 such offenders reside at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston.

Olmstead v L. C.

---

6-22-1999 National:

Olmstead v L. C.

This case concerns the proper construction of the antidiscrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337, 42 U. S. C. § 12132.

Specifically, we confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes.

Such action is in order when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.

In so ruling, we affirm the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in substantial part. We remand the case, however, for further consideration of the appropriate relief, given the range of facilities the State maintains for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and its obligation to administer services with an even hand.

---