WTF Wisconsin?

by Jason Fischer

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that committing a sex crime is not necessarily a prerequisite for ordering a convict to register as a sex offender (source). I tried reading the opinion to figure this nonsense out, but my head nearly exploded when I read the excerpted sentence below, and I had to stop.

In the present case, the parties agree that a fundamental right is not implicated . . . . (source)

6 Responses to WTF Wisconsin?

  1. J DeVoy says:

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court hears ridiculous cases like this with alarming frequency. For example,

    “Reversing lower court judges who said Wisconsin criminal law doesn’t prohibit necrophilia, the state supreme court held today that rape law bans sex with dead bodies.” (source:

    This kid is screwed for life. The as-applied challenge should have succeeded here, and the collateral effect may damage the entire sex offender registry within Wisconsin – which, I imagine, some hyper-protective absentee parents want to keep. You know, the kind who gave their children Teddy Ruxpin in the 1980s so they wouldn’t have to do any actual parenting or supervision. I understand the rationale for having false imprisonment of a minor as a registrable offense, but it seems like there’s a gap here where there’s no requirement for a finding of underlying sexual motive. I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with Ann Walsh Brady and Shirley Abrahamson.

    • splifton says:


      Ann Walsh Brady’s dissenting opinion reflects my ultimate feeling on the issue. However, this little gem is hard to swallow..

      The majority rejects Smith’s assertion that the purpose of the sex offender registry is to protect the public from sex offenders.

      Merry Kwanzaa…

    • J DeVoy says:

      An issue for further consideration: what’s the gender breakdown for these sex offender registries? If they were just 75% male, that would strike me as shockingly low.

  2. goldenroad says:

    This is absolutely ridiculous. On several fronts this makes absolutely no sense. However, my interest lies in the “drug debt” Smith was attempting to collect. If I were a betting man, I’d say it was a marijuana debt. If someone with more access could affirm, I’d have a better footing for an argument that legalizing marijuana would have avoided this whole mess.

    • quizibuk says:

      Or more likely others will use that as “proof” that marijuana “creates dangerous sex offenders”. Which would probably hold up under this courts loose scrutiny. With an end result of all caught with weed being entered onto the sex offender registry “due to public safety interest”

%d bloggers like this: