Wisconsin sheriff stresses facts about sexual offending and registry


By Tim Kowols . . . Kewaunee County is no different than other communities when it comes to welcoming back sex offenders. According to state statute, any person convicted of sexual assault or another related crime must register as a sex offender. Since 1997, law enforcement professionals have been required to alert the community when they are released, especially since also according to state statute, sex offenders have to return to their county of conviction. The “Why Here?” is where Kewaunee County Sheriff Matt Joski says many people get confused.

Joski says the community and law enforcement can work together to prevent further offenses. He adds that sex offenders have a recidivism rate of less than nine percent, and between 86 and 94 percent of the crimes were committed by either family members or close acquaintances of the victims.  . . . .


By state statute definition, a person who must register is any individual who has been convicted of a charge as defined in Wisconsin State Statute 301.45. These crimes involve sexual assault and include a variety of specific offenses. While these types of offenses have been committed throughout history, it was in 1997 that the Sex Offender Registry and the Community Notification Law went into effect, thus providing a means by which law enforcement and the community can work together to better inform and ultimately prevent further offenses from occurring. While no issue has the potential to create more anxiety, it is important to note that the recidivism rate among these offenders is only 8.8% and that in a majority of the cases (86%- 94%) were committed by either family members or close acquaintances.  . . . .

What is important in this entire process is that we share information, and then just as importantly use that information responsibly to bring awareness to the community while not infringing upon the basic rights of the individual who is the subject of the notification. We must also understand that the knowledge of past offenders and their whereabouts is just part of the prevention in these types of crimes. We must be vigilant in regards to those who have contact with our children throughout the year. As stated earlier, most sex offenses involve victims who are known to their offenders, and thus prevention must include careful screening of all those entrusted with the care of our kids. Many organizations have implemented child protection protocols which may involve courses which have to be completed prior to any work involving children.  . . . .

Read the full piece here at Door County Daily News.com

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    • #69397 Reply

      Kewaunee County Sheriff Matt Joski – To you I say thank you very much for speaking the truth finally that many officials like yourself do not. The others just want to spread fear and panic for no reason and usually make up statistics of their own to further their agendas usually for re-election. It seems that you will, when time comes, will be re-elected because you actually do care about the citizens in your county.

      It is very rare that LE officials such as yourself speak the truth – my hat is off to you sir!!

    • #69448 Reply
      Facts should matter


      He’s still throwing us under the bus!! Don’t fall for the feigned concern and pseudo empathy.

      ” We must also understand that the knowledge of past offenders and their whereabouts is just part of the prevention in these types of crimes.”

      WRONG. There’s zero correlation or established link whereas identification equals “prevention.”

      The registry doesn’t give mothers “one less thing to worry about.” It only gives them a false sense of relief and psychological comfort.

      “We must be vigilant in regards to those who have contact with our children throughout the year.”

      That sounds like an overly-excessive pipe dream to me. Why should the government and the community have to shoulder the burden of someone’s child?! The moniker “It takes a village to raise a child” never was applicable and valid.

      The only thing you’ll ever get from LEOs enforcing these laws is word salad. They will say and do anything to justify what they’re doing and praise this train wreck.

    • #69459 Reply

      Understanding is a good thing. At times we wonder who is throwing who under the bus in much or many of these sex registry ordeals. Is it some fame and glory for some to hinder others or is it the fame and fortune of some county sheirff deputy or sheriff or should we all say does history repeat itself in many ways.

      Yes nobody likes to be thrown under the bus. I like that oen. I mentioned in one of my comments about the Hatfield and McCoy feud. and their was a lot of hanky panky going on. Even politic’s was a bit corrupt and even sheriff’s at that time. I wonder how it is today. Yes my dad was a banker during that period and knew much about this and yes I lived in Logan County, WV and yes It was pretty corrupt and even politician’s were corrupt in a lot of ways. Bloody Mingo was bad back in those days. You had gambling, bootleg whisky, prostitution and their is a whole history about it.

      Yes I’m sure many may understand that much of these registry issues are unjust or who is coal mining many of these operations with this sexual type of inducement with this enticement/provoking and even on adult site’s at many times. Sure one side can speak up for the other side but where is the real truth of the matter or issue in much of this registry.
      Everything has a method of operation for the right measure or should one go for injustice or be hoodwinked in much of this registry. And yes many in government can blow a bit or a lot of ” word salad” to use that pharse but truth is truth or is all government going a bit too far.

      Sure any official would probably blow a bit of “cold salad” if they wanted to win an election or which is better mud pies’ or rice pudding.

    • #69572 Reply
      Tim in WI

      @FactsS M,
      Indeed the sheriff’s speech you quote denotes a certain identifiable distorted correlation between “having access to knowledge of past offenses” & “Knowing thereabouts ” as it relates to prevention. All victims of assault would like to have known the impossible predicted future. As example I know my neighbor voted Trump in 2016- now does my knowledge of that last prevent my neighbor from doing it again? Tom Scalisce was shot playing softball in DC by a registered gun owner. Does the knowledge of known DC area gun owners prevent it?

      If a person found out ahead of time about their own impending death, avoidance would become naturally paramount for the principal. This explains the distortion of reason that ” a database ” can accurately predict a human future or prevent recidivism. In truth SOR is a ” treatment program” as all recidivism directed programs are. Compelled state programming is always court ordered, unless otherwise waived! But not in this case concerning SOR, so who benefited most from the apparent necessary sales pitch as something new?

      The surveillance saints.

    • #69626 Reply

      free registration laws require performance of a charitable act for the state which is inextri-cably intertwined with religion and violates the free exercise thereof because … the number who illitigimately benefit from my charitable registration services far exceed the number who might legitimately benefit. that does not sit well with my creator. its an overwhelming contribution to evil. the only remedy i see is to be paid 97.4% of the fair value of my services to the state but i will pray on it.

    • #69628 Reply

      nope. sorry. cant see no other solution. i want my money.

    • #69733 Reply

      You are right!

    • #69996 Reply

      For all those government officials and anyone working for the state & county & cities who think the registry is not punitive then i challenge anyone of you to put your picture, name, address, etc. just like an offender does, leave it on there for one year with all the restrictions that go with registration and then tell me after a year if it’s a punishment or not. I Challenge You

    • #70524 Reply

      But he makes the same typical mistake that everyone makes. Look here:

      “ We must be vigilant in regards to those who have contact with our children throughout the year. As stated earlier, most sex offenses involve victims who are known to their offenders, and thus prevention must include careful screening of all those entrusted with the care of our kids.”

      You cannot be “vigilant” with someone who you trust and know very well. It just doesn’t come easy. I also do not like the use of “vigilant” as it applies to “vigilantes” which are a problem, not a solution.

      He then says something smart about sex offenses being committed by those known to the victim and then again finishes with another false sense of security by saying “screening of all those entrusted”… how can you screen someone who hasn’t committed a crime yet? How many times have background checks that come back clean actually backfired on those who checked? Florida is the worst state for people required to register thanks to the nanny who molested Lauren Book.
      Isn’t anyone aware that the nanny was obviously “screened” and came back with a clean record in order to get the job? And then what happened? Miss “no prior criminal record” eventually committed a crime.

      People and LE need to relax this idea that a background check does any good. You could have been an armed robber and never been caught so obviously nothing is on court record to show you are a criminal. Let’s get over this false sense of security already.

    • #71323 Reply


      The screening of the nanny alone is not what would have allowed her to have such a job in the 1st place. It was also because she was a woman. A large number of people have a blinding fear and ignorance, towards men in general. Not just SOs. Most random men, be it at schools, parks, beaches, etc, would be seen as ‘‘perv***s,’’ and/or ‘‘creeps’’ with sex on their minds or as ‘‘potentially’’ being those things. Some people take things further and pre-judge men as rapi**s, and/or mo***ters of minors and women, or that certain men ‘‘look’’ like they’re those things. you could thank the combination of the fact that the majority of SO crimes both committed and brought to light are by men, the media, and the porn and adult entertainment industry for that fear and ignorance. And uh, some of the people have a blinding bitterness and hatred in them as well. Male babysitting is unheard of.

      A lot of people are ignorant of the fact that women have committed SO crimes towards, children, teens, other women, and even men. That ignorance in some ways, has actually helped teen girls and women who committed SO crimes to stay under radar. Usually it’s because victims wouldn’t think anyone would believe them or when it comes to men, it’s not taken seriously and often made out as a joke by male friends when they do open up. The victimization of teen boys and men, by women (the attractive white or hispanic ones in particular), is even downplayed and mocked in Tv shows and movies, in America of all places. also that victimization is downplayed by teen boys and men who find out an attractive white or Hispanic teacher had sexually abused a male student.

      Now, the thing about the background checks, is that people aren’t concerned about facts or the possibility that some SOs can change for the better. They’re only focused on whoever among them is an SO. A large number of them have this meaningless, burning passion against SO crimes just for the sexual nature of those crimes, more than anything else. The sexual comes before any sort of damage a victim receives. In many cases, they actually don’t feel anything for the victims and will act the same way, in cases where there is barely or no damage done at all to a victim (for example, a man getting arrested after chatting online with law enforcement, who entrapped him with a fake profile or a man sending nudes to a minor female and not receiving any from her). deep down inside, some people actually don’t care about the sexual victimization of minors and women, as much as they like to pretend to. certainly not for the women.

      So much so, that a male MHT (mental health tech) and a female therapist had me remanded, or cuffed inside a courtroom in plain view of others, over the lie from the pit of hell, that the pig-faced MHT was a ‘‘witness’’ who had ‘‘heard’’ me tell another MHT (which was a woman who had also conspired against me, with those other two I mentioned, along with a quack, or psychiatrist) that I was going to ra*e her. They not only used my charges against me, during a situation where I was facing certain death, but played into the very fear, ignorance, bitterness and hatred that a lot of people have regarding SO crimes and men who are SOs. they used a false accusation that would especially be ‘‘believable’’ to others, both the ones who knew my charges and the ones who didn’t. If I were a woman, they would have had to try something else. I was remanded, and basically thrown out of this trash dump ‘‘treatment’’ program of theirs, out in the community and sat in jail again, feeling depressed, hopeless, and sorry for myself. That male MHT was a former CO, by the way. I can’t warn people enough about that demonic law/justice/court system. Any other day, that fat pig therapist could probably sit in front of a woman who was ra*ed for a therapy session, and that woman would never know……

Viewing 9 reply threads
Reply To: Wisconsin sheriff stresses facts about sexual offending and registry
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">