BLASKA BLOG

I'm still not clear about the value of posting this list. As a list of individuals banned from specific businesses/addresses, it seems not terribly useful to anyone who isn't a police officer or employee of one of the effected businesses.

So, an individual is banned from a gas station, a laundromat, or bus depot. Is this really newsworthy? Many businesses maintain lists (some shared with the police department) of those not welcome on their premises. Placement on such a list is not necessarily indicative of hardened criminality. While some of the individuals on this list have criminal backgrounds related to their banned status, others do not. As the disclaimer notes, these are not the type of probation/parole or court ordered bannings that have gone through due legal process.

Of course, individual businesses have the right to deny service to anyone based on their behaviors or a pattern of behaviors. But given that such bannings occur without due legal process in the courts, does it make sense for the media to publish such lists?

I'm curious what you would like the average individual reading your blog to do with the list you posted. You've shared your justification for posting the list, but how do you expect it will be useful to your readers? This is a serious question, and I'm looking for specific uses for this information.

I've got some information on small businesses that maintain a "bounced check" list behind the counter. Maybe you could pester them into making those names public, too.

And when, exactly, can we expect your street-sign logo for this post to be made into a patch to be sewn onto these offenders' sleeves? Maybe tattooed onto their forearms? I need something permanent and on the public record that effectively prevents these people from ever engaging in legitimate business/behavior in the city.

My question is: Is this effective law enforcement? Is it the right way to handle vagrants in the downtown area? Does the MPD have a plan, aside from working with businesses to ban the trouble makers?

Of course, the newsworthiness is that the list exists in the first place and that it's so extensive. I wonder how long West Towne's list is, or if they have worked with the MPD to formulate one with mug shots, etc.

I do not know, Jason, if this is effective law enforcement. On one hand, it keeps individuals who have cause problems from returning to the scene of the crime (or in some cases the scene of the nuisance, as it does not appear that all cases listed are criminal. On the other hand, it may simply move problems elsewhere.

I don't believe this addresses "vagrants in the downtown area" in any way. To do that, we need to couple law enforcement efforts with addressing alcoholism, mental illness, poverty, homelessness, etc. However, a list of individuals banned from certain establishments may address some of the behavior issues from so-called "vagrants" though it is noteworthy that some of these individuals list addresses with the court system indicating that they are not living on the streets.

You're right that the existence of such a list and its extensiveness is newsworthy. However, the names, photos, and birthdates of those on the list is not newsworthy. A more ineresting approach to reporting such a list might be to consider whether it's an effective tool for curbing problems or to investigate just what it takes to get on such a list and what if any due process is given to individuals before inclusion in such a publicly available document.

I'm still left wondering about the value of making the list in its entirety available to the general public through the media. Is there some action that should be taken if someone should happen to encounter one of these individuals? And how long should we hold the actions of these individuals that resulted in placement on this list against them?

Kyle, patches sewn on sleeves? That's pretty extreme, don't you think? Let's just go with what the police have deemed to be prudent. If the businesses in the area are informed, why should not the citizenry, particularly in light of recent events. If these folks clean up and put on clean clothes, no one is going to recognize them. And that is the goal, isn't it? Not enabling their deviant behavior but getting them to change that behavior. Kyle, are you following this? 

So at what point will you remove this post? What's the goalpost for good behavior? Because if you don't ever remove this post, then anyone who ever does a Google search on these people will find a record of their bad deeds as if they still needed to be worried about it.

Are you going to be maintaining a realtime-reflective database of all misdeeds great and small?

The "C word" issue is also interesting. Of course, vulgar behavior and crass language is far more prevalent on State St. after 10:00 when the well-scrubbed youth from Waukesha County and other well-to-do environs start their binging.

I agree that State St. could use some cleaning up, but let's target the behavior, not the demographic. If someone is publicly drunk, abusive and a danger to others in our downtown, lock 'em up.

Wish I had seen this earlier.  I personally have no problems with MPD coming out with the "Banned on State Street" or even W Wash Corridor bulletins.  For now, I direct this post towards Jason Joyce:  A majority of those on the W Washington Ave banned list have housing.  I repeat: Many of these individuals are in housing.  Only a minority are homeless and even fewer are what you disparagingly call 'vagrants'.  If you don't believe me just look up the names on CCAP.  Also, take into consideration what Lisa has written concerning "addressing alcoholism, mental illness, poverty, homelessness".   Not all of the first three items mean a person is homeless or a vagrant.