Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 975.11 (2026)
Duration of control
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
975.11975.11 Duration of control. The department shall keep every person committed to it under s. 975.06 under its control and shall retain the person, subject to the limitations of s. 975.12 under supervision and control, so long as in its judgment such control is necessary for the protection of the public. The department shall discharge any such person as soon as in its opinion there is reasonable probability that the person can be given full liberty without danger to the public, but no person convicted of a felony shall, without the written approval of the committing court, be discharged prior to 2 years after the date of the person’s commitment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1973–1981 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Terry v. Schubert, 247 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. 1976).
State Ex Rel. Terry v. Schubert, 247 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. 1976). “In support of this position, it is noted that under sec. 975.11, Stats., no committee convicted of a felony may be discharged prior to two years after the date of his commitment without written approval of the committing court.”
State Ex Rel. Terry v. Percy, 267 N.W.2d 380 (Wis. 1978). “Sec. 975.11, Stats., provides that the department shall discharge any person committed to it under the Sex Crimes Act "as soon as in its opinion there is a reasonable probability that he can be given full liberty without danger to the public.”
State v. Hanson, 302 N.W.2d 452 (Wis. 1981). “Following initial commitment to the Department of Health and Social Services, the duration of departmental control over a committed person is regulated by a variety of factors. As a general matter the department is required to discharge a person as soon as, in its opinion, the…”
State v. MacHner, 303 N.W.2d 633 (Wis. 1981). “Sec. 975.11, Stats. 1975. Under secs. 975.”
State Ex Rel. Irby v. Israel, 302 N.W.2d 517 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “020 violates his right to due process because it does not require disclosure of the evidence against him and does not give him the right to cross-examine witnesses whose opinions and factual assertions are taken into account. Petitioner’s contention was decided adversely to him…”
State v. Hungerford, 267 N.W.2d 258 (Wis. 1978). “” In sec. 975.11, Stats., the legislature stated that the department shall keep under its control sex offenders committed to it “so long as in its judgment such control is necessary for the protection of the public.”
State Ex Rel. Terry v. Percy, 290 N.W.2d 713 (Wis. 1980). “Sec. 975.11, Stats., provides that the department shall discharge any person committed to it under the Sex Crimes Act "as soon as in its opinion there is reasonable probability that he can be given full liberty without danger to the public .”
State v. Hanson, 295 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “The legislature provided that the department shall discharge any person committed to it under the Sex Crimes Law “as soon as in its opinion there is a reasonable probability that he can be given full liberty without danger to the public .”
State Ex Rel. Farrell v. Stovall, 207 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. 1973). “60 Sec. 975.11, Stats. 61 Sec. 51.075, Stats.”
Ryan v. State, 289 N.W.2d 349 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Sec. 975.11, Stats. In either case, Mr. Ryan faced the crucial determination of whether the immediately succeeding years of his life were to be spent in prison or a treatment facility, with all the differences between those two places.”
Milewski v. State, 248 N.W.2d 70 (Wis. 1976). “Sections 975.11 through 975.14 so provide, conditioning the defendant’s eventual release upon his recovery from his physical or mental aberrations and upon a finding that he no longer presents a danger to society.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.