When a criminal is released from prison, it is assumed that justice has been carried out and the person, for the most part, is free to re-establish himself or herself as a contributing member of society.
The basic chain of events surrounding that implied contract — commit a crime, go to jail, serve time, be released and then be allowed to integrate back into the real world — is in serious jeopardy with the June 12 passage of the Campus Protection Act in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The act would amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which in part requires states to implement a system where all persons who commit sexual or kidnapping crimes against children or who commit sexually violent crimes against any person (whether adult or child) are required to register their addresses with the state upon their release from prison. The 1994 Act also provides that law enforcement agencies may release “relevant information” about an offender if they deem it necessary to protect the public.
The Campus Protection Act, which passed unanimously in the House and likely will see the same acceptance in the Senate, states that those registered offenders must provide notice of any attendance at institutions of higher education.
Because of its relatively recent path to almost certain enactment, officials at the University are not sure how to handle this legislation. We also have concern on how that information is going to be disseminated and the impact it will have on not just the convicted sex offender, but the campus climate as a whole.
Are we just to assume that once a person is labeled a sex offender, then that person is always a sex offender? If our faith in the rehabilitative process of prisons has been completely erased, why are we even letting people out? Why not just lock them up for good?
In essence that is what this act will do, except that it will also work to lock them out. Lock out perhaps a good-intentioned, well-meaning person, someone who might have made one mistake — albeit a serious mistake — but who is seeking to better himself or herself in a university setting.
Will every person convicted of even the most minor sex crime fall under the umbrella of “sex offender” and end up being identified as such? In addition, are we to just throw out all aspects of privacy for that person when it comes to this law? Why not just tattoo a big “SO,” for sex offender, on their forehead and call it good?
And what about the campus climate under these conditions?
The idea that people should be made more aware of the students sitting next to them in class might strike some as a noble cause. Giving students — especially female students — this information might seem to be a worthy step in an effort to establish a safer campus.
A fear, however, is that the campus residents and other students could easily fall into a lynch mob mentality. Yes, gaining more awareness is crucial to any student, but knowing that the person sitting next to you might be dangerous is, unfortunately in today’s society, a given. So creating an institutional sense of paranoia is not the way to go about making students feel safer.
Some parents might feel more at ease knowing that they are sending their sons and daughters to schools with few convicted-now-released sex offenders. Most parents encounter enough fear surrounding the idea of sending their kids away to college without having to worry about how many convicted sex offenders are on that particular campus.
Those concerns, however, don’t outweigh the invasion of a person’s privacy. And those concerns certainly shouldn’t allow for this campus to become a hotbed of ostracization and fear that may be unfounded.
We are all in favor of penalizing a person to the maximum allowable limit when it comes to sex crimes. That act is perhaps the most abhorrent offense one person can commit toward another person. It’s good to see that the issue continues to generate discussion in the hallowed halls of Congress.
But, the university is and should remain a place for people who have been incarcerated to gain that sometimes elusive second chance. A person who takes steps to enroll in school and better educate themselves about the world they have just been released to should be commended, not again condemned.
Joan Saylor, a spokesperson for the Office of Public Safety, a person hired to help maintain a safe environment on this campus, summed up the issue rather concisely in an interview with the Emerald.
“We need to be aware of people who could cause potential risks,” she said, “but at the same time people [who have paid their debt to society] have a right to attend the University without harassment.”
They have a right to be a person again.
This editorial represents the view of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to [email protected]