Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (June 29, 2000)
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford Associate Editors: Jon Allen, Jeff Smith Newsroom: (541)346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu Thursday June 29,2000 Volume 102, Issue 4 Emerald Give them a second chance When a criminal is released from prison, it is as sumed 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 so ciety. The basic chain of events surrounding that im plied 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 at tendance 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 cli mate as a whole. Are we just to assume that once a person is la beled 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 — al beit a serious mistake — but who is seeking to bet ter himself or herself in a university setting. Will every person convicted of even the most minor sex crime fall under the umbrella of “sex of fender” and end up being identified as such? In ad dition, are we to just throw out all aspects of priva cy 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 stu dents — especially female students — this infor mation 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 cru cial to any student, but knowing that the person sitting next to you might be dangerous is, unfortu nately in today’s society, a given. So creating an in stitutional 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 of fenders. Most parents encounter enough fear sur rounding the idea of sending their kids away to college without having to worry about how many convicted sex offenders are on that particular cam pus. Those concerns, however, don’t outweigh the in vasion of a person’s privacy. And those concerns certainly shouldn’t allow for this campus to be come 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 of fense one person can commit toward another per son. It’s good to see that the issue continues to gen erate 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 re leased to should be commended, not again con demned. 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 harass ment.” They have a right to be a person again. This editorial represents the view of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. Be wary of the government’s hand in final judgments The government can’t win the war on drugs; it doesn’t do a particularly good job of enforcing the laws gov Biimig me practices or our elected officials; and it reg ularly demonstrates a pa thetic lack of wisdom by over-regulating the U.S. economy. There is no rea son, therefore, to trust it to act wisely to put its own citizens to death as punish ment for capital crimes. Forget the whiny liberal pleas that the United States is the only industrialized nation that employs the death penalty. That stance has no logical argumenta uve value Decause the United States is also the most pros perous and advanced democratic ex periment ever embarked upon, and to suggest that it should be more like socialistic European governments is ridiculous and without merit. Similarly, the offensively conde scending notion that it is uncivilized or immoral to have a government punish the criminal activi m ties of its citizens with its own methods should be dismissed. It is the proper and necessary role of a gov ernment to restrain, punish and when possible seek restitution from those who are guilty of breaking soci , ety’s agreed-upon rules. % That’s why we have pris II ons and revoke the voting — and arm-bearing rights of convicted felons. The death penalty is only one — step further. But while that liberal reasoning is wrong, the opinion that holds the government institutionally unfit — by a combined lack of wis dom and competence — to execute convicts is quite justified, and the anti-death penalty position should be made on those grounds. Juries should be trusted to carry out their duty of deciding the guilt or innocence of those being tried before them. Without our common sense of right, wrong and judgment we can have no real justice. But they cannot be trusted with the task of deciding whether to extinguish the life of an other person. The U.S. jury system is still the best in the world but leaves too much to be desired when concern ing the official killing of societal members, even the most despicable of that group. Does anyone really trust an insti tution that let O.J. Simpson off the hook for two brutal murders, despite damning DNA evidence, to make life-and-death decisions for the jus tice system? The very nature of the jury system requires the most incom petent, uninformed of our society to make decisions of guilt or innocence because only jurors who aren’t in formed enough to have pre-existing opinions of a case are allowed to ad judicate that matter. Not only are juries fallible, but of ten the defense counsel is inade quate, sloppy and under-funded. There seem to be too many under paid, underskilled or underprepared attorneys fighting on the front line of capital cases, leaving too much ap pellate work for lawyers fighting the execution clock. The U.S. justice system is general ly adequate. I would not for an in stant argue that we should be soft on crime — indeed there is a tendency by many to squirm out of making tough, long-lasting decisions on the penal system.But no one should fool themselves into believing that it is wise enough to utilize the death penalty. Bret Jacobson is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at bjacobso@gladstone.uoregon.edu. Bret Jacobson Quoted “Today, we are learning the lan guage in which God created life. ” —President Clin ton, at a White House ceremony attended by the two teams ofscien tists that have deci phered the human genome. The Regis ter-Guard, June 27. “We are happy to go home. We’ve made a lot of real ly nice friends and we appreciate your humanity and your kindness and your warmth and understanding to me and my family in a perigd that has been difficult for us.” —Miguel Gonza lez, Elian’s father, just before he and his son boarded a plane for Havana, Cuba. ABCNEWS. com, June 28. “I’m still pinching myself from that championship, and now I have to continue pinching myself for getting picked by Detroit.” — Mateen Cleaves, Michigan State guard, taken 14th by the Detroit Pis tons in Wednes day’s NBA draft. ESPN.com, June 28. “Anything you light from the bot tom is illegal in Oregon..” — Neil Heesacker, Portland Fire Bu reau spokesman, commenting on il legal fireworks. The Oregonian, June 28. With the recent protests in Eu gene fresh on citizens' minds, and Independence Day just around the corner, the Emerald is printing the preamble to the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Happy July 4. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more per fect Union, establish justice, in sure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Bill of Rights I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of re ligion, or prohibiting the free exer cise thereof; or abridging the free dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of griev ances. II. A well regulated militia, be ing necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. III. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unrea sonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no war rants shall issue, but upon proba ble cause, supported by oath or af firmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. V. No person shall be held to an swer for a capital, or otherwise in famous crime, unless on a present ment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mili tia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be com pelled in any criminal case to be a witness, against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or proper ty, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compen sation. VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and dis trict wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascer tained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the ac cusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre served, and no fact tried by a jury? shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines im posed, nor cruel and unusual pun ishment inflicted. IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitu tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
