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.