« Back from the Bus | Main | Dick Cheney Isn't Going to Resign »
October 18, 2005
Do Sex Offenders Have Rights?
An announcement from Shoreline:
Pursuant to RCW 4.24.550, the Vice President for Student Services is providing general notification that a Level III sexual offender (high risk) has registered for 2005 fall classes at Shoreline Community College (for more information, see attached link from Safety and Security)....
Staff and students must be cognizant of every student's right to educational access and of the expectation by the College that all members of the campus community will respect the rights, privileges, and property of others. The College will not condone harassment. Any conduct that endangers the health, welfare, and safety of others will lead to disciplinary actions.
Does EVERY student have a right to educational access? Does a sex offender have the right to educational access, at the expense of the safety of other students? The school wishes to control the conduct of students who might harass this "reformed" young man. But how do they control the conduct of the sex offender? What if he is engaging in activities that do not respect the rights of the other students?
Because reliable sources tell me this person hasn't stopped their deviant interests. How do we respond to this kind of threat in our community? I'd really like your responses here, because I want to know what can be done about this, and what SHOULD be done about it. I have my own ideas, and I'll share them with you at a later time, but I'd like yours right now.
Posted by March at October 18, 2005 10:35 PM
Comments
Vigilante justice always works. Throw the guy a blanket party or something.
Or alternatively, you could let one of the masses be sacrificed and let him strike again. Maybe that'll wise people up to the reality behind this new policy. Sure, it might be fair - but 'fair' and 'right' aren't synonymous. Nor are 'fair' and 'smart' most of the time.
btw, "student's right to educational access" is a funny term. So, what's the right they purport to have? Are we saying that everyone has the right to a higher/lower education? Are we saying that everyone deserves the same opportunity to go to school if they want to? Are we saying that we can't limit who does and doesn't get to go to our school based on non-immutable characteristics?
I think to discuss it rationally, the question we have to NOT ask is: "How would you feel knowing that a Level-III Sex Offender is at school with you/your family/your friends/your kids/etc." That injects a lot of irrational emotionality into a issue that probably has too much of it to begin with.
Posted by: Tim at October 22, 2005 01:47 PM
But the problem is that most of these cases aren't even reported. A lot of ten year old boys aren't going to even report what happened to them. He was convicted for having sexual relations with two 10 year old boys, but how many never said anything, or were told by other adults to let it go.
So when he does strike again, there won't be any consequences. Even if he is caught, the next guy will show up and say "it's my rights to go to school."
But that doesn't mean we're not going to do anything about it.
Posted by: March at October 22, 2005 06:28 PM
Do we know he's going to strike again?
If he's not, then what's the big deal? If he is, then why is he out of containment?
Posted by: Tim at October 23, 2005 01:33 PM
He is a Level III sex offender which means he is at a HIGH risk of striking again. Some of the behaviors he has exhibited have led me to believe he has not reformed in any way.
And how can we KNOW he will strike again? We can't, and even when these types will say "I'll probably reoffend" they let them out anyway.
Posted by: March at October 23, 2005 03:05 PM
So it begs the question, what value are we furthering by letting someone like this out to roam around in the general public? What ideological concept is behind such a decision?
Posted by: Tim at October 23, 2005 06:35 PM
I suppose we are valuing freedom, independent choice, something like that. But in the process we are allowing what Jennifer calls a "time-bomb" to roam free waiting to reoffend.
Posted by: March at October 23, 2005 07:01 PM