We're not kids but we still matter
Issue date: 11/2/09 Section: Opinion
The issue: Offenders cannot live near a school, but they can near us
Our position: "Safe Zones" should apply to the PUC campus
When a person is convicted of rape, child molestation, or other such crimes, he or she must register with a national database. The convict's ability to live wherever desired becomes severely restricted due to laws which keep a safe distance between offenders and local schools, or just about anywhere juveniles may congregate. Seemingly, housing an offender at least several blocks from children will keep them from being a repeat offender. Or such is the logic of the law.
Yet, not all registered offenders targeted children. Many targeted adults, yet there are no restrictions or "space zones" between those offenders and their community. They are allowed to co-exist with others, but using the logic of the child molestation laws, the persons surrounding them are potential victims.
The restrictions in place after an offender is released from prison are reasonable and sound. It is hard to imagine support for a child rapist to live next door to a public elementary school, but we must question whether living several blocks away will make much difference.
If there is a fear of relapse, perhaps the offender should not be allowed on the streets at all. Nonetheless, we cannot guarantee there will be no re-offenders. There is no perfect solution upon their prison release to keep the community safe, just attempts at making the fellow inhabitants feel at ease.
With that, we must wonder why so many offenders, at least 203 within a 5 mile radius, live in the surroundings of the PUC campus. With our own campus crimes combined with national stories of college students' rape and murder, it's about time the law included university campuses in its list of no-go areas for those convicted of such heinous crimes.
While we may not be juveniles, there should be just as much safe distance between PUC students and these offenders. If such housing measures supposedly work when a juvenile-filled school is involved, the same measures should apply to other places of vulnerability.
However, society, or rather, a courtroom judge, feels the convicts have paid their debt to society. Or have they? Can PUC students ever really feel safe?
Our position: "Safe Zones" should apply to the PUC campus
When a person is convicted of rape, child molestation, or other such crimes, he or she must register with a national database. The convict's ability to live wherever desired becomes severely restricted due to laws which keep a safe distance between offenders and local schools, or just about anywhere juveniles may congregate. Seemingly, housing an offender at least several blocks from children will keep them from being a repeat offender. Or such is the logic of the law.
Yet, not all registered offenders targeted children. Many targeted adults, yet there are no restrictions or "space zones" between those offenders and their community. They are allowed to co-exist with others, but using the logic of the child molestation laws, the persons surrounding them are potential victims.
The restrictions in place after an offender is released from prison are reasonable and sound. It is hard to imagine support for a child rapist to live next door to a public elementary school, but we must question whether living several blocks away will make much difference.
If there is a fear of relapse, perhaps the offender should not be allowed on the streets at all. Nonetheless, we cannot guarantee there will be no re-offenders. There is no perfect solution upon their prison release to keep the community safe, just attempts at making the fellow inhabitants feel at ease.
With that, we must wonder why so many offenders, at least 203 within a 5 mile radius, live in the surroundings of the PUC campus. With our own campus crimes combined with national stories of college students' rape and murder, it's about time the law included university campuses in its list of no-go areas for those convicted of such heinous crimes.
While we may not be juveniles, there should be just as much safe distance between PUC students and these offenders. If such housing measures supposedly work when a juvenile-filled school is involved, the same measures should apply to other places of vulnerability.
However, society, or rather, a courtroom judge, feels the convicts have paid their debt to society. Or have they? Can PUC students ever really feel safe?
Be the first to comment on this story