As of Oct. 28 colleges and universities must include information about sex offenders in their campus safety reports. By combining the Campus Security Act and Megan's Law, the government is trying to bring awareness of sex offenders to college campuses. At UB, the University Police will use standard methods to release warnings and the university will give out information on how to view the state's list of offenders, which is formatted by zip code.
Some schools, like SUNY Albany, are trying to consolidate their policies, claiming that by only releasing names, students with the same name as offenders will be severely hurt without reason. Other schools will release additional information, such as pictures, addresses, physical descriptions and even the offender's crimes.
This is an understandable response, but it's also problematic. To minimize the potential harm that could result from the release of this information, this list must be presented solely on a need-to-know basis, so men or women convicted as sex offenders, but have rehabilitated, do not become outcasts, and that anyone who has a similar name to an offender is not stigmatized. Our judicial system is built on the basis that criminals and law-breakers atone for their crimes by spending time in jail; further punishment in the form of discrimination and stigmatization, while perhaps emotionally satisfying, is cruel and unfair. Offenders who have served their time and been released should be ready to reenter the community; if they are not, it becomes a problem that must be taken up with our penal system.
If a threat to safety is so pressing that members of the community must be warned, then authority must be given to people with power: on campuses, those would be resident advisors, deans and faculty supervisors. Doing so would allow people in low-pressure environments to deal with the offender in an impartial manner; there would be no risk of a professor unconsciously discriminating against a student convicted of a sexual crime, and no risk of fellow students unintentionally sabotaging their classmate.
The new policy is really aimed toward level two and three offenders, meaning they have a moderate or high risk of repeating their crimes. While it is doubtless necessary to let know those who will be in immediate contact with the offender, the more pressing question is this: Why are offenders who have not been rehabilitated during their prison sentence released into society where they present a known danger to those around them? If prisons are not serving their purpose - punishment and rehabilitation - then perhaps we need to reevaluate the effectiveness of these institutions.
The university should take steps to inform community members, such as department chairs and faculty supervisors, of sexual offenders working within their departments and RAs of those living within their buildings. These people will be in a position to monitor the offender's behavior, without exposing the offender to unnecessary and unfair discrimination from the rest of those with whom he or she must interact.
The information should not be available to all students on an unregulated basis; however, if a student is truly concerned that a fellow member of the campus community is at risk of harming another person, that student should be allowed to inform him- or herself. Students who bring forth valid suspicions and a specific name should be able to find out whether the person in question is on the list of offenders.
It's not the university's responsibility to educate or facilitate the rehabilitation of sex crime offenders, but it should strive to provide an environment that will not discriminate. Limiting the list of sex offenders to key officials in a position to protect the university community would ensure campus safety while preventing the unfair treatment of any of its members.
