Don’t favor criminals’ rights on sex crimes

I am writing to express my disagreement with your position on the subject of providing access to lists of sex offenders living or working on your university campus (‘Wrong approach to sex crimes,’ Dec. 5, pg. 6).

In your editorial, you assert that providing such lists prevents sex offenders from moving on with their lives, and that ‘there is something to be said for forgiveness.’ Furthermore, you say that if sex offenders are really that dangerous, then they will be kept behind bars. These arguments both ignore the reality of sex crimes and their punishment in this country. With overburdened judicial and prison systems, it is typical for sex offenders to receive light sentences and even shorter actual jail times. This means they are out on the streets again, often without having been through any sort of rehabilitative programs.

I am a Christian and a full believer in the power of forgiveness, but there is a difference between forgiveness and foolishly ignoring the danger next door. Although I am sure there are people who make ‘youthful mistakes’ and move on with their lives, the majority of sex offenders are repeat sex offenders. Statistically, many of these predators continue to commit these heinous crimes until they ultimately kidnap and/or kill their victim(s). Look at the headline-making sex criminals in the past 10 years; most, if not all, had a prior history of sex offenses. Personally, if there is someone living next door to me who is likely, based on prior history, to commit a sex crime, I want to know about it.

I would also like to address your position that providing lists of sex offenders makes these types of crimes ‘worse than murder.’ To say that is to compare apples to oranges, at least in terms of punishment and repeat offenses. A murderer is more likely to stay behind bars for an extended period of time, and when he or she is released, there will almost always be a parole period. I am not as familiar with the statistics on repeat murder offenses as I am with repeat sex crime offenses, but I would think that if you commit murder, serve jail time, then commit murder and go to jail again, you won’t be released the second time. The same cannot be said of many sex crime offenders, and when they are released, they are statistically very likely to commit the same or a similar crime. For this reason lists of sex offenders make more sense than lists of murderers, although I can’t say I’d be opposed to the latter.

Finally, I just want to say that I think this editorial is yet another example of a widespread attitude in this country that favors criminals’ rights over victims’ rights. When you commit a crime, you give up certain rights, and that includes, in my opinion, the right to a certain level of privacy. Especially in a situation involving sex crime offenders, where the probability of a repeat offense is great, informing the neighbors, co-workers or even students of such criminals is vital to public safety.