Should former sex offenders be allowed on college campuses? Blanket policy doesn't work: Stephen JohnsonGrove, Ohio Justice and Policy Center
Having a sensible safety conversation about living, working, and learning alongside people with sex-related convictions is fairly rare in Ohio, as it is in the rest of the U.S. Politically expedient fear-mongering and knee-jerk policy-making tend to be the norm, sometimes even creating a social environment where sexual offending is more likely, not less. The Ohio Justice & Policy Center has long been a voice in this state for laws and policies that are firmly rooted in evidence and a long-range commitment to safety.
A recent editorial in the Tri-C student newspaper (“Sex Offenders Mingling with Minors,” March 10) raised the possibility of a sensible conversation in the community college context — though not without a little fear-mongering. The scenario painted in that editorial started with a “39-year-old registered sex-offender on parole for two separate cases of gross sexual imposition with both victims being under the age of 13.” This may be a good place to start, and perhaps an easier case that we could all agree upon — this person ought not be put in an environment where he could so readily form potentially manipulative relationships with minors again.
There are harder cases, however. What about OJPC’s client who, when a 19-year-old Marine home on leave, attended a party at Ohio State? While there, he met a young woman who said she was 18 and who certainly looked 18. After an evening of consensual sex, he was later confronted by her parents — by way of the local prosecutor — for statutory rape of a 16-year-old. Now in his 40s with children of his own, this man is on the public registry for life and has endured vigilante threats from neighbors who know nothing of the nature of his one and only sex offense, other than what the state-mandated postcard says: “Gross Sexual Imposition, Minor Victim.”
Though the Tri-C editorial does not demand one specific policy, these examples make clear that blanket rules will not serve us well — neither in community colleges nor in any other setting. Checking for criminal records and sex offenses for college students can be completely appropriate, so long as the answers to those questions do not trigger automatic exclusions based solely on the fact of conviction. Instead, criminal records should trigger a clear-eyed conversation about context.
People with sex offenses are — despite any instinctive revulsion we may have to the label “sex offender” — still people. For some people with certain criminal records with a certain recency, perhaps online learning away from campus is the best alternative. For others with solid records of rehabilitation, we can and should welcome them into all aspects of our community — colleges included.
Though “tough on crime” thinking still often dominates the public discourse, there are several bright spots in Ohio where citizens and law enforcement have worked together to craft effective public-safety policies that are evidence based and fair. Let’s hope that Tri-C takes this opportunity to have that kind of conversation about campus safety.
Having a sensible safety conversation about living, working, and learning alongside people with sex-related convictions is fairly rare in Ohio, as it is in the rest of the U.S. Politically expedient fear-mongering and knee-jerk policy-making tend to be the norm, sometimes even creating a social environment where sexual offending is more likely, not less. The Ohio Justice & Policy Center has long been a voice in this state for laws and policies that are firmly rooted in evidence and a long-range commitment to safety.
A recent editorial in the Tri-C student newspaper (“Sex Offenders Mingling with Minors,” March 10) raised the possibility of a sensible conversation in the community college context — though not without a little fear-mongering. The scenario painted in that editorial started with a “39-year-old registered sex-offender on parole for two separate cases of gross sexual imposition with both victims being under the age of 13.” This may be a good place to start, and perhaps an easier case that we could all agree upon — this person ought not be put in an environment where he could so readily form potentially manipulative relationships with minors again.
There are harder cases, however. What about OJPC’s client who, when a 19-year-old Marine home on leave, attended a party at Ohio State? While there, he met a young woman who said she was 18 and who certainly looked 18. After an evening of consensual sex, he was later confronted by her parents — by way of the local prosecutor — for statutory rape of a 16-year-old. Now in his 40s with children of his own, this man is on the public registry for life and has endured vigilante threats from neighbors who know nothing of the nature of his one and only sex offense, other than what the state-mandated postcard says: “Gross Sexual Imposition, Minor Victim.”
Though the Tri-C editorial does not demand one specific policy, these examples make clear that blanket rules will not serve us well — neither in community colleges nor in any other setting. Checking for criminal records and sex offenses for college students can be completely appropriate, so long as the answers to those questions do not trigger automatic exclusions based solely on the fact of conviction. Instead, criminal records should trigger a clear-eyed conversation about context.
People with sex offenses are — despite any instinctive revulsion we may have to the label “sex offender” — still people. For some people with certain criminal records with a certain recency, perhaps online learning away from campus is the best alternative. For others with solid records of rehabilitation, we can and should welcome them into all aspects of our community — colleges included.
Though “tough on crime” thinking still often dominates the public discourse, there are several bright spots in Ohio where citizens and law enforcement have worked together to craft effective public-safety policies that are evidence based and fair. Let’s hope that Tri-C takes this opportunity to have that kind of conversation about campus safety.
Real Estate
-
FOR SALE
Akron, OH
Sharon Morris
-
FOR RENT
Cleveland Heights, OH
Related Stories
First of all, college kids are part of the most sexually deviant group of people. Many of them have done far worse than a 19 year old having “consensual” sex with a 16 year old. Who will protect our college age children from “former” drug dealers? Alcoholics? Domestic abusers? Arsonists? Burglars? These crimes already happen on college campuses. Why are we wasting time stalking and persecuting a label? It’s not like they are gay, black, Jews, women or witches.
” What about OJPC’s client who, when a 19-year-old Marine home on leave, attended a party at Ohio State? While there, he met a young woman who said she was 18 and who certainly looked 18. After an evening of consensual sex, he was later confronted by her parents — by way of the local prosecutor — for statutory rape of a 16-year-old. “
These strict liability laws are totally insane, and are basically just a green light for prosecutors to go after as many people as possible. You should not be able to be convicted of a crime unless intent is proven.
first question which might have slipped everybody’s attention….He’s 19 attending an Ohio state party.
How did the 16 year old get in to the place ? Where were her concerned parents? Apparently she “knew her way around the block” But the guy gets hit with it, wears the Scarlet Letter for life, and Missy Wangbanger chalks it up as an “experience” She is now an OFFICIAL VICTIM” Of course she will need treatment, counseling , perhaps some federal or sate funds to “make her whole” again. Our politicians and law makers are woooozies and hypocrites. It starts hitting against men right about 18 and it goes downhill quickly. Marriage, divorce, child support, more child support…the vampire drain on our ability to earn…all because of a biological mistake. Les Miserables indeed.
How about making sex offenders ineligible for federal student aid, like those convicted of drug offenses?
In the second example given of the 19 year old, how is that a crime?? Age of consent in Ohio is 16…
@cavs25 The age of a sex-crime victim is only one factor to consider when evaluating the nature of charges to be sought, when the victim is legally a minor. For the victim to be 16 years old, does NOT negate the possibility of all charges. In this case, the 16-year-old is still a minor child, legally, and her parents have a say in whether to prosecute the offender, regardless of what their minor child wanted. The parents probably wanted the offender to be charged with rape; but, the prosecutor said, that, in view of the daughter’s acknowledgement that she participated voluntarily, the charge that could be legally sustained would be “statutory rape”, and, that case was eventually plea-bargained down to “gross sexual imposition” for a guilty plea. Remember this, if anyone ever says to you, “Hey man – as long as she agrees, and is 16, you can’t be criminally charged.”
@cavs25 Even tough the age of consent is 16 if a person is still a minor until 18. I believe sex can still be consensual if the other party is within 2 years of the minors age, but if they are 3 which it would be in this case at 19 the statute would kick in therefore making it “illegal”
O/T Has Sunday been designated the “guest and/or opinion” paper? Ted I need an answer, where are you?
” ‘Former’ sex offender”? It’s interesting, how some will place that “former” label in front of “offender”, to sort of, reduce the severity of the description in their minds. Well, that’s not correct, grammatically, as well as, legally. Someone who has a conviction for a crime, and has committed a criminal offense, is an “offender”, not, a “former offender”. Someone who has committed a crime involving sexual conduct, is a “sexual offender”, not, a “former sex offender”. (He wouldn’t become a former sex offender, or, a former criminal offender, unless and until he would get his criminal conviction expunged.)
@Primus when I was a kid I stole a pack of gum. Should I be referred to as a “Thief” for the rest of my life?
Okay, I was not criminally convicted. But if a person convicted of a sexual offense is to be known for all eternity as a ‘sex offender’ why does the same not go for any other criminal? 65 million Americans have a criminal record. 1 in 4 American adults. Why are they not remembered for the worst thing they have ever done in their lives?
The United States has become a scary place. People here are always on some witch hunt. I would rather live with sex offenders, then all these self-righteous, sanctimonious saints.
Frank,
No offense but you have no idea what victims of rape or their family members or friends have gone through obviously? I think unless you’ve experienced this type of abuse, you shouldn’t judge. I will not minimize what another has been through.
@fightin4life how does keeping someone from getting an education – perhaps in an effort to support his family – help victims of rape? Or of any other crime, for that matter?
Having your children sit in class next to convicted murderers or drug dealers seems to be of no concern.
Because I have not experience this type of abuse I will not be silenced. I have not experienced many things but still have a right to make my voice heard. Your attempt of shaming others into not expressing their opinion is pathetic.
Frank, you are living with them. Check the Cuyahoga website, they are everywhere. And while you might want to live with them, let’s see what you say after they rape your wife, children , sister, or mother.
Photo of the Day
Metro Columnists
Trending Videos
News updates in your inbox
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I believe that first comment to the article itself answers the question beautifully. Yes, SOME college students can be sexually deviant, and MOST are at the least very sexually active. It’s called life, biology, and it happens to all of us. I would refer everyone to a great article posted on FAC last week called “The Overpolicing of American Sex.” It really has gotten absurd. To me, almost every state says an adult is someone who is 18 or older. So what does it matter if a former sex offender is on campus??? Do we need to create yet another law saying that sex offenders can’t be around people under 21??? I’m sure that will come next. Another great point of that first comment in the article. You have a plentiful amount of drug dealers, drug users, alcoholics, thieves, homeless people, that wander around college campuses from what I’ve seen. No one is worried about them being around the “young'” people?? I mean, I don’t understand the obsession with sex offenders. Why aren’t we focused on the drug users? People under the influence of drugs/alcohol is highly more unpredictable in their behavior than any sex offender walking the street. A man ate a person’s face off in Miami several years ago under the influence of drugs for crying out loud!! Where were Florida’s legislators then? Where was the outcry about that and all other drug users? Good article that was sensible at the very least and a great comment posted.