EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo
Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone
Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega
Staff Representatives
 Amanda Fletcher
 Kelly Rayburn
 Marcelle Richards
Vytas Mazeika
Corey McEleney
Linh Tat
Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898
In our society, we punish people who commit crimes. They serve
their time, work toward rehabilitation, and then we allow them back
into society as free men and women.
Last Monday, Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill requiring all
convicted sex offenders who enroll in, or become employed by, any
California college to register with campus police to ensure that
all ex-convicts in the college community are registered.
The law exposes the inadequacy of our prison system’s
rehabilitative efforts by admitting that our prisons do an
inadequate job of correcting criminal behavior.
Further, it undermines our principles of justice by putting
ex-convicts in a societal kind of double jeopardy by publicizing
their past, and paid for, crimes. If we have punished them once for
a crime, they should not have to suffer lifelong ostracism.
Sex offenders shouldn’t be singled out for community
registration when other criminals are not. We don’t make
convicted drunk drivers register in their communities though they
may also threaten the safety of others.
By this bill’s logic, we should have everyone who’s
ever committed a crime registered and tracked because they pose a
threat, though this would only serve to curtail the freedoms of all
Americans.
Likewise, the preventative effects of registration will hardly
stop someone who is going to rape another person from acting simply
because their name is on a list. It will only open the door to
discrimination and hate. And in some cases, that kind of response
is ludicrous because a “sex offense” includes such
infractions as urinating in public, something countless students
have done after a long night of drinking.
What’s particularly disturbing is that this law targets
offenders who are trying to get their life back by going to college
or pursuing professional and graduate careers.
If we intend to allow people back into society when they are
brought to justice, we must create a system that rehabilitates
prisoners instead of sending them back into society in the same
condition.
Proponents of this law argue people will have the choice not to
associate with prior sex offenders who are on these lists.
Unfortunately, the only people paying attention are those who would
seek to drive these ex-offenders from the community.
Sadly, acquaintance rape, which this law ineffectually targets,
is as much a risk for people as sexually transmitted diseases or
abuse. It is a fact of life and our efforts should target the
causes of this problem.
We must allow former criminals to participate in our daily lives
after they have served their sentences: they need jobs, food and
housing just like anyone else. They may have families to support
and a new direction in life to aim toward.
Though this law has already been approved by the governor,
people need to be cautious about using this sensitive information.
Particularly, police officers should show restraint in harassing
every known sex offender in the area when such a crime occurs.
They have, after all, “paid” for their crimes.