This letter is in regard to the editorial that appeared in the Nov. 14 Daily, “Rape protection not unconstitutional.” The editorial was fraught with biased representations. It doesn’t provide an accurate portrayal of the current situation. The title suggests that Megan’s Laws and laws like it only apply to rapists and the editorial lists a minimum of requirements under such laws.

Regardless of whether or not Megan’s Laws are meant to be punishment, they still are. Going beyond that, they are cruel and unusual punishment. The Daily paints a pretty picture for registration, but the process is quite ugly. In some instances, offenders have been required to place a sign in their yards that reads, “Danger, Registered Sex Offender Lives Here.”

Personally, I see convicted murderers as more of a threat, but we don’t make them go door to door telling their new neighbors of their criminal status.

For a newspaper that doesn’t support war with Iraq, it is amazing that you take this stance with respect to sex offenders. You say that extending citizens’ safety is paramount to securing their rights. Under this logic, why not attack Iraq? They are a previous criminal offender. Obviously, justifying Megan’s Laws under this basis would set a dangerous precedent. Had this law been made for a group besides sex offenders it would have floundered right after its inception. However, in the public eye, sex offenders should be feared.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want to have a sex offender move in next door to my family. However, that person has rights, too. He paid his debt to society. If the real concern here is safety, accomplish it in a different way. Rehabilitate these individuals. Get them help. Don’t stand in the way of them getting on with the rest of their lives.

Jared Strong

Junior

Computer Science