By
Celeste Gracey,
Jen Ludington,
Louise Foster,
Vicky Yan
October 10, 2007
After discovering a high concentration of sex offenders in the U-District, the UW is pushing state authorities to force 13 of the offenders to move, according to a Seattle Times article.
The offenders, living north of 45th street, haven’t reoffended and no disturbances have been reported. So why is the state forcing these people to move?
Until events last year led the re-examination of campus security, officials hadn’t realized how much the concentration of sex offenders had grown over the past seven years.
Most of the offenders are staying at one of five of Carol Clarke’s houses. Clarke works closely with each felon, enforcing rules against parties, drugs and drunkenness. She also requires all of the felons to have jobs.
The Department of Corrections staff members refer felons just released from prison to Clarke, like a halfway house. Twenty-one of her 55 residents are registered sex offenders.
Offenders are forced to follow stringent rules that decide how close they can live to elementary schools, which makes the U-District one of a few good places offenders are allowed to live.
Although we recognize the concern parents have with their 18-year-olds being surrounded by a concentration of convicted felons, where else are the offenders going to go?
The U-District isn’t a bad place for them.
Although most freshmen are living on their own for the first time and therefore less aware of how to avoid bad situations with potential offenders, they need to learn how to be responsible for their own safety.
The benefit of community living, including the Greek community, is the ability of the older residents to teach the younger ones how to stay safe and avoid trouble.
The UW is right in presuming that having a high concentration of offenders isn’t a good idea, and it probably won’t help them recover faster.
However, forcing them out of the homes and into new lives after they’ve already begun to rejoin society will only make it more difficult for those offenders seeking to start over.
Let the offenders stay where they are, but don’t allow any more to join their numbers.
As a part of the UW Police Department’s security increases, officers should make students aware of where the sex offenders are staying and what to do when approached by suspicious people.
5 Comments
#1 Al
on October 10, 2007 at 6:50 a.m.(New York, NY | Unverified Name)
"Although most freshmen are living on their own for the first time and therefore less aware of how to avoid bad situations with potential offenders, they need to learn how to be responsible for their own safety."
Is that along the lines of teaching a child to swim by taking them out in a boat and throwing them in the water? If one of these freshmen is attacked by an offender, does that mean that the student was irresponsible for their safety?
I agree that these people must be able to live somewhere, but I think that proffering the idea that the offenders can serve as a learning opportunity for freshmen is a fatuous one.
#2 Robert Foedisch
on October 10, 2007 at 9:42 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I think the University administration is acting remarkably dictorial in this matter. It reminds me of when the US Government sent thousands of American citizens of Japanese heritage were rounded up and sent to "relocation camps" on the basis of "National Security". My question is whose next?
#3 Kat
on October 10, 2007 at 3:23 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I completely agree with the removal of the sex offenders off the UW campus. How can we be sure that these people won't EVER commit the crime again?
Also, I disagree with your statement, "Although most freshmen are living on their own for the first time and therefore less aware of how to avoid bad situations with potential offenders, they need to learn how to be responsible for their own safety." So, did you mean that all the rape victims must be very irresponsible to be raped? The whole article is just bogus.
#4 Amanda
on October 10, 2007 at 7:07 p.m.(Chattanooga, TN | Unverified Name)
Robert: Comparing the internment of Japanese-Americans to the removal of sex offenders is ridiculous. The government had no reason to arrest and detain Japanese-Americans. The sex offenders in question are actual criminals - arrested, tried, and convicted. And the extremely high recidivism rate amongst sex offenders (as opposed to the racism that was the basis for Japanese internment) is usually the primary consideration.
If you disagree with what's going on, fine, but don't compare apples and oranges.
---------------
I'd also like to second Kat's comment that the "they need to learn how to be responsible for their own safety" bit is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to victim-blaming, especially against survivors of sexual assault.
#5 Michael
on October 12, 2007 at 5:27 p.m.(Maple Valley, WA | Unverified Name)
Let's not forget that the U-Dub wants the land that these houses are on. What a better way to vacate to premises than to make trumped up allegations and scare people into booting the offenders out. Non of them have re-offended and who knows what level of offense each of them have. Remember that being 18 and having sex with your 16yo girlfriend is considered rape in this state.
Post a comment